chess = smarts + experience.

Sort:
pullin

There is quite a bit of arrogance when dealing with ratings. 

This is my opinion, and for one I think a good analogy or metaphor to chess is tennis. One can be a good athlete, but one has to verse themselves in the mechanics and trade of tennis.. one can be an intelligent, thinking, hard working person but needs to verse themselves in the specific mechanics of chess. One can be a good musician but can't immediately adopt a new instrument before understanding the technique and form but may do so more rapidly as a musician.. the same way an athlete or person or exercises may pick up tennis technique faster. So someone who exercises their mind may adopt a different adaptive curve to learning chess, more quickly, BUT it still requires experience. Any person of any intelligence when they first move chess pieces would look like a noob. You need experience to understand form, circumstances, technique. 

 

Another example is like baseball or again sports.. you have natural technique but you need to hone it with practice and experience and learning to atone it to the frame of its play. 

 

Your athletic ability or smarts may effect the curve at which you learn, or the techniques or styles you eventually convey, and if done at the highest level, uniquely. 

 

I'm basically addressing that rating doesn't equal IQ. It is like comparing a tennis player who has been honing their skills and ability that requires a great amount of natural drive/ ability/ perseverance for a person to achieve that height of ability.. just like sports.. basketball, tennis, baseball. 

To be the best at something or one of the best at something it seems to always require a unique expression or element that distinguishes your understanding or expression 

trysts

That's a good analogy. After learning as much as I think I can about chess, and reading comments in the forums for a few years from high-rated chess players, I've pretty much come to the conclusion that my former impression of chess players as "they must be intelligent, because they're playing an intelligent game", was incorrect and naive:)