I didn't realize there was a difference btwn a super gm and gm (newb here). A 2700 rating does seem extreme. I'm still convinced gm status is not beyond reach for most people who are dedicated enough, though. Maybe I am dead wrong.
anyone can be a super GM
Sort:
This must be a FIDE advertising slogan.
Queen_of_Knight wrote:
I didn't realize there was a difference btwn a super gm and gm (newb here). A 2700 rating does seem extreme. I'm still convinced gm status is not beyond reach for most people who are dedicated enough, though. Maybe I am dead wrong.
A Super GM is top of the GMs.
And yes, you are wrong.
Yes, the GM is a very rare animal indeed.
And I wish we were still talking about JoseO's drug problem.
Queen_of_Knight wrote:
I didn't realize there was a difference btwn a super gm and gm (newb here). A 2700 rating does seem extreme. I'm still convinced gm status is not beyond reach for most people who are dedicated enough, though. Maybe I am dead wrong.
Considering that many professionals working full time at studying and playing chess never make it beyond international master, I would say that you are dead wrong.
That must be terrible.
No wonder some of them get hooked on drugs. Who is JoseO?
See #100.
Ok, that JoseO. That is a most terrible affaire.
Oh cool, is this some sort of radio phone-in competition?
You're over-doing it now. Though I do appreciate the effort to keep the catchphrase fresh by altering the sentence.
-kenpo- wrote:
absurd
.....you win this round.
Round promptly given away 
-kenpo- wrote:
No, just no. There is a huge correlation between intelligence and chess skill, at the very least when you start getting to master level. I'm willing to bet 90% of people working hard for most their life couldn't become GM. Not only that, but if they didn't start at a young age, 98% of people probably couldn't even become an IM, regardless of how hard they worked.
here we go again. but this time we try to hide what we are really talking about. it's the same god darn conversation in different guises again and again and again and again and again.
all scientific studies that have been conducted have shown a very small correlation between chess skill and iq. there is not a direct relationship here. there's some kind of relationship, but it is not direct. it is not possible to accurately determine someone's iq from their fide rating or chess ability. all that is seemingly possible is being able to make an informed estimate as to where they generally fall in the spectrum.
someone with a 2000-2200 strength has an iq of at least 100-110 (most everyone can do it with enough deliberate practice)
someone who becomes an strong FM, IM has an iq of at least 130 (above average spatiotemporal reasoning intelligence)
someone who obtains 2600 and above FIDE rating has an iq of at least 140.(genius level spatiotemporal reasoning intelligence).
this obviously does not mean that everyone who has a chess rating of 2000-2200 has an iq of 100-110. they of course could have a much higher iq than this. same goes for the other two categories above.
blah blah blah. The higher your chess rating is, the more intelligent you are likely to be. You said it yourself. Chess at a high level requires a great amount of certain intelligence and abilities, that most people do not have.
Anyone that plays chess all their life can be really good at chess but maybe not a super gm. There are people that have total love for chess who play for decades but only reach 1800 or 2000, which is still very good compared to most people but is a far cry from a GM or Super GM.
I think the proper statement is anyone has the potential to be very good at chess, all that is needed is hard work and a love for the game. Most will not be though because they have other priorities in life or other interests.
-kenpo- wrote:
not blah blah blah. it's important to recognize that just because one person has a chess rating of 2400 it doesn't necessarily mean that person has a much higher iq than someone else who happens to have a rating of 2200. all it says with any relative certainty is that the person who has the 2400 rating has at least an iq of 130 or so and the person with the 2200 has at least an iq of 110-120 or so. this is very very general! nothing specific here! it does not say that one person definitively has a higher iq than someone else.
for example Peter Theil, stanford grad billionaire founder of paypal, has a chess rating of around 2200. but he obviously has an iq much higher than 110-120. to me it seems as if chess ratings are tantamount to academic grades. the higher someone's gpa is the more intelligent they likely are, but it doesn't necessarily follow that someone with a 4.0 has a vastly higher iq than someone with a 3.7.
you wrote "huge correlation". there is not a "huge correlation", it actually seems to be small.
and of course what I wrote only applies to real chess played in real life in real tournaments, real fide or uscf ratings. not internet blitz ratings where there is virtually no concrete relationship at all (especially below 2000).
You're missing the point. You have to be extremely intelligent and talented to be a GM or super GM. That's it. Chess ratings are not like GPA. You can be nearly an idiot but do all your school work and attain a 4.0 GPA. Show me a dummy who has above a 2000 rating, much less 2200, 2500, 2700. Does not exist.
Of course there are no exact values for "specific chess rating = specific IQ." And obviously, you can be a genius and just not be interested in chess, and have a low chess rating. But as chess rating goes up, the intelligence floor also goes up. There is definitely a strong correlation there. The higher rating you wish to acheive, the more talented and "intelligent" you will need to be. Following this logic, 99.9999% of people don't have what it takes to be a GM or super GM. And that's exactly how it is in real life. This is the whole argument.
A point could be made for the opposite. It is very likely that you are extremely stupid for wasting your time on a silly game that adds no value and that makes you believe you are so very very strong and smart when you win from an equally estranged person. Personally the smartest people play chess as a pure entertainment that they dominate iso being dominated by. Show me one of these guys that makes an impact on the planet, kasparov being a laudable exception.
Why is Kasparov a laudable exception? For showing up at tinpoint spectacles like the Pussy Riot protest?
His effect on Russian politics is neglible and shrilly hysterical. I would put him squarely in the idiot category.
Considering that it takes years of practice 10 hours a day to become a GM, no i think not everyone can become a GM.