and this has even been proven, in that many IMs and GMs have held simuls at top colleges, beating just about everyone. those kids attending highly selective schools aren't stupid, have very high iqs, but they still get smashed at these simuls. this simply wouldn't be the case if chess were as closely, inextricably linked to iq as some people suggest. obviously there is something else to it.
maybe some people don't want to hear it, but I actually think if you are learning chess and aren't progressing, getting close to master level and above after some time, then you are doing something wrong, not working hard enough, not taking your practice and studying seriously enough and lack a certain amount of one or all of the following, proper guidance, self discipline, and focus.
Maybe your IQ is not as high as you think.
this person hasn't been educated in terms of chess. don't ask me why because you won't get an answer, but I have spent some time reading all about chess, listening to what professionals say about this and that for a while now. I have come the to conclusion that there are a hell of a lot of misconceptions about chess. how exactly it is related to IQ is one of these. the first thing people need to understand is that internet blitz chess is not the chess played in real life in real tournaments. everyone have that down? seems obvious, but some people refuse to accept this as truth, equating the two as equals. in fact unless you have achieved master level, blitz is nothing more than a video game. there's a little more going on in a blitz game between masters, but even there "video game-esque" type factors come into play most of the time, but to a significantly lesser degree. the second thing, most everyone can achieve GM level with persistent dedicated training, but not everyone will able to acheive super-gm status of 2700 FIDE and above. the people that do are endowed with incredible visualization and spatial analytical abilites, I believe this is one type of intelligence of many. this being true, it is readily apparent that someone can have a high overall iq but only ever be a decent player and not a super gm.
another example. if chess were as closely linked to iq as some people think it to be, then it would follow that some student from an ivy league school who knows how the pieces move, knows what castling is and knows the importance of the center, but nothing else and hasn't spent any time doing tactics, playing or learning about strategic themes would be able to easily defeat someone who scored lower than them on iq and standardized tests but who has studied and played chess for a considerable amount of time and attained master or expert level. I don't think this would be the case, I think the master/expert, with the lower overall iq, would demolish the novice ivy leaguer just about every time, something like 9 of 10 even. unless the ivy league student just happened to be one of the relatively few people on earth who possess the extraordinary visualization and spatial analytical abilities that super-gms have but just never really got into chess for some reason or another.
That's an absolutely absurd statement: "Most anyone can achieve GM level with persistent dedicated training?" You do realize that there are around 1250 GMs in the world out of the 500 million people who play chess? It's the rough equivalent of saying that anyone who trains hard at soccer will play for the World Cup.
no it isn't. and what you stated is not analgous to what I stated. the real reason there are relatively few official GMs is that first of all chess isn't as popular as soccer, second there is a whole involved lengthy bureaucratic process a person has to go through in order to attain an official FIDE GM title, not to mention traveling half way across the world most times in order to play in official FIDE GM norm tournaments. because of this it may seem absurd, but it is true. if someone spends all their time studying and playing chess with the proper guidance, focus and self discipline, money isn't a factor, there's nothing to distract them, then they will be able to obtain the GM title. of course people don't exist in luxurious bubbles, where they are completely isolated from the chaos of the world, well most people don't. what most people won't be able to become are super-GMs like carlson, aronian, kasparov, karpov, anand, ivanchuck, moro, radjabov, grischuck, nakamura and the rest.
omertatao, spend some time working with an "average" GM and see just how wrong you are. Or, better yet, talk to an IM or an FM about how any average Joe could make GM if they cared. Ignorance isn't really an excuse for what you're saying as knowing nothing about a field doesn't give you right of way to disparage it. My only suggestion to you is to become a GM and then tell everyone else how easy it is.
yeah keep misconstruing what I am saying. and deliberately not responding to anything specific that I have stated. did I ever say it was "easy"? no, don't think I did. what I stated, which you completely ignored, was that it requires a lot of persistent hard work with proper guidance, focus and self discipline with money not being an object and there being no other distractions, not exactly the circumstances the average joe finds himself is it? and I have spoken to IMs and GMs about this and they confirmed what I am saying here. the truth is, most people don't/can't put in the hard work and time it requires to become a GM. it is attainable by most anyone, what isn't attainable by just anyone is carlson kasparov status. now go ahead and misinterpret everything I wrote while not responding directly to any of it.
"Ignorance isn't really an excuse for what you're saying as knowing nothing about a field doesn't give you right of way to disparage it"
and what the hell are you talking about here? I am not "disparaging" anything. and if the "field" is chess, I do know a hell of a lot about it.
