I'm intelligent . . . . but I suck at chess . . . . But not forever . . . eventually I'll die . . . I'm 80 . . .
DENVER
Can intelligent person suck at chess, forever?
Sort:
DavidJSmith wrote:
I've known some very intellegent people that had trouble making a cup of coffee, depends where your mind is.
But suck at chess? No, but matter of defintion what "sucks" means. If they study/pratice will be good enough to beat most folks at the local pub.
Lord yes. A dude I know, my cousin's boyfriend, dude's intelligent as hell. He's a chemist, one of the smartest guys I've ever known. But when it comes to mundane, everyday stuff you'd wonder how on Earth this guy manages to function as an adult.
DENVERHIGH wrote:
I'm intelligent . . . . but I suck at chess . . . . But not forever . . . eventually I'll die . . .
DENVER
Every dead body I have seen could be safely characterized as "sucking at chess".
Oct 10, 2016
0
#505
BlargDragon wrote:
DENVERHIGH wrote:
Every dead body I have seen could be safely characterized as "sucking at chess".
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
GOOD POINT! . . . . . . DENVER
...suck @ chess = 1050 : ( and @ computing, but my genius uncle sucked at computing too....silly syllogism = I'm a genius.......... lmao
Yes, no
Have fun!
If they are smart they can.
I was hoping someone might be able to help me. I am teaching a Sunday school class about Queen Esther and I want to use a very simple chess puzzle. I want it to involve only the kings, a bishop, a queen, and a pawn. Can anyone help me?
Jun 13, 2018
0
#510
i have known two ph.ds who cant even get past 1500 while trying.
Jun 13, 2018
0
#511
SmyslovFan wrote:
I have several friends who are brilliant in their own fields, whether it's math, business, languages, or computers and each of these friends play chess avidly at a pretty average level (1500-1700 strength).
One of my friends, a language professor, stated that he believes any dedicated learner can reach ~1600 strength, but it takes a certain gift to break 2000. People who have broken 2000 tend to think anyone can do it. But very intelligent people who spend quite a bit of time studying chess never come close. Maybe there really is such a thing as natural ability?
I wrote this in 2015. I still agree with it.
blitz is not chess. you will learn nothing from a race against the clock with both players making bad moves. the best way to get better at chess is to play higher rated opponents. don't just resign when it starts to look grim. play it out to the bitter end... or until you start to feel guilty for not resigning already. you will learn through the whole experience. once you've learned how to maintain pressure while getting your pieces into play and can open without trying to lean on advance theory that you don't understand. once you can defend your week squares and maintain your position. then you can study. and learn better how to attack. and pick up some opening theory. experience will teach much better then a book at this stage.
Jun 13, 2018
0
#513
An intelligent person can suck at chess forever without proper guidance, by book, video, or through personal lessons. You can also suffer due to hardheadedness if you think your intellect should explain it all for you - that was my initial problem.
Until you understand opening principles, middlegame tactics (including pattern recognition) and strategy and how to develop a middlegame plan, and understand key endgame principles, you are not utilizing your intelligence. It's like memorizing your times tables through 100x100 instead of studying algebra and geometry.
Don't assume you'll make good moves because you're smart. I was chief chemist of process research for a subsidiary of Dow Chemical after grad school at IIT. But, for a long time after I began rated chess play, I thought great defensive moves should win games. But in OTB tournaments I'd go 2-1 or 3-0 with the White pieces and 0-2 or 1-2 with the Black pieces. I was NOT making threatening moves and it took a long time to realize aggression is extremely important in chess and pure defense is foolish.
Jun 13, 2018
0
#514
I'm not very smart, but I'm good at chess . . . or is it the other way around??
I get so confused,
no. intelligent people will always reign supreme. The famous quote by Nikola Tesla: "Success is 99% intelligence and 1% muscular strength."
darkunorthodox88 wrote:
i have known two ph.ds who cant even get past 1500 while trying.
educated =/= intelligent
though it could be more likely that they are intelligent, depending on what they have a phd in
Jun 13, 2018
0
#517
one interesting thing about prodigies is that they tend to often show talent in certain clusters that those multiple intelligence nutjobs think are different intelligences (for example, classical music,and mathematics). one possibility of course is that to be a prodigy means to be highly talented in many different intelligences, but it seems far more economical to just assume they are talented at two things because they are all part of the same intelligence. especially since they usually are a certain cluster of the so called 9 intelligences (dont tell me they added more now ?)
multiple intelligences borders on pseudo-science. i have never seen a "science" so willingy multiply its entities of explanation so carelessly.
Human worthy intellectual skill, like any skill, is above all highly specialized.
Stop thinking that if you got good grades in high school maths with little effort and impressed your fellow schoolmates, you're "gifted at maths". Real math starts way beyond uni level. It is like thinking you're good at chess because you beat grandma (or the guy at the pub) all the time.
Chess is only a highly specialized skill among many, you can achieve a lot in your life and never go beyond 1500.
darkunorthodox88 wrote:
i have known two ph.ds who cant even get past 1500 while trying.
Please define "trying".
Oh! Darn it, Darth, another illlusion shattered. ; -)
Still a great story though.
"I remember hitting a couple of batters, and the bases were loaded two or three times. The ball was small sometimes, the ball was large sometimes, sometimes I saw the catcher, sometimes I didn't. Sometimes, I tried to stare the hitter down and throw while I was looking at him. I chewed my gum until it turned to powder. I started having a crazy idea in the fourth inning that Richard Nixon was the home plate umpire, and once I thought I was pitching a baseball to Jimi Hendrix, who to me was holding a guitar and swinging it over the plate. They say I had about three to four fielding chances. I remember diving out of the way of a ball I thought was a line drive. I jumped, but the ball wasn't hit hard and never reached me."
I recommend watching the film No No: a Dockumentary. I believe it's on Netflix. Dock Ellis certainly was a character. Professional sports doesn't have guys like that anymore - guys who are unique characters on their own - only bland automatons.
I watched that one! Fantastic bioflick