You- go and try to memorize Silman's, Endgame Manual. Now. Memorize every move.
Can you?
No. Why? Because human brains don't work like that. Yes, every one in ten thousand do, but you and me? No.
Chess isn't much of an intelligent game
Sort:
Chess is a very intelligent game. It helps you build strategy and thinking skills. It also teaches you to take the limitations of something and make the best of it by giving you the ways a certain piece can move and leaving you to decide on a move to make that will incite a move from the other person. Chess is an intelligent game and it helps you build intelligence.
TheThirdMouse wrote:
xikelol wrote:
Destiny wrote:
All the pieces have defined moves, as long as you keep your mind where your own and opponent's pieces can move on the board at all times, you'll do fine.
There's stuff like baiting your opponent into moving a piece here and there or to make something else vulnerable. Other than that, chess has a low skill floor and an even lower skill ceiling.
Speaking of baiting, is that what you are doing in this thread, just trolling? According to you a low IQ player would perform equal to opponant of higher intelligence if they have the same game knowledge. It's simply idiotic, aptitude tests such as these always favor the higher IQ.
IQ and intelligence are two separate things. IQ is more like the elo and glicko systems, in that it is a measure of performance rather than a description of one's actual merit or strength. Also, my IQ is only 45 and I am better than you at chess with more than three times your rapid rating.
Lol. I actually agree with you on most of what you said, however you wouldn't have said any of that with 45 IQ, maybe get a room with Destiny, you two can enjoy eachother in private. And as for my rating, i have played less chess games than your ficticious IQ.
I don't think the argument is about whether it increases your IQ.
TheThirdMouse wrote:
I am a molecular biologist, so a lot of what I do is working with information and I have to be able to extract information from what I have at hand. Get a hold of how things work. I want to be able to do , retain and extrapolate these things a little bit more deftly, rather than taking the scenic route through what is already a fairly professional career with a high "ask" from the careerwoman.
I know how things work. You can't memorize whole chess books. Try it, I'll be there ready. Yes, maybe one in every ten thousand can. But normal people like us can't.
Honestly what I believe is this:
Chess is a game based on Chess IQ not complete Human Intelligence, it is based on memorization of moves, experiences and overall skill in the game. However Chess IQ and Human IQ are different. Sure they have some coorelation but saying they are the same is like saying a horse is the same thing as a car.
What I believe is for Chess IQ you have to have it to be a Super GM no questions asked. But I believe to be a GM you don't have to have all of it like as Super GM has, but you still have to have it.
Also to be a IM,FM,CM, or NM or, WIM,WFM, or WCM, it takes some Chess IQ but then again I feel like it takes mostly the building of the skill, the time, the effort, the grind and the study.
Although I may not be a Master, I don't believe that it takes to much to be a master or be in the 2200 club. Same goes for the IM(no dis. to the IM's or anybody else on that level or lower.) I feel like it takes the skill that you build, the time, the effort, the grind and the study.
Now when it comes to Super GM's, absolutely you need to have Chess IQ and an abundance of it but otherwise I don't think it would be too much of a need.
The need for Chess IQ in Master play: I would say for a Super GM:9/10 , GM: 1/2 , for IM: 3/10 CM/FM or NM: like 2/10 for Chess IQ and for 2000 and below you don't need too much Chess IQ, just experience, study and skills to guide you in that battle.
I Know some may disagree and that is ok, but this is just what I feel towards how much on the Master level's Chess IQ could be needed for a players level.
true, I agree with you on that.
May 26, 2020
0
#49
TheThirdMouse wrote:
xikelol wrote:
Destiny wrote:
All the pieces have defined moves, as long as you keep your mind where your own and opponent's pieces can move on the board at all times, you'll do fine.
There's stuff like baiting your opponent into moving a piece here and there or to make something else vulnerable. Other than that, chess has a low skill floor and an even lower skill ceiling.
Speaking of baiting, is that what you are doing in this thread, just trolling? According to you a low IQ player would perform equal to opponant of higher intelligence if they have the same game knowledge. It's simply idiotic, aptitude tests such as these always favor the higher IQ.
IQ and intelligence are two separate things. IQ is more like the elo and glicko systems, in that it is a measure of performance rather than a description of one's actual merit or strength. Also, my IQ is only 45 and I am better than you at chess with more than three times your rapid rating.
If your IQ is 45 it means you are mentally retarded, which is probably why you started this discussion.
The game of Chess has never been fully recognizable, we always had to base them on estimations and such is this conversation as truly we will never know. I guess it just depends on the person, their gifts and ablities, understanding, study. etc.
The conclusion I made cannot cover everything that we know about IQ(chess or human) to further understand the developments of the game. The only thing we can do it is make estimations and stick to that for the most part.
