Chess = Intelligence Or Dedication?

It is said by many ( and that many, being both chess players and non-chess players alike! ), that to be good at chess, one has to be intelligent. 

Chess certainly intrigues and teases the mind and undoubtebly it stimulates the little grey cells; it also helps to bridge the hemisperes too, not to dissimular to working with numbers. Working with numbers most definitely creates new pathways between the hempispheres. 

It's good to be good at chess right? Although I am pretty pants at chess right now in my life ( I am determined to regain my former glory ;-), there was a time that I was rather proficient. When I say " profient, " what I really mean is; I knew how to castle both sides without putting my king on the wrong square. Anyhow, my point being; I felt good beating my friend's dads at chess and being able to beat the average blindman ( I used to kick his stick away, he was stumped then... ahem! ). 

Now, I consider myself an intelligent man. I am relearning, reteaching myself chess. But, like I have said; my current games are total pants! Does that automatically mean that I have dropped some I.Q. points just because I have lost my way at playing chess? Of course it doesn't! 

Chess is absolutely no different to any other activity in life; if you want to be good at it, then you just have to be dedicated to the ' job in hand. ' 

My ex wife was Turkish; I taught myself Turkish because I wanted to learn another language and it just seemed like a perfect moment to do that. Learning another language does not make me more intelligent that the next man; it has simply showed my dedication to learning Turkish. And also; my studies of the Turkish syntax structures are an excellent example here; I have forgot about 90% of what I learnt. I haven't spoken a word of Turkish in over 7 years. 

How many of us can remember the langauge we learnt at school? Or the indepth maths that we learnt at school? I can hazard a guess; a small percentage of us... 

If we don't keep up our studies of any given subject, we will lose it. 

Last year I went to speak to my son's maths teacher. It was an ' open day '  at school. My son is doing fine in maths; he is hitting his target, but the maths teacher said that he is holding himself back. She also said; " everyone considers a person good with numbers to be intelligent! "                    

She is right; we do! After all; numbers turn the world right? Yeah man; of course they do. Numbers are the epitome of logic; of the basic patterns of life. Chess on the other hand, doesn't turn the world; it doesn't help us with life's patterns. It does however, help us with our memory. We get better at chess with the more patterns that we commit to memory. I myself, am particularly good with recognising patterns in life's abstract geometry, but I am failing miserably at translating that particular skill, over the chess board. 

Simple answer is; I am NOT, no where near, putting in enough time to the studies of chess. I know I should be. 

Complicated answer is; noone has ' nailed ' the perfect pattern of a chess algorithm; or at least, that's what they say. I wonder if Fischer thought that, or even Kasparov for that matter? Probably not. Chess more than any other sport, has an innumerable amount of books written about it. It refuses to be tamed! It will not allow anyone ( Fischer, Kasparov and even Morphy aside ) to attach a leash to it's neck and be pulled along aimlessly. If anything; chess grabs YOU, not the other way around and wrestles you to the floor until you slap the ground in submission. 

Intelligence or dedication?.. Most freakin' definitely, dedication! 

Long post, wrong forum. short answer:

Chess = experience

.

Dedication is much more important than intelligence.

Dedication is much more needed I guess.

There is a lot said about the, " killer instinct. " But is that really what it takes? After all, we all have the " killer instinct " don't we? 

Just playing any chess computer on a high setting will help us deduce that  feelings/emotions or " killer instinct " isn't the reason or rather, aren't the reasons why we win at chess. There are other elements at play and a huge underlying context; and it's this underlying context that I wish to seek out. 

I recently bought 5 books on chess; all top sellers and all with a different author. I started to analyse the games; not from a chess player's point of view, but rather, a logician's point of view. One thing stood out; a particular correlation of data from each book of the 5 that I bought; they all show case perfect games! Perfect check mates; perfect game play; flawless... 

Do it this way and a game conveniently demonstrates how it is done; do it that way and a game conveniently demonstrates how it is done. Hmm... Interesting. How would their way fair against a ' beast ' of a chess computer?  

