Chess and Intelligence.

I personally have little respect for IQ tests (despite being called a genius by a few of them :P). 

I truly believe that you cannot test your intelligence simply because there are far too many factors...  

I did notice something pretty interesting though...

I was doing some research on the 'smartest' people ever to live (forgive me for being so weird) and noticed something really interesting.

A huge chunk of the individuals at the top of the list were chess players (Kasparov and Polgar being two notables).  There were also several mathematicians and physicists...  

This can either be taken as a hunk of fish for us modest folk and a profound truth for the rest of us :P.

Now if only we could get Mr. Hawkings to play chess... 

i agree, plus there are diferent types of intelligence

Interesting thread ih8sens (someone is more boring and weirder than me! ).

Its difficult to correlate the findings:-

Are intelligent people more inclined to play chess or does chess create intelligent people?! 

  

 

Graw81 wrote:

Interesting thread ih8sens (someone is more boring and weirder than me! ).

Its difficult to correlate the findings:-

Are intelligent people more inclined to play chess or does chess create intelligent people?! 

  

 

---

 That depends on how you define intelligence. I've known people that were good chess players, but in most other respects, were actually pretty stupid. As someone mentinoed above, there are different types of intellegence, and chess only touches a few of them. People who are good at spacial reasoning/logic, will have a natural ability in chess, but stick them in a college course where they have to do research and find a way to apply that research to the question at hand... they may or may not succeed. IQ, as was mentioned by the OP, is a test of academic ability, and does not necessarily have anything to do with chess.

Now, people with high IQs typically have good memories, and the ability to apply research, which can sometimes make up for defeciencies in areas like spacial reasoning on a chess board. Meaning that having a high IQ, if applied correctly, can make you a good chess player, but isnt necessarily a requirement.

are "IQ" tests being taken?... i've heard about them as long as i can remember, but i've never seen one or know someone who has taken one. i've taken: SAT, CAT, ACT?, PSAT, and a couple of other aptitude tests at some point, but never an IQ test.

 

did the IQ test come out at the same time as labotomies being standard brain surgery?

Sat ACT CAT and psat are forms of iq tests. there scores are used as entrance criteria for mensa.

Being able to research and memorize and apply that to a problem is what a lot of chess playing is about nowadays.  The spacial reasoning part makes you a natural, but the memorization of openings gets you to a high level itself.  Having both is what makes one great.

I think people with high intelligence like to excercise it, and games like Go and Chess really get that mind going, because the rules are simple but the implications of those rules are extremely complex.

 People who are good at chess are intelligent people?  No, it doesn't follow.  There are people who have cognitive ability in chess, but they are just average in other areas that shows intelligence.

The converse might be true.  Intelligent people would probably be good at chess.

ih8sens wrote:

I personally have little respect for IQ tests (despite being called a genius by a few of them :P). 

I truly believe that you cannot test your intelligence simply because there are far too many factors...  

---

 First you lay out your belief that IQ scores are inadequate tests of intelligence, yet you still feel the need to point out that, even though you think they are worthless, you are "called a genius by a few of them." Ironic.

Intelligence and chess do not necessarily go hand in hand. As a matter of fact it is a bit of a misnomer. I know many a chess player who I would not consider very intellectual. This however does not mean they are not intelligent, which brings us back to the main point of this thread and IQ tests.

Recently, I think it was a British television show, ran a special on intelligence. They introduced an idea that standard IQ tests should be debunked as intelligence can be measured many different ways. Susan Polgar was one of the people they had on the show. Others included a playwright, air-force pilot and others from various fields. They demonstrated that though each was extremely knowledgeable in their particular field, that this did not necessarily translate to other areas of life. (For the record; the playwright and the air-force pilot scored best across all tests given, this included making a painting, and handling basic tasks while seeing everything upside down)

 

Chess is truly a game of puzzle thinking, and now-a-days it is also combined with good memorization.  Though you may recall openings, or demonstrate good pattern recognition skills, this will not ensure an ability to score high on a standard IQ test.

 

I think it more realistic to presume that many people who show a greater intellect are more inclined to take up a complex endeavor such as chess because it intrigues their cognitive way of thinking. This doesn't mean that somebody who couldn't name a single element off a periodic table can't play the game, it's just that those who happen to enjoy expanding their mind, regardless of field, are inclined to play the game just the same.

