I feel like Tony's frustration is maybe a bit misdirected, here.
Don't beat the guy down for calling chess an intellectual challenge, and in the next breath lament that it's because of how little it has to do with intelligence.
Intellectualism itself has very little to do with intelligence, and has quite a lot more to do with practice and (especially) study.
There are folks society will quite legitimately hold forth as intellectuals whose "intellectualism" is based entirely on knowledge and expertise in the field of, say, Shakespeare...or comparative Anabaptist religious studies...or comprehensive knowledge of 18th century china dolls.
Chess IS an intellectual pursuit. That doesn't make it particularly valuable, or particularly intelligence-reflective. So is PhD level knowledge of particle physics (which is perhaps a bit more reflective of raw intelligence), as well as deep understanding of the recurring motifs in Terry Pratchett's Discworld (which is probably less gruelling than chess, but would nonetheless fall under the umbrella of the intellectual).
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.
Meadmaker wrote:
this is truth here. in order to play chess at the best of your ability, you really do have to be stable mentally, you can't, say, be having nervous breakdown.
what he refers to as "cunning" is also important in chess, although I think what he is talking about is just a lust for sports, competition, battle, blood, war etc. if you don't naturally have this lust, it can be incredibly difficult to progress beyond a certain level I feel, much more challenging than it would be for someone who does.
I've got plenty of cunning and more than enough blood lust, so that's not it. I have good pattern recognition skills and incredibly good memory, though in middle age it is not so strong as it was in youth.
just to clarify, I wasn't implying that all that is required is a predisposition for sports, battle and competition, just that it is indeed a significant factor. one which most people neglect to take into proper consideration. I think someone who doesn't like sports all that much, doesn't really enjoy fighting with people, will improve at chess much more slowly than someone who is the opposite, if both started at the same time and everything else was completely equal.