So how do computers play each other? After all, there has to be a winner and a loser right? Chess computers just keep getting stronger and stronger and they are constantly beating world class players and even number 1 ranked players; yet they show no emotion or liking for sport or even demonstrate a killer instinct. They work off of a preprogrammed algorithm; a template if you will; and play all of their moves according to any given template at that particular point of searching their memory banks for a like-wise postion. 

Some time ago I had an idea; and that was to research every move before I played it. Obviously, there are certain parameters that I would be reduced to following at many points within the game, but still, I would like to see what the outcome would be. Marking down my choice of move then going to research which out of a possible three ( or what ever possible moves there may be at the time ) would be the best choice given the circumstances; which would mean that I would have to ultimately resign before the end, because it would be morally wrong to win under such ambiguous circumstances. However; it would serve me with juicy workable data. 

One thing is for certain; practice is the key to being the best at any game. And if we aren't the best at that game, at least we can improve our own game play.

Thank you for posting Kenpo; your post was respectful and mature. It also was an enjoyable read; an intelligent and insightful retort.   

+1

OP, move this to 'general chess discussion' (edit --> forum : general chess discussion). And make your posts shorter in the future, if you want many people to read them.

chess=intelligent dedication

@ kenpo:

Here's what Asimov says about chess in his autobiography, "A memoir"

"

Failure at physical sports has never bothered me...What bothered me, though, was my failure at chess. When I was quite young and had a checkerboard, but no chess pieces, I read books on the game and learned the various moves. I then cut out cardboard squares on which I drew the symbols for the various pieces, and tried to play games with myself. Eventually I managed to persuade my father to get me real chessmen. Then I taught my sister the moves and played the game with her. Both of us played very clumsily indeed.

My brother, Stanley, who watched us play, learned the moves and, eventually, asked if he might play. Ever the indulgent older brother, I said, "Sure," and prepared to beat the pants off him. The trouble was that in the first game he ever played he beat me.

In the years that followed, I discovered that everyone beat me, regardless of race, color, or religion. I was simply the most appallingly bad chess player who ever lived, and, as time went on, I just stopped playing chess.

My failure at chess was really distressing. It seemed completely at odds with my "smartness," but I now know (or at least have been told) that great chess players achieve thier results by years and years of studying chess games, by the memorization of large numbers of complex "combinations." They don't see chess as a succession of moves but as a pattern. I know what that means, for I see an essay or a story as a pattern.

But these talents are different. Kasparov sees a chess game as a pattern but an essay as a mere collection of words. I see an essay as a pattern and a chess game as a mere collection of moves. So he can play chess and I can write essays and not vice versa.

That's not enough, however. I never thought of comparing myself to grand masters of chess. What bothered me was my inability to beat anyone! The conclusion that I finally came to (right or wrong) was that I was unwilling to study the chessboard and weigh the consequences of each possible move I might make. Even people who couldn't see complex patterns might at least penetrate two or three moves ahead, but not I. I moved entirely on impulse, if not at random, and could not make myself do anything else. That meant I would almost certainly lose.

And again - why? To me, it seems obvious. I was spoiled by my ability to understand instantly, my ability to recall instantly. I expected to see things at once and I refused to accept a situation in which that was not possible. 

"

Very long posts=I'm moving on.

Especially in a thread like this.

chess = dedicated imagination

chess= intelligence + patience + imagination + a little insanity so as to make spectacular sacs and moves that at first sight seem wrong.

-kenpo-, for me it's very strange, something like "The curious case of Issac Asimov".

I've read some of his work, he was a brilliant mind but I don't understand why he couldn't make it to a decent level with all his strugles

http://zenpencils.com/comic/40-calvin-coolidge-never-give-up/

A very interesting question a lot of people ponder. Hope this fine cartoon adds to the discussion. Check the others out too, they are wonderful and inspiring.

The killer instinct is just that, right? I really don't believe for a second that when people say that you must have a killer instinct to win at chess, literally means; someone that could go out and stab someone or smack someone in the face just for looking at them. I personally have known quite a few people over the years; friends aswell as family, that are or have been aggressive and yet over the chess board their skills are far less than superior. 