May 26, 2020
0
#51
Destiny wrote:
All the pieces have defined moves, as long as you keep your mind where your own and opponent's pieces can move on the board at all times, you'll do fine.
There's stuff like baiting your opponent into moving a piece here and there or to make something else vulnerable. Other than that, chess has a low skill floor and an even lower skill ceiling.
Is that why you are still untitled?
Destiny wrote:
chessmix63 wrote:
this thread was clearly created by a bullet player. people who take time and effort to tihnk during a slow game know the truth. bullet is based off simple rules: give your opponent things to think about so he gets into time trouble and either flags or blunders. not much of an intelligence game indeed
If there were any intelligent chess players, I would say bullet players are BY FAR the most intelligent. In longer time controls you get to spend an absurd amount of time justifying a single move. You already know where your pieces are and where the opponent's pieces are. Just look at the board and you'll do fine. Games like poker, League of Legends, and Mario Kart take way more skill since you need to rely on game sense and logic to know where the opposing party is. In chess just look at the board. In bullet the pieces are moving so fast you need to rely on your own intuition and thus your natural intelligence.
I don't understand how those game are more intelligent than chess.
this argument somehow ended up in IQ and intelligence too... It seems that most chest players have some sort of obsession with IQ and issues with pride.. Why nobody is playing chess 960 huh? Its a much better game than normal chess, there are so many more moves you can discover and so much more to calculate.. You hypocrites!!!
An_asparagusic_acid wrote:
Destiny wrote:
All the pieces have defined moves, as long as you keep your mind where your own and opponent's pieces can move on the board at all times, you'll do fine.
There's stuff like baiting your opponent into moving a piece here and there or to make something else vulnerable. Other than that, chess has a low skill floor and an even lower skill ceiling.
Is that why you are still untitled?
Because I'd rather spend the limited time I have on other activities that take more skill and intelligence than a title in a simple board game?
TheThirdMouse wrote:
Yudodattome wrote:
TheThirdMouse wrote:
xikelol wrote:
Destiny wrote:
All the pieces have defined moves, as long as you keep your mind where your own and opponent's pieces can move on the board at all times, you'll do fine.
There's stuff like baiting your opponent into moving a piece here and there or to make something else vulnerable. Other than that, chess has a low skill floor and an even lower skill ceiling.
Speaking of baiting, is that what you are doing in this thread, just trolling? According to you a low IQ player would perform equal to opponant of higher intelligence if they have the same game knowledge. It's simply idiotic, aptitude tests such as these always favor the higher IQ.
IQ and intelligence are two separate things. IQ is more like the elo and glicko systems, in that it is a measure of performance rather than a description of one's actual merit or strength. Also, my IQ is only 45 and I am better than you at chess with more than three times your rapid rating.
If your IQ is 45 it means you are mentally retarded, which is probably why you started this discussion.
The op is @Destiny. And no, MR is under 70.
But 45 is under 70. (And I don't really think you are mentally retarded)
VirusS3 wrote:
this argument somehow ended up in IQ and intelligence too... It seems that most chest players have some sort of obsession with IQ and issues with pride..
I think chess and IQ have an inverse correlation. That's why the smartest people on Earth don't play chess.
TheThirdMouse wrote:
Yes but I am not MR because 45, but because under 70. I was correcting the qualifier.
Now I'm confused.
TheThirdMouse wrote:
boyeu2011 wrote:
TheThirdMouse wrote:
Yes but I am not MR because 45, but because under 70. I was correcting the qualifier.
Now I'm confused.
I am sorry my articulation is okay at first but it starts to drop off as I talk more. I am anxious about my spelling and have chronic Hematidrosis
Just please explain.
boyeu2011 wrote:
Destiny wrote:
chessmix63 wrote:
this thread was clearly created by a bullet player. people who take time and effort to tihnk during a slow game know the truth. bullet is based off simple rules: give your opponent things to think about so he gets into time trouble and either flags or blunders. not much of an intelligence game indeed
If there were any intelligent chess players, I would say bullet players are BY FAR the most intelligent. In longer time controls you get to spend an absurd amount of time justifying a single move. You already know where your pieces are and where the opponent's pieces are. Just look at the board and you'll do fine. Games like poker, League of Legends, and Mario Kart take way more skill since you need to rely on game sense and logic to know where the opposing party is. In chess just look at the board. In bullet the pieces are moving so fast you need to rely on your own intuition and thus your natural intelligence.
I don't understand how those game are more intelligent than chess.
Proof that chess does not attract the brightest minds. Those games take infinitely more skill than chess ever will.
I am leaving. Bye