Can you be a dumb person and still be good at chess?

Sort:
Mermaidchess

I think everybody is smart in their own way. I believe that anybody can be really good at chess if they set their mind to become a very good chess player. All kinds of people play chess.

RG1951
turtleboy12 wrote:

Intelligence is a variety of traits including personality, executive functions, moral capacity, and what not. Someone with a higher IQ has an easier time doing calculation, pattern recognition, memorization, and problem solving in chess than someone with a lower IQ, that being said, the amount of work invested in the game is what will dictate for the major part the outcome of the player at hand. This includes the amount of money invested (resource), and amount of time and effort into practising and playing, the way you play (qualitative differences in mindset and also in the way you work), and what not. Chess players with greater insight and greater ability are those invested in the game and they want it to be their life, a principle the applies to not only chess but life as well. A personal note: this can lead to idolatrous living however if people do not prioritize things properly, neglecting the rest of who they are like character, faith/spirituality, and the God-given pleasures of this life (smelling the roses and just laughing).

 

Another point to contemplate related to the earlier; intelligence plays a role in everything since we are cognitive creatures, but simultaneously well directed hard work pays off no matter what you do. Since intelligence is a broad category, it only makes sense that the categories that are correlated with chess in terms of mental activity are the ones that are relevant when it comes to gameplay and performance. So perhaps you may not be skilled or adept verbally, but you have better abilities when it comes to solving problems or riddles. Conversely, you may lack the problem-solving skills that are found in chess, and to recompense for that you will have to work harder and with more skill. Unless you have an impairment, you should be fine, but even then, the power of faith in God and the drive to succeed can take you a long way.

        Rubbish. For a start, moral considerations are nothing whatever to do with intelligence.

RG1951
Laurenchessdiva wrote:

I think everybody is smart in their own way.

        A microcephalous idiot isn't.

invalidated_cash

probably wont be a champion, but i think everyone can understand and enjoy the game..

charles_butternucker
NKorea-2014 wrote:

Of course! How does you thinking Americans can play chess? They're dumb but still do.

You speak pretty good American, I'll give you that! Tongue Out

leiph18
PilateBlue wrote:
Doggy_Style wrote:
PilateBlue wrote:
leiph18 wrote:

Colloquially, the words genius, intelligent, and logical are synonyms, and words like illogical, stupid, and idiot are synonyms.

These lazy definitions aren't interesting to me.

I don't use lazy or colloquial definitions. Genius doesn't have an exact definition, but I believe the dictionary definitions of "logical" and "illogical" make it impossible to be an "illogical genius." 

I don't know about all that. Having been to a major Salvador Dali exhibition, some ten years ago, I'd be happy to label him an "illogical genius".

Ah but this is a mistake. Just because a person is guided more by emotion (which is the opposite of logic) than logic doesn't necessarily mean the person is illogical. Similarly a person who is intensely logical in his thoughts and actions is not necessarily unemotional.

Emotion isn't the opposite of logic, and you can also be an illogical genius. Your way of thinking about these things is very narrow.

PilateBlue

I was using logic and emotion to describe a personality instead of using the literal denotations. I wasn't very clear but I was trying to point out that he was using illogical in a different way than what was being discussed. Salvador Dali wasn't a "logical" thinker, but that doesn't mean he was illogical. Personalities fall within a spectrum of logical and emotional. Having a very logical personality means your thoughts and actions are guided primarily by logic and the opposite is true for a person with an emotional personality. However a logical thinker experiences emotions in the same way as emotional thinkers; he just isn't influenced in the same way. Conversely an emotional thinker isn't necessarily illogical.

leiph18 wrote:

PilateBlue wrote:

Doggy_Style wrote:

PilateBlue wrote:

leiph18 wrote:

Colloquially, the words genius, intelligent, and logical are synonyms, and words like illogical, stupid, and idiot are synonyms.

These lazy definitions aren't interesting to me.

I don't use lazy or colloquial definitions. Genius doesn't have an exact definition, but I believe the dictionary definitions of "logical" and "illogical" make it impossible to be an "illogical genius." 

I don't know about all that. Having been to a major Salvador Dali exhibition, some ten years ago, I'd be happy to label him an "illogical genius".

Ah but this is a mistake. Just because a person is guided more by emotion (which is the opposite of logic) than logic doesn't necessarily mean the person is illogical. Similarly a person who is intensely logical in his thoughts and actions is not necessarily unemotional.

Emotion isn't the opposite of logic, and you can also be an illogical genius. Your way of thinking about these things is very narrow.

Uhohspaghettio1

leiph18, I don't know why you think Fischer was crazy. Admittedly he didn't explain himself very well sometimes, but he was far from crazy. He wasn't crazy, he just took views different from the standardized "acceptable" ones in the mainstream media, and people like you all fell for the idea that he must be crazy, pathetic really. 

PilateBlue

Anti-semitism and racism are not valid views. There is no logical reason to dislike someone because of a characteristic out of his/her control. I'm not going to get into his religious beliefs but they also weren't exactly logical. 

klimski

Computers are better than humans at chess. Are they intelligent though?

Uhohspaghettio1
PilateBlue wrote:

Anti-semitism and racism are not valid views. There is no logical reason to dislike someone because of a characteristic out of his/her control. I'm not going to get into his religious beliefs but they also weren't exactly logical. 

There was nothing racist about Fischer's views, he himself was Jewish.

If I talk about the atrocities of the Americans throughout the years am I somehow "racist" against Americans? Of course not, I'm talking about the power structure in control of America.  

This idea that Fischer was racist is a total fabrication and a lie. It also doesn't matter that "Jewish" is a religion rather than a country, that has nothing to do with it. They are termed "Jews" because they are a distinct people to Palestinians in the region and that is how they wish to be termed, even people of Jewish descent who aren't practicising Jews. It's the ignorance of the masses, sometimes gross ignorance, that the mainstream often plays on. Jews in Israel have an extremely well-funded and powerful lobby, try reading some Noam Chomsky who explains such things very well.  

leiph18

I guess crazy isn't very specific. I think he was paranoid and had delusions.

Not that rich and powerful people aren't pulling strings. I'd guess that's as old as civilization.

fabelhaft

"There was nothing racist about Fischer's views, he himself was Jewish"

Fischer's opinions do not become less racist depending on which background he had. These are far from the most extreme views he voiced in his later years, and they are of course quite racist:

http://www.heretical.com/miscella/fischer.html

SilentKnighte5

Depends on what you mean by good and what you mean by dumb.  I know plenty of uneducated people who were able to achieve a 2000+ rating.

TheGrobe

I don't know about chess, but you can thrive in these forums.

leiph18

Yeah, most people think of "good" as their rating + about 400.

IMO the OP doesn't have to worry about intelligence to be a "good" player.

Even to be titled, what's going to hold you back more than intelligence are things like time, dedication, money... age and health. Mostly it's non-players that think intelligence is the most important factor.

bobbyDK

could Forrest Ghump have played chess well instead of Ping Pong?

SilentKnighte5
bobbyDK wrote:

could Forrest Ghump have played chess well instead of Ping Pong?

He would've beaten Carlsen and the ping pong champ at the same time.

incantevoleutopia

The more people speak bad of Fischer, the more I know he was right. Time to put down the western mask of hypocrisy.

toiyabe
incantevoleutopia wrote:

The more people speak bad of Fischer, the more I know he was right. Time to put down the western mask of hypocrisy.

Brilliant logic.  lol.