Chess vs IQ

Sort:
BlackLawliet
BlackYagami wrote:
Optimissed wrote:

Many prominent phycologists, such as the professor Jordan Peterson, have stated that if you have an IQ of 140 - 145, you can be the best or most prominent individual in your entire field>>

Yeah, that's quite true. Being prominent in a professional field would require basic intelligence but there are many other factors in play. Willingness to learn and to work, interpersonal skills, memory .... all sorts of things are required, tied together with intellectual skills or ability. I knew a pathologist who fitted that bill before he died early from cancer. He wasn't a genius .... he was clever. My father was considered foremost in his own field. He was a quantity surveyor. Prominent people in their fields aren't necessarily geniuses. My grandfather was thought of as an excellent fitter and my wife's father was a sheet metal worker. 20 years before I met my wife I was interested in train spotting. I was invited aboard a Napier Deltic and shown the engine room by the driver. Rather thrilling because of the high pitched whine the Deltic makes as the revs increase. The driver pointed to some ducting and cowling on the exhaust and maybe the intake. He told me this engine was a prototype and somewhere, down near Manchester, there was a genius who had put it together without any drawings. That turned out to be my wife's dad.

That is all sincerely very interesting, buy I must rebuttal haha. I would argue that being the MOST prominent in a professional field takes much more than a basic intelligence level, and many of the traits you listed as substitutes for high intelligence, or at least other factors that are at play, are directly tied in to intelligence, such as memory, interpersonal skills, etc. Also, wanted to apologize for the double teaming, I swear it's unintentional haha - I'm just really enjoying where this conversation is going, as well as the points that you're making

I agree. This is the most interesting thread I've read so far.

BlackYagami
Optimissed wrote:

Fair question. I'm just in contention with them. I might be cleverer than they are or I might have a better natural understanding of the subject than they do. After all, no-one knows how the brain works, do they. We don't even really understand yet what it does.

But it isn't important, is it? What is important (arguably) is understanding and coming to understand more about how the mind works. If we ever want to develop artificial intelligence, that would be essential.

We're all entitled to argue for what we believe is true, irrespective of those who don't understand but merely learn things, whatever their qualifications. It's what makes humanity so unpredictable and, arguably, great. I wouldn't presume to understand more quantum physics than a quantum physicist or to speak better Russian than someone who studied that language. I can't speak any Russian at all. Niet. But psychology is not the same.

I would certainly agree with the bulk of that

JBSpecialTime
Intelligence measurements are only meaningful within the scope where they’re measured. Ever met someone with a high IQ that made poor choices in relationships and finances? While we excel in some area, we may lack in others. Each of us must find our happy balance of strengths, while acknowledging our weaknesses.
x-9140319185
Optimissed wrote:

By the way, this is the post where you grace us all with your objective definition of what a genius is.>>

You want me to do that? I will if you will. Give me a couple of days. I don't need two days to think about it. Two minutes may be enough, but it's been a long day and tomorrow I'm busy.>>

It snowed, the power went off and came back on and I had to go out to reset an alarm. While I was walking it occurred to me that I don't want to try to define genius ... certainly not yet .... but there are a couple of comments I could make.

Genius is not intellect. At least, it isn't restricted to it. I would suggest that all genius is more instinctive than intellectual.

We have two basic ways of thinking. We can be rational .... that is, formulate arguments and propositions and see where they lead. It would be possible to be "a genius" at that, but genius is really something higher. It depends on an instinct to formulate the RIGHT propositions and to push them in the RIGHT direction. It is instinctive and it is all about understanding rather than learning. It is possible to understand something by using creative intelligence, which is maybe like a subconscious imagination which can sometimes be summoned at will. It really is possible to understand something without having learned about it or learned it or practised it. In fact, learning about something might well block understanding in some or many cases.

If genius is all about understanding, then it depends on mental clarity. And, if you like, it requires a mentality that doesn't question but just accepts and yet which is also capable of incisive judgement. That's quite a tricky combination .... to be creative, which requires a lack of judgement, and yet to be able to judge one's ideas accurately.

This is due to the nature of the other type of thinking that humans are capable of. The type that isn't rational. It has been called iconic thought and it consists of images. It depends on real time and the moment we try to slow it down or check it or rationalise it, we lose it. Therefore many people never experience it.

