If you are good at Chess then you are good at Chess thats it.
Chess IQ and generic IQ are different things, even generic IQ has a multitude of different tests all of which differ.
IQ is about as realistically measurable as Ron Jeremys sex life.
I am refering to abstract I.Q. specifically. Somehow a person who has a higher abstract reasoning has a better chance of being a good chess player. Though I agree with you we have different intelligence, abstract is an ability to look at things and easily knows what the pattern of it.
If you are good at Chess then you are good at Chess thats it.
Chess IQ and generic IQ are different things, even generic IQ has a multitude of different tests all of which differ.
IQ is about as realistically measurable as Ron Jeremys sex life.
I am refering to abstract I.Q. specifically. Somehow a person who has a higher abstract reasoning has a better chance of being a good chess player. Though I agree with you we have different intelligence, abstract is an ability to look at things and easily knows what the pattern of it.
I agree.
I have an apparent high IQ (being a member of Mensa and formerly a member of Prometheus but i dont keep up my annual membership) and I also have an eidetic memory (non specific) meaning it only applies to certain subjects which I cannot control.
Yet my Chess sucks and my mental arithmetic is appalling (better than average I guess but overall pretty poor I think)
So the whole general thing about High IQ and Chess are definately not true and I have read many studies on it too and there doesnt seem to be any direct correlation, there are good chess players with low IQ's depending on the test or at least unremarkable, and there are poor players with bell curve blowing scores.
What I think is that the people who create these tests (often some type of psychologists) need to be a bit more intelligent themselves ;-)
If you are good at Chess then you are good at Chess thats it.
Chess IQ and generic IQ are different things, even generic IQ has a multitude of different tests all of which differ.
IQ is about as realistically measurable as Ron Jeremys sex life.
I am refering to abstract I.Q. specifically. Somehow a person who has a higher abstract reasoning has a better chance of being a good chess player. Though I agree with you we have different intelligence, abstract is an ability to look at things and easily knows what the pattern of it.
I agree.
I have an apparent high IQ (being a member of Mensa and formerly a member of Prometheus but i dont keep up my annual membership) and I also have an eidetic memory (non specific) meaning it only applies to certain subjects which I cannot control.
Yet my Chess sucks and my mental arithmetic is appalling (better than average I guess but overall pretty poor I think)
So the whole general thing about High IQ and Chess are definately not true and I have read many studies on it too and there doesnt seem to be any direct correlation, there are good chess players with low IQ's depending on the test or at least unremarkable, and there are poor players with bell curve blowing scores.
What I think is that the people who create these tests (often some type of psychologists) need to be a bit more intelligent themselves ;-)
I hate psych* anything.
Peace
I agree. Different people have different intelligence.
Why then did I go down from 1200 (to 1361) when I beat someone who has a rating above 1200 (1089)?? Admittedly don't have time to read the article... but hoping someone knows how this works anyway!
But, you failed to see that in chess, 1361 is higher by 161 points, not lower by 161 points.
Chess ratings are like IQ. in a way. They track your performance based on wins and losses, not on how strong your moves were. IQ measures how you did on the IQ test, not anything else. CHess rating does not reflect how well you inderstand chess. THere are many skills in chess, tactical skills. opening knowledge, knowledge of specific endings (someone may be good at K and P but not know hot to handle N and P andings.) So rating is an abstract composite.
SIegbert Tarrasch said: "it is not enough to be a good player. One must also play well."
If you are good at Chess then you are good at Chess thats it.
Chess IQ and generic IQ are different things, even generic IQ has a multitude of different tests all of which differ.
IQ is about as realistically measurable as Ron Jeremys sex life.
If you are good at Chess then you are good at Chess thats it.
Chess IQ and generic IQ are different things, even generic IQ has a multitude of different tests all of which differ.
IQ is about as realistically measurable as Ron Jeremys sex life.
I am refering to abstract I.Q. specifically. Somehow a person who has a higher abstract reasoning has a better chance of being a good chess player. Though I agree with you we have different intelligence, abstract is an ability to look at things and easily knows what the pattern of it.
If you are good at Chess then you are good at Chess thats it.
Chess IQ and generic IQ are different things, even generic IQ has a multitude of different tests all of which differ.