The fact that you claim to know "a hell of a lot" about chess tells me all I need to know. And I'm not misconstruing what you say - you claim that anyone with proper training and work can become a GM, which is utter and absolute BS. The last sentence of my post was a somewhat flip remark that isn't consistent with what I was saying, I admit that - it was expressing annoyance at the fact that people apply labels to things and understate the talent required to earn something that they'll never even attempt to obtain.
yeah exactly, keep not responding to anything specific I wrote while throwing barbs. it's your only defense here as I am completely right.
you know what? I could turn Paris Hilton into a grandmaster. lol. under the right conditions. she wouldn't ever be kasparov or carlson, but if she wanted it bad enough, she could obtain the GM title. ok, maybe a little bit of an exaggeration. but not much. point being, "talent" aka extraordinary visual/spatial analysis intelligence is what separates super GMs from GMs. it is not what separates GM from IM or IM from FM or FM from expert or expert from Class A.
oh yes because I used the phrase "a hell of a lot" and not something pretentious and pseudo-sophisticated means I'm obviously just a know-nothing peasant right?
suck it crumpet eater.
bro im just trollin. its quite amusing to see how people really got into my comment. I seriously don't care... really... wat is a gm anyways? general motors? I can eventually buy a gm car if a work hard so I see ur point. by the way its suckthis not suck it... dude ur grammar sucks. the word "it" has too much ambiguity and if u do not kno wat "this" is then... i really would like to help but its a bad word. however, i guess ur ratings suggests that people with low iq can get a high rating.
Whats a crumpet eater? wats so bad about eating a griddle cake? iono... i just think u got some issues. Its like me calling u a sushi eater... 0_0 omgsh sorry thats really insulting... didnt realize it.. golly im pretty dumb but maybe one day i can become a transformer and become a gm car...
Well those past dozen posts sure did SUCK.
P.S. That old horse about IQ and TALENT and (everybody) making GM has been beaten to death SO MANY, MANY TIMES in these forums. Check out the old threads for some history lessons.
Chess players are such a (loving) and eccentric group. Myself included.
Time for the OP to buy at least one more chess book to empirically test our well thought out (and well fought out) theories about how to improve at chess.
Well I just can't let this one go by: " the average person could become a GM ". If a person were to study the games played by GMs, IMs and FMs from top tournaments such as the ones featured in magazines like Chess Life one would see the reality of the situation. I would say that the average person would be Very Very Very lucky to achieve the level of a FM never mind a IM or a GM. I mean lets get real here, these titles have to be earned and if it truly were all that easy we would be overrun by FMs, IMs and GMs lol.
the average shmuck would be very very lucky who starts out at adulthood to get to expert....let alone FM,NM,IM and all that jazz.I've been busting my butt at this game for 4 years now and don't even have a A-class rating to show for it (and am about 140 IQ)
This site has taught me that there is no correlation between intelligence and chess.
I have to restate ivand. Some of the comments/arguments on this thread are completely absurd.
Every 400 rating points in USCF is a qualitative leap in chess performance.
IMO, anyone can make USCF 1600 with a little sweat and a touch of O.C.D. And they can do it in 1-2 years, at most. Otherwise consider taking up bridge instead.
But breaking USCF 2000 or 2200 is a different matter all together.
USCF 1800 presently represents the top 10 percent of active tournament players. 2000 is the top 7 percent. And every rating point above 2000 comes with great effort.
Don't kid yourself. Just because the Polgar sisters did it is NO argument that EVERYONE can somehow become a titled player. Just ain't gonna happen.
Everyone above USCF 1800 is very good with the Black pieces and very good in the endgame. It's a qualitative leap, every 400 points. The average person will only make the leap once or (perhaps) twice. After that, all bets are off whether they can go any higher.
Expert Class (2000-2199) is a more typical endpoint for the average "chess fanatic." Class A would satisfy most people.
If you can play chess at a reasonable strength level (say Class A), and at a reasonable speed (say G/15 through G/60), what's not to like?
That is an interesting assertion. I found a professor on here who seemd to have to be relatively intelligent and have decent spatial reasoning skills to teach philosophy. On the other hand that is subject in and of itself.He wasn't rated so well, around 1000 and had been at it for a while.
For an interesting spin on the discussion, I don't give much creedence to IQ testing. They are subjective. Of course some right answers are obvious, but others are a matter of interpretation and therefore subject to someone's opinion. Aside from that, how are you supposed to truly isolate raw intelligence, versus what we have learned, that is required to express it in the first place?
Hence a 50 year old man would always generally appear to have more raw intelligence than a 5 year old, though it may not be true. I have taken multiple IQ tests, one of which said I was 186. If so it would stand to reason I would be a better chess player, however, I think patience, interest level and memorization ability go along way to actually determining how good you are at chess. You can be really intelligent, but if you have deficiencies in those area, you can really hinder you, not just in chess.
If chessplaying and IQ were truly correlated, we wouldn't keep seeing this idiotic topic being posted here.
Don't kid yourself. Just because the Polgar sister did it is no argument that EVERYONE can somehow become a titled player. Just ain't gonna happen.
At most? Ouch, guess I was riding the short bus for quite a long time.