Instinct is just subconscious reasoning. It’s still “intellect”, just not conspicuous intellect.

MairynWillims2

hi

BlackLawliet

hello.

constantcucumber

I would like to see one between games played and rating

BlackLawliet

That would be interesting.

blueemu

Intuition is largely based on experience and pattern recognition. IMO.

Leo_Bot

www.chess.com/live/game/6199344829

mpaetz

     

     IQ measures some aspects of problem-solving abilities and quick recognition of the essential elements of the problems. It does NOT measure overall "intelligence", nor do its researchers claim that it does. Many high-IQ people do poorly in many aspects of daily life--interpersonal relations, judgement of the best way to approach elementary tasks that "common sense" makes simple for most of us, or finding your way home from you lab at Princeton (Einstein). 

     While high IQ will help people learn chess principles more quickly and understand what coaches and expert players are telling them more easily overall intelligence is only a small part of chess ability. Competitiveness, memory, ability to concentrate at maximum level for hours, etc. are also important. The most important natural chess abilities are visualization (being able to "see" the board after a few moves are made) and visual memory (recall of previously seen--in learning or from previous games or study). An average-IQ person (as Hiraku admits to being) with a high complement of other chess abilities will be able to significantly outperform a genius lacking in the other essential traits.

     My IQ 163 (55+ years ago), best USCF rating 2090 (30 years ago). 

     I've known geniuses who never "got the hang" of chess even after playing for a few years and those I considered "thick as bricks" who rapidly became strong players.

MMTMIT

Hiraku never admitted to having an average IQ.

blueemu
MMTMIT wrote:

Hiraku never admitted to having an average IQ.

Is "having an average IQ" something shameful, that needs to be admitted?

MMTMIT

Having an average IQ is pretty bad.

blueemu
MMTMIT wrote:

Having an average IQ is pretty bad.

Having an above average IQ and doing nothing with it (except brag) is far worse.

beausmaster

Since I'm a psychologist and an expert on intelligence and IQ tests, I wish to make several observations. The standards of IQ tests vary depending on their standard deviation, which is to say that one person who scores a 110 on an IQ test could basically be scoring the same as a person who scores 124 on another test. For accurate comparisons, then, everyone would need to take the same test. Secondly, I don't think any of the GM's mentioned here have IQ's above 170, since many IQ tests don't even go that high. IQ is a broad section of skills, and chess is just one very narrow one. I always thought Bobby Fischer was an idiot savant: he was brilliant at chess but seemed like an idiot when he tried to discuss anything else. Finally, the average IQ is 100, and the present gold standard IQ test is the WAIS. The word "genius" in intelligence is open for debate, but "mentally gifted" is accepted by psychologist, meaning the IQ is in the top two per cent of the population.

MMTMIT
blueemu wrote:
MMTMIT wrote:

Having an average IQ is pretty bad.

Having an above average IQ and doing nothing with it (except brag) is far worse.

Good thing I don't do that.

x-9140319185
blueemu wrote:

Intuition is largely based on experience and pattern recognition. IMO.

True, but the brain still has to compute how to execute the actions. The “what should I do” is figured out from pattern recognition, but the process of say, lifting your arms still require proper calculations to actually do it.

BlackYagami
MMTMIT wrote:

Having an average IQ is pretty bad.

Hahaha

BlackYagami
beausmaster wrote:

Since I'm a psychologist and an expert on intelligence and IQ tests, I wish to make several observations. The standards of IQ tests vary depending on their standard deviation, which is to say that one person who scores a 110 on an IQ test could basically be scoring the same as a person who scores 124 on another test. For accurate comparisons, then, everyone would need to take the same test. Secondly, I don't think any of the GM's mentioned here have IQ's above 170, since many IQ tests don't even go that high. IQ is a broad section of skills, and chess is just one very narrow one. I always thought Bobby Fischer was an idiot savant: he was brilliant at chess but seemed like an idiot when he tried to discuss anything else. Finally, the average IQ is 100, and the present gold standard IQ test is the WAIS. The word "genius" in intelligence is open for debate, but "mentally gifted" is accepted by psychologist, meaning the IQ is in the top two per cent of the population.

Thanks!