Any others with high IQ suck at chess.

The reason some topics come up again and again is because they are interesting to a large number of people.  Although this topic has been explored over and over in many, many, ways, it hasn't been explored in depth by me, or by other participants.   We find it interesting, whether or not someone else may have already plumbed the depths of the topic.

Would you walk into a Physics 101 lecture and tell everyone in it that they are wasting their time because other people already know the answers?  Of course not.  Don't make that same mistake here.

Meadmaker wrote:

i take issue with the notion that physicists, mathematicians display more "raw intelligence" than say, tolstoy, or something. I don't think this is true. I think it's different types of intelligence. but for whatever reason people are seemingly more impressed with the type of intelligence required for brilliant physics than they are for that which is required for brilliant art or literature or any other field, intellectual pursuit. I think this is cultural bias really and not exactly the truth. the truth, I think, is that there exists multiple types of intelligence and most people's brains specialize in one or two. maybe .05% of the world's pop, if that, are universal genuises. even this I kind of doubt.

would someone please define the term "raw intelligence", what exactly, specifically are people talking about? 

shequan: ...essential basic things like who what where why and when aren't surprises in real life real world sporting competitions. makes sense right?

For you but not for me. For titled players, certainly.

I don't want to know much about someone I am going to play. I don't care if they love the Ruy or hate it. I want to be prepared for most anything, as best I can.

Meadmaker: And of course, age might play a role.

I think mostly what is going on is lack of willingness to pay the dues of getting better...study and practice.

No doubt. But this isn't what I'm talking about. There are those who don't  put forth the effort.

We are talking about two different things.

I am talking about people who can't break 1200 and are blaming it on age.

What the hay? You on the sauce?

You are right as rain, cabby. Chess does require both inspiration and perspiration.

from observation over the years i have seen many chess players who have different life skills in meny different areas one of the best of them was a garbage man who had amazing powers of observational skills but no other skills other than a retentive memory. in6 months he started from scratch and won his states championship against pennant grade players .by the same token i know an engineer who is a genious at math but can`t break 1200 on chess board the best players seem to be people who can visualize menny moves ahead in any game they are playing whitch is why some children are excelent players at a young age.children think in pictures while adults tend to think in abstruct terms thus the best players are people who have not lost the visualisational powers of childhood and have added abstruct learning to their game.

Having at one time read thru all of this thread, including Shequan's interesting reply at post #144 ( replying to my earlier post ) I can see that we are going nowhere at a rapid pace. In the field of logic we would stand accused of Circular reasoning, at the very least. To paraphrase a title from a fun series of British films " Carry On Round The Bend "  lol.  

Thanks Chrisr, I'm having fun with all of the little theads that I've got on the go here. The classic case of " CR " is when one sees a dog chasing it's own tail --- a endless task  lol.

You have something intelligent to share? (lol)

Hi again, I will state some more truth

Any person, despite their intelligence, has the potential to become a good chess player.  I do not mean they will become World Champion, or even GM/IM, but everyone has the potential to reach 1800-2000 ('good' compared to most players).  They must have a love for the game, proper guidance and practice to do it.  Laszlo Polgar didn't just accidently raise 3 "genius" daughters who all had the right "genes" for chess, they are normal people just like everyone else who happened to have a father steer them through the chess ranks from a young age.  He is PROOF that a chess genius is made, not born (his own phrase infact).  His entire goal was to show this fact, people need to stop disregarding it. 

This is complete nonsense, these people are leaning on age as an excuse for their own failures.

ciljettu? Oh, wait, he's still here.

Back to the circle...

Complete nonsense on the internet --- how is that even possible ?  lol.

TMIMTW: This is complete nonsense, these people are leaning on age as an excuse for their own failures.

Yes...yes...we are in agreement.

Hmmm, what was I saying, oh yes Complete Nonsense on the internet !  lol.