Maybe if we omit the term; " killer instinct " and replace it with the word, competitiveness. 

Or maybe certain chess players like to be labled with that term; after all, it does sound much better than merely saying; " yeah Joe Bloggs is excellent at chess because he is competitve. " It really does fade in comparison with; " yeah Joe Bloggs is excellent at chess because he possesses that killer instinct! " 

I wonder how many GM's in the top twenty best players are mild mannered? 

Speaking of the " killer instinct; " one of my ex girlfriends many years ago had a temper like a tasmanian devil and a real scornful tongue, yet her chess play wasn't particularly good. 

If we were to work hard at searching for that underlying context, maybe it's to do with how we ourselves learn; how we assimilate data chunks; knowledge; observations. 

If 5 people all played on the same sudoku template; they would surely be differences as to how each person started; with what number and where on the grid. It's how we see things and how we interpret the incoming data.

Maybe based on that hypothesis; it would actually hinder someone's learning if they picked up the wrong chess book to learn from. As an extreme example; it would be like a parent trying to teach their toddler how to eat with a knife and fork, as a ' right hander, ' when in actual fact their toddler could be a ' left hander. ' Have you ever tried to write material with your opposite hand? 

There is an old saying; " you can't see the wood for the trees. " What this pertains to, is someone that can't see the bigger picture, because they are looking at the detail too vigorously. This for me certainly answers the question of why a person can learn something faster than the next person. Chess play is not too dissimilar to any other multifaceted game play; you either pick the basics up quickly because you can see the bigger picture, or you learn it in chunks because you need to learn the detail first. 

Asimov was obviously an analytical thinker and yet that didn't serve him when he played chess, or that his chess play wasn't in anyway a manifestation of his mental capabilities; none-the-less I have since Googled him and he presents an interesting conundrum as to his personal findings over the chess board. 

Its about recognizing patterns, but many IQ tests are just elaborate patterns and sequences.Practice (dedication) helps.

You'd better decide what you mean by 'intelligence'  first.

You wax and wane prolific.  You dance the lights fandango.  It is easy to go on the fanciful trip with you. 

However, the first question to be answered in order to have the correct perspective is:  What is Chess?  It is Siege Warfare in the form of a board game.  One must see the board as a conflict involving the application of 3 siege warfare strategies (restrain, blockade, and execute the enemy).  It takes some months, sometimes even years, to accustom the mind to think in this counterintuitive way.  The second question is:  What is Classical and Hypermodern Chess Opening Theory, and how are they applied on the chessboard.  The third question is: If pawn structure is the terrain (hills, mountains and valleys) of the battlefield on the chess board, then how do I go about learning how to handle the 6 characteristic pawn structures that result from almost every opening.     Since the advent of computers becoming a strong chessplayer FIDE 2200+ has become formulaic and has a time parameter of 3 years.  Mostly it involves what in my day (before computers) a trudging thru concrete, mind numbing, 8-10year project of building an opening tree by hand.  Computers have automated the building of the opening tree and concomittantly shortened the time parameter for becoming a strong player to a time period of 3 years.

There are of course some preliminary tasks.  They consist of the following:  (Build into your mind certain memory banks)

1. Basic Checkmate (K+Q v K, K+R v K, K+2Bs v K, K+B+N v K)visualization pattern memory bank

2. Tactics visualization pattern memory bank

3. Endgame Technique visualization pattern memory bank

4. Openings repertoire visualization pattern memory bank

5. Middle Game visualization pattern memory bank

That is pretty much it in a nutshell.  What happens after having completed all of these tasks is that during your own games the correct move will jump up off the board and smack you on the forehead in a flash.

If you would like to know more, please let me know.

nonsense ^^^^^

I must learn of this "visualization pattern memory bank"!!

hmm.. Afraid so @Transpo. You wrote a verbose-post & obviously believe in it yet is nonsense mostly.

Some of those who play chess (including top GM's) do so with the sole-intent of checkmating their opponent!

All other concerns are ancillary to that. Allowing reasonable & equal-defence until the primary-objective can be realised.