Chess and Intelligence.
Sort:
NM
GreenLaser
Mar 21, 2008
0
#21
ih8sens said, "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." Intelligence, achievement, knowledge, morality, and wisdom are five different words with different meanings. I assume these words are related to your evaluation of Fischer and Kasparov. Just as chess geniuses blunder in chess, they blunder elsewhere. This is true of stars in other fields. Bertrand Russell was perhaps a genius and an "idiot," to use your word. You can find many other examples. Compared with others, those with high intelligence may be able to achieve excellence in more than one field, and sound idiotic with the same versatility.
Mar 21, 2008
0
#23
there are cases when we make people look smarter than they really are on the chess board, and we do this by thinking that the person we are playing against is smarter than he/she really is:
what I mean by the paragraph above is that when we think that our opponent is much better player than he really is, or smarter chess player than we are, most times we look for moves supported by deep positional and strategical concepts, we do this because we believe that our ('smarter than us') opponent's moves are a product of his/her deep strategical/positional evalution of the position on the board, sometimes we are right in our believe, but I bet you that more than 70% of the cases our supposely smarter than us opponent is just making moves which are part of an unsound strategy which most times we fail to see do to the fact of our wrong expectation for the quality of our opponent's moves, that is why sometimes most of us fail to see even a non-forced checkmate in three (or less), or a potential unjustified lost of material when we are playing somone rated higher than we are
ex: it is known that some european players used this psychological factor to their advantage to make their opponents fall for cheap tactics at international competions, I bet that there have been many GMs that have hung their queens to higher rated GMs just because they were looking for depth in positions in which his higher rated opponent had simply threaten to take their queen in one move (oh, but who is expecting a russian GM to threaten his/her queen for no good strategical reason? well, some of them do (specially when they are not winning) and if you are mistakingly looking for a deep strategical move to answer that threat and don't see that your queen has been threaten, there she goes, and not only that, he is a genius now and you are not), a reverse effect of this psychological factor will happen if a strong chess player really playing 'deep chess' fails to realize when his much weaker opponent is just playing for cheat strategy
so, I think that to be successful at chess you have to be able to sometimes play not as smart as your opponent believe you to be playing, and also be able to come down to 'stupidity land' so you can see when your opponent is just trying to trick you
Fischer and Kasparov geniuses? Subjective, but there has been much printed material ballyhooing Fischer as a 180-200 IQ range but what seperated him from the pack was a photographic memory and an insatiable desire for study. Kaspy had the Russian chess system, plus natural talent in the Fischer vein. Both had a singleminded quest to be the best does that quantify genius? Like what has been mentioned there are different ranges of intelligence. Only the most recent (last 40-50 years,) chess players for the most part, strictly were that, chess players. Stienitz didn't start playing till he was 30? When you mention IQ and chess you will have opinions flying fast and furious from all corners. Rather subjective question with many avenues to get to the same point! Any chess geniuses here at Chess.com, please send me $20 and I will let you know :)-
One of my relatives is a brilliant mathematician, with a very high IQ. He is also a very poor chess player. That being said I don't think that the opposite can be possible.
Mar 21, 2008
0
#26
I can't believe everyone has an opinion on this :P I still don't... in fact, I only really thought about it today!
I guess if you're good at chess you're probably pretty bright, at least that's how it's seemed from my experience.
Being bright doesn't make you a good chess player neccesarily, though. There's no substitute for practice, experience, and a love of the game.
There! I have an opinion :).
Even the most subjective talents in chess sometimes take years to blossom. Botvinnik said Karpov had no talent for the game :)- Of course B. Gates said no one would need more the 16K of memory for a home computer :)- Reshevsky was a serious talent at the age of 4, same with Capablanca and Morphy, both who studied little but whose beauty and simplicity is not rivaled today. Genius in this day and age of chess has not as shown itself in sometime. Some say Carlsen or a couple others but like golf there is always someone new every ten years!
i coulnt help but notic you play alot of lower rated players. And you like to talk about your self. IQ tests tell a lot of people they are genious. I recently took one and scored a 167.
The one thing I've learned about online IQ tests is that if the first question asked is not about your age, then the test itself is invalid. Furthermore, IQ tests measure performance against a defined measure of intelligence. A defined measure of intelligence will not account for linguistical and cultural influences.
If Knowledge and intelligence holds value in usefulness, then why would a genius waste his time applying himself to chess? In my eyes,Kasparov should have saved lives (performing as a doctor rather then as a chess master) rather then play chess. But on that note, Imma start another game...
i juat 4 years old,is that mean i was the genius?
IQ maybe important but i think how much u pay out is the most factor ur can success
If you are trying to insinuate that I should have to tolerate such diabolical nonsense and idiosyncrasies, then clearly, you are a walking personification of an intellectual apathy.
I, once, subscribed to the idea that chess players are typically much more intelligent than the non-chess playing majority. Then, I joined Chess.com.
western_burn wrote: If you are trying to insinuate that I should have to tolerate such diabolical nonsense and idiosyncrasies, then clearly, you are a walking personification of an intellectual apathy.
are u comment my comment??
yes
"I might be an idiot , but i'm not stupid"
silentfilmstar13 wrote: I, once, subscribed to the idea that chess players are typically much more intelligent than the non-chess playing majority. Then, I joined Chess.com.
Check and mate. Of course, I love it here.
TalFan wrote:
"I might be an idiot , but i'm not stupid"
Conversely you might be stupid, but not an idiot.
..chess player not necessarily have good IQ or intelligent (if it means including other field of interest) ..i think the MOVES and reading the POSSIBILITIES in chess game has no correlation to other BETTER topics...TQ.
This entire debate is self-aggrandizing and odious, considering that the subjects in question are ourselves.