chess study is dominated by the computer....
couldn't anyone be a super GM if they study there whole life, computers, books etc.
chess study is dominated by the computer....
couldn't anyone be a super GM if they study there whole life, computers, books etc.
Everyone is a super GM. We don't have winners and losers. We're all winners.
To get a representative sample you'd need to have various groups given full support including training and the ability to work full time on chess, and see what happens.
Probably most people of above average intelligence could get to around 2400 with full community support. Look at the Polgar family for instance.
Sigh. Yes, when people say above average they often mean "higher than what seems like a normal/desirable level." Shoot them. Kill them all. Eat their bodies.
Probably most people of above average intelligence could get to around 2400 with full community support. Look at the Polgar family for instance.
Haha! "full community support".
Hilarious!
I don't think anyone can become GM..it is definitely a combination of so many skills needed and it just can't happen with hard work alone..Chess is about more of a character than just being intelligent...
The 2100 is assuming an IQ of 110 which is normal for my demographic. It's based on the Levitt equation.
I hate to break it to everyone, but studies have been done on this, and it's been said that a person with average intelligence can only hope to acheive a FIDE rating of 2100 (Expert level). And that's with careful study and lifelong application. Beyond that, you better have the genes.
Sorry.
Consider, the average GM was better at chess after learning the rules and playing 10 games than you were after playing 1000.
Ouch. The truth hurts sometimes.
Practice does not make perfect. I love it when I play people equal to my rating that have played thousands of games on this site. Why? Because I've played less than 100. I have found my easiest opponents are those equal to me in rating that have played thousands of games.
To everyone else who asked for a source, sorry I didn't post it at the time but I didn't actually remember where it came from. It was a formula put forward by GM Jon Levitt that supposedly determines a person's chess ceiling. I believe the forumla is IQ x 10 + 1000 = ELO.
I don't think I agree with it because IQ measures several areas, but I do agree that particularly types of intelligence are crucial to grandmastery of chess - particularly visual/spatial ability and memory.
If I had to guess (and it would be a total guess), I would estimate the three most crucial factors in order of importance:
1. Experience
2. Visualization/Spatial ability
3. Long term memory (for theory)
If you lack significantly in any of those areas, a grandmaster you are not.
It's not about IQ but about abilities and talent. How many of you can play blindfold simul? For top GMs it is a routine. Check this out - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_PjbuciFvY. Do you still think you can be like Kasparov?
It's not about IQ but about abilities and talent. How many of you can play blindfold simul? For top GMs it is a routine. Check this out - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_PjbuciFvY. Do you still think you can be like Kasparov?
Abilities and talent are usually what IQ tests determine. IQ is just a test, nothing more or less. But it's abilities and talent that allows a person to perform well on an IQ test. Spatial ability/visualization skills are extremely important in chess. Anyone who doesn't possess an exceptional ability to visualize a board and pieces as they relate to each other in space will never become a grandmaster, even if they put in 100000 hours.
Now a person with average visual/spatial ability could probably become a strong master or even a weak IM. But your GMs all have one thing in common - exceptional memory and visuo-spatial ability. I would stake the farm on it.
Size matters. In all things. It's a cruel, natural, world.
chess study is dominated by the computer....
couldn't anyone be a super GM if they study there whole life, computers, books etc.
no.
chess study is dominated by the computer....
couldn't anyone be a super GM if they study there whole life, computers, books etc.
no.
agreed
GM=great mind?
It's not about IQ but about abilities and talent. How many of you can play blindfold simul? For top GMs it is a routine. Check this out - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_PjbuciFvY. Do you still think you can be like Kasparov?
Abilities and talent are usually what IQ tests determine. IQ is just a test, nothing more or less. But it's abilities and talent that allows a person to perform well on an IQ test. Spatial ability/visualization skills are extremely important in chess. Anyone who doesn't possess an exceptional ability to visualize a board and pieces as they relate to each other in space will never become a grandmaster, even if they put in 100000 hours.
Now a person with average visual/spatial ability could probably become a strong master or even a weak IM. But your GMs all have one thing in common - exceptional memory and visuo-spatial ability. I would stake the farm on it.
Size matters. In all things. It's a cruel, natural, world.
Yeah but there are so many different kinds of skills. Saying things like "spatial skills," "reasoning skills" etc., is just categorizing what could be dozens or more different skills.
Just one example could be that I was rather bad at geometry, so it might seem my spatial skills are simply bad. Well, that's not really specific enough. I love visualizing possibilities and seeing how things relate to each other; you do that all the time in chess. What's the difference? Well, in chess, you do all of this on a 2d plane, which simplifies the matter in some respect. In geometry you have to visualize 3d things, which probably involves some different "semi-skills." It sure as hell seems that they do, given that I love finding relationships between things and calculating chess variations yet I don't want to touch anything involving visualizing 3d objects. So to classify all of this as simply "spatial" and treat them exactly the same is probably going to make things very misleading, at least.
I think the only reason there's this big controversy here is because people are misunderstanding the title. Hasn't anyone seen Ratatouille?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOWpf7tuCXo
It was a formula put forward by GM Jon Levitt that supposedly determines a person's chess ceiling. I believe the forumla is IQ x 10 + 1000 = ELO.
Then Levitt as well needs to provide a reference. Appeal to authority isn't sound reasoning.
It was a formula put forward by GM Jon Levitt that supposedly determines a person's chess ceiling. I believe the forumla is IQ x 10 + 1000 = ELO.
Then Levitt as well needs to provide a reference. Appeal to authority isn't sound reasoning.
To say that I am appealing to authority just isn't fair because I've never actually stated whether or not I agree with the study. I merely relayed the fact that there was such a study. But I did make certain comments that are in agreement with the general theme of the study. And I believe much of this is logical and evident.
In fact, I don't know if I agree with the conclusion of his study. But I do agree that particular types of intelligence are necessary for anyone who hopes to become a grandmaster - particularly visuospatial cognition and long term memory.
Truthfully, I am sorry if anyone believes otherwise. But you are not going to become a super GM unless you possess above average, maybe even exceptional, visuospatial ability and long term memory.
Rosenbalm wrote:
I hate to break it to everyone, but studies have been done on this, and it's been said that a person with average intelligence can only hope to acheive a FIDE rating of 2100 (Expert level). And that's with careful study and lifelong application. Beyond that, you better have the genes.
That would be very flattering, but... no. I have passed 2400 in the past, currently being at 2341 FIDE, and my intelligence is average at best.
Chances are you were reading a pulp fiction book, not a study.
Must one be above average intelligence to know how to use the quote button?