IQ is about as realistically measurable as Ron Jeremys sex life.
I am refering to abstract I.Q. specifically. Somehow a person who has a higher abstract reasoning has a better chance of being a good chess player. Though I agree with you we have different intelligence, abstract is an ability to look at things and easily knows what the pattern of it.
I agree.
I have an apparent high IQ (being a member of Mensa and formerly a member of Prometheus but i dont keep up my annual membership) and I also have an eidetic memory (non specific) meaning it only applies to certain subjects which I cannot control.
Yet my Chess sucks and my mental arithmetic is appalling (better than average I guess but overall pretty poor I think)
So the whole general thing about High IQ and Chess are definately not true and I have read many studies on it too and there doesnt seem to be any direct correlation, there are good chess players with low IQ's depending on the test or at least unremarkable, and there are poor players with bell curve blowing scores.
What I think is that the people who create these tests (often some type of psychologists) need to be a bit more intelligent themselves ;-)
I hate psych* anything.
Peace
If you are good at Chess then you are good at Chess thats it.
Chess IQ and generic IQ are different things, even generic IQ has a multitude of different tests all of which differ.
IQ is about as realistically measurable as Ron Jeremys sex life.
I am refering to abstract I.Q. specifically. Somehow a person who has a higher abstract reasoning has a better chance of being a good chess player. Though I agree with you we have different intelligence, abstract is an ability to look at things and easily knows what the pattern of it.
I agree.
I have an apparent high IQ (being a member of Mensa and formerly a member of Prometheus but i dont keep up my annual membership) and I also have an eidetic memory (non specific) meaning it only applies to certain subjects which I cannot control.
Yet my Chess sucks and my mental arithmetic is appalling (better than average I guess but overall pretty poor I think)
So the whole general thing about High IQ and Chess are definately not true and I have read many studies on it too and there doesnt seem to be any direct correlation, there are good chess players with low IQ's depending on the test or at least unremarkable, and there are poor players with bell curve blowing scores.
What I think is that the people who create these tests (often some type of psychologists) need to be a bit more intelligent themselves ;-)
I hate psych* anything.
Peace
I agree. Different people have different intelligence.
Why then did I go down from 1200 (to 1361) when I beat someone who has a rating above 1200 (1089)?? Admittedly don't have time to read the article... but hoping someone knows how this works anyway!
But, you failed to see that in chess, 1361 is higher by 161 points, not lower by 161 points.
takinitez007 probably lost on time. He had a bigger peice and position total.
it's time to change the laws so black can move first sometimes. that would only be fair.
Chess ratings are like IQ. in a way. They track your performance based on wins and losses, not on how strong your moves were. IQ measures how you did on the IQ test, not anything else. CHess rating does not reflect how well you inderstand chess. THere are many skills in chess, tactical skills. opening knowledge, knowledge of specific endings (someone may be good at K and P but not know hot to handle N and P andings.) So rating is an abstract composite.
SIegbert Tarrasch said: "it is not enough to be a good player. One must also play well."
I like all people![Cool]( "Cool")
whoever goes first will win
How in hell did this thread go on for 5 years, and how is anyone supposed to follow all of it? :)
how to do shelter's move on the computer???![Undecided]( "Undecided")
how do you calculate position total?
In playing my first game on Chess.com, I received a rating of 1200, before I played. Why, and how was that arrived at?
1200 is the starting rating for all users. On chesskid.com, the starting rating is 600. How they got 1200 I dont know.
how do you calculate position total?
How??
Say you have a lot more peices than your opponent.
Your opponent, however, can checkmate you in only a few moves, you are up in material, but he has a position advantage.
If he could not checkmate you in only a few moves, then he does not have a position advantage.
Hope that helps.
it's time to change the laws so black can move first sometimes. that would only be fair.
That is how I think, too!
how do you calculate position total?
How??
Say you have a lot more peices than your opponent.
Your opponent, however, can checkmate you in only a few moves, you are up in material, but he has a position advantage.
If he could not checkmate you in only a few moves, then he does not have a position advantage.
Hope that helps.
if both players have same pieces then? how we calculate position advantage?
+1
nice
nice