Chess vs IQ

RichardMCraven wrote:
binomine wrote:

I don't think you can correlate the two, but if you want some data...

My son's IQ is 137 measured and his rating is 167. 

I have no doubt he is a genius and the things he puts together are insane, but if the computer wasn't correcting his illegal moves, he probably wouldn't be able to play at all. 

137 puts your son in the top 1%, which is very intelligent but not genius-level. My iq was measured at 140 at school 45 years ago, and I was regarded as gifted rather than an outstanding student - generally near the top of my class but rarely at the pinnacle. I did a Philosophy PhD a few years ago in my early middle age, which I'm very proud of, but it wasn't easy. There were people in my cohort who were very obviously much cleverer than me.

Well to be fair, due to the Flynn effect, your IQ would be lower than my son's.  tongue.png

I would counter that the existence of Magnus Carlsen does not make John Bartholomew a weak chess player, despite the fact that Carlsen is significantly stronger than Bartholomew. 

Optimissed wrote:

Epistemology, I suppose. I did do a module on Indian or Eastern philosophy but it was presented by an English guy who was held in very great regard but who was a Buddhist convert, more or less. I was more interested in classical Hinduism. I remember having to do an essay on "Is Emptiness Really Empty", which can be approached from all angles, really, and was a bit like the classic school detention essay, "On the inside of a ping pong ball". Having spent five months in India in 1976, I had become interested.


We say 'nothing is impossible'.

Q. Then, what is impossible?

Ans. Nothing

Then, what is this 'nothing'?

We indirectly say that 'nothing' is impossible.

It means that there is something impossible. And the impossible thing is 'nothing'.




Some things are nothing to be worried about and no things are something to be scared of.