 

Can one increase their level of standard intelligence if they play chess? The answer is yes, assuming they learn and improve not only at the game, but with the world around them. Though it should be noted that this can also hold true if the same individual decides to simply take on other studies beyond their present realm of experience.  

 

The end summation is that chess is merely a game. You do not have to be highly intelligent to play it, nor are you going to become more knowledgeable by taking up the game yet learning absolutely nothing else.  

I think Tarasch said that any person of average intelligence who works hard enough should at least be able to achieve an expert rating.

I think it's that the challenge of chess appeals to minds that instinctually seek out exactly that kind of logic problem to solve. Minds that balk at chess - and feel that it's repugnant or immediately too difficult, will also be of the type that won't necessarily enjoy plodding through a novel, for instance. The mind that is attracted to chess is one that must be able to appreciate aethetics, enjoy pattern recognition, calculation, analysis, the thrill of competition, etc... all traits that are consistent with those traditionally thought to constitute intelligence.

I believe that intelligent is the ability to make fine distinctions between what is good for you and what is bad. Being a "genius" in chess doesn't necessary mean that you'll be a genius at everything else. Those who are good at chess, are just simply able to make better descisions based on their knowledge and experience in chess. Someone good at school doesn't necessary have to be a good chess player, and a good chess player doesn't necessary have to be smart at school. Learning chess is like learning a different language, those who understand this "language" and easily communicate with each other, while those who do not understand this "language" can not understand the reason, or beauty behind it.

i consider myself smarter than most people.  in this sense, intelligence is when i am listening to someone and that person doesn't have the "intelligence" to get their point across, and thus, its hard to have an intelligent conversation with someone who is less intelligent than you.  Chess is also like a conversation.  If you opponent is blundering from the start, it's gonna be a bad date.  If your opponent has a much deeper understanding of chess than you, than he/she's out of your league. 

hondoham asked, "are 'IQ' tests being taken?" IQ tests were given to student populations in public schools at various grade levels when Bobby Fischer was in school. There were complaints and lawsuits about the nature of these tests resulting in their relegation to use for the diagnosis of students on an individual basis. Despite improvements in the tests this has remained the practice for decades. This avoids charges of bias in the tracking of students. Chess is a specific learned activity. As such, intelligence is helpful. However, intelligence tests are also specific learned activities. What we learn in our culture affects test results. Thomas Sowell has written about ethnic groups deemed to lack intelligence according to IQ tests, but show improvement in the next generation due to acculturation and education. Tests are always used to show evidence of learning. A demonstration of learning ability is regarded as a demonstration of intelligence. An IQ test should be different from an achievement test on a specific subject. A chess rating is a sort of achievement. If a matrix of chess functions can be identified, perhaps a test can be devised to try to measure a person's potential to develop chess achievement. 

GreenLaser wrote: hondoham asked, "are 'IQ' tests being taken?" IQ tests were given to student populations in public schools at various grade levels when Bobby Fischer was in school. There were complaints and lawsuits about the nature of these tests resulting in their relegation to use for the diagnosis of students on an individual basis. Despite improvements in the tests this has remained the practice for decades. This avoids charges of bias in the tracking of students. Chess is a specific learned activity. As such, intelligence is helpful. However, intelligence tests are also specific learned activities. What we learn in our culture affects test results. Thomas Sowell has written about ethnic groups deemed to lack intelligence according to IQ tests, but show improvement in the next generation due to acculturation and education. Tests are always used to show evidence of learning. A demonstration of learning ability is regarded as a demonstration of intelligence. An IQ test should be different from an achievement test on a specific subject. A chess rating is a sort of achievement. If a matrix of chess functions can be identified, perhaps a test can be devised to try to measure a person's potential to develop chess achievement. 

---

 Very interesting! Gets thumbs up of agreement from me.

I've heard that some very clever people stay away from chess, considering there are better things to do with someone's time.

But no scientific study bears this strange assumption.

Now how many chess.com points do I have ?

One of the toughest chess players I ever played against was functionally illiterate. But that SOB could play a mean game of chess. Real mean. After I picked my ego up off the floor (several times), I inquired about where on Earth he learned to play like that. The answer: prison.

 

True story.

My belief is that interest and dilligence build skill whilst natural talent (in this case the intelligence needed for chess) accelerate it.

So would I call Fischer and Kasparov geniuses... absolutely!

Yet they could still be called idiots judging by some of the things they've said and done.

Forgive me if this isn't the least bit comprehendable... I'm hungry :P.