Chess rating system

proletariate

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.

armhow
proletariate wrote:

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.

proletariate
armhow wrote:
proletariate wrote:

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

armhow
proletariate wrote:
armhow wrote:
proletariate wrote:

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.

pundithv
MickyBJ wrote:

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.

pundithv
IckyIke wrote:
 

takinitez007 probably lost on time.  He had a bigger peice and position total.

koolmobboss

it's time to change the laws so black can move first sometimes.  that would only be fair. 

rahmboy

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."

minhtam851078

I like all peopleCool

jojosayslol

whoever goes first will win

KarlPilkington

How in hell did this thread go on for 5 years, and how is anyone supposed to follow all of it? :)

creed107

how to do shelter's move on the computer???Undecided

officially007

how do you calculate position total?

pundithv
mznor wrote:

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.

pundithv
officially007 wrote:

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.

pundithv
koolmobboss wrote:

it's time to change the laws so black can move first sometimes.  that would only be fair. 

That is how I think, too!

officially007
pundithv wrote:
officially007 wrote:

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?

Defence4Gizchehs
chesspunk04 wrote:
Well actually they do, otherwise we'd all be equal with Kasparov. Only we wouldn't get the chance to play him to find out. Well not all of us anyway.

+1

sakeththth123

nice

sakeththth123

nice