Donny boy, you never dissappoint,
Legend...!!!
Chess = Intelligence Or Dedication?
Sort:
thanks George! you inspire me.
Some calculating power, a ton of dedication to study, phenomenal memory, and the overwhelming desire to crush you opponents' spirit, a la Fischer And Kasparov. Thread over.
Sep 4, 2012
0
#65
Intelligence is an asset in chess, but it is an asset in many pursuits. The problem with equating IQ with chess success is that IQ is, itself, an approximation of a combination of variables, while chess success (as defined by one's chess rating), is an approximation of a different combination of variables.
I believe, in order, the skills necessary to become an excellent chess player:
(1): Pattern Recognition
(2): Excellent Memory* [can be highly specialized, though. Sufficiently high pattern recognition, which is a form of memory, can actually make this irrelevant].
(3): Dedication
Someone earlier suggested that an over the board player with special needs was around 1600. If the person is autistic, that would not surprise me at all. One of my extended family members is autistic, and while they need 24 hour care, they could tell you the day of the week of any date in any year, forward or backwards, in seconds. This might sound like an incredible feat - and in fact, I, despite on an IQ scale being a "genius" (though I cringe to use the term), could not do it as quickly or easily. I understand how it is being done (in any given year, the number of days in the week is finite - there is a pattern there. If you understand the pattern, you understand how to give the answer.
Now here's the rub of what I just said: Even though I don't have the strange understanding of my extended family member, my abilities would give me the ability to learn how to do it - even if I can't do it as quickly. This is why it is true that sufficiently intelligent people can substitute their reasoning skills to some extent for pattern recognition.
Even where this is true, though, there are limits on how far it can take you. This is especially true when one considers the importance of dedication. Chess requires a lot of time to learn to play at a high level. It is a fascinating game because it is all patterns, but the thing about pattern recognition is you need to first know the pattern to know to look for it. This requires time and effort. Even exceptionally talented individuals still must learn this first. There is no reason to suggest that every (or even most) people who could learn said patterns will invest the time and effort to doing so.
Since Chess is like life in that, dedication and effort can make up for deficiencies in other areas and it is true that once you hit a certain level, the relative gap is smaller (e.g.: the difference between a person who has an IQ of 145 and 135 is smaller than the difference between 110 and 100 - the same is true in pattern recognition / the skills noted), the players who have some natural aptitudes towards the first two variables and are willing to invest the effort are most likely to improve and be stronger players.
As such, while it is interesting to think about the potential correlation between IQ and Chess ability, it is a mistaken assumption to assume they are strongly corrolated; and they are not causative either. This is no less true than the proposition that the smartest people are not always the most successful ones, even if being smarter would presumably grant you an advantage in life. There are simply other things that matter more.
Well, that was the proverbial Wall of Text.
Brain freeze.
Not proverbial. Took up my whole screen.
I think that's what they have you scale in boot camp.
So I guess this is what you do for fun when you're 112.
That post screwed up the whole page.
Thanks erikido! I'm claiming that if that's ok with you? I like to think I'm the one that holds that title, especially here where the only title I'll ever receieve is ^^^. Cheers : )))
Very lucid Pike, thanks.
Some years ago I remember reading a line in a Bruce Lee book. He mentioned that doing martial arts gave him a place in life; that it gave him a purpose; a way of expressing his energy and passion. Reading some of the comments here reminded me of that line from his book. It's pleasing to spot passion within someone's writings. We all have a passion right?
Many years ago whilst in the forces, I recall being shoved into a boxing ring with a huge pair of boxing gloves on; myself and the bloke I was fighting, had to ' knock seven bells ' out of each other for two minutes. The purpose for this exercise, was to help us vent our anger and frustrations, so that we could continue out job with a level head.
My original purpose for this particular thread and many other threads I start on different forums, was to get some ideas circulating. To ' prod ' the mind, as it were. And yes; rhetorical was intended. It's a technique that some school teachers employ to ' get the class talking. '
I would have preferred not to explain my actions, but because some people have specifically ' zoomed into ' the underlying context, I feel I am left with no option but to unravel the original idea behind starting this thread.
I must admit; I never expected the insults and in all honesty, that was a little bit of a shocker.
I just wanted to ' play around ' with ideas; to listen and learn.
Going back to the boxing with big gloves on bit. Going into the ring and having a two minute round with the person we are angry at, could well serve it's purpose here; maybe, just maybe we wouldn't feel the need to argue with each other as much as we do do; just a thought fellas.
To those people that have genuinely posted their ideas and creativity; I appreciate that. 
Speaking of ideas and creativity... I must now set up a game for myself and practice, then practice some more and then... Practice some more!
How long does it take to write these giant posts?
15 minutes perhaps.
if you want to stimulate a bunch of good responses, it helps to start the thread off with something other than a whole pile of tit.
Talent, and dedication.
Well, considering you model yourself on a Vulcan/Sheldon, I think you are being very rude not to acknowledge some of the good answers to your conundrum Mr Batty! Spock would disown you and Sheldon would just snort in derision at your foolishness. Pah!