But what's "objective"? Clearly it isn't anything definite and observable.
Well, it is actually. We can look at whether it is possible to improve a person's score with practice, and whether populations' apparent IQ can change significantly over time. The answers are "yes" and "yes".
Anyhow, plenty of people do very well at chess with minimal study, if they're very intelligent and so it could be the other way round .... study only really matters the higher one goes.
Depends on how we're defining "well" and "minimal", but I will say that that is not a statement I would ever make in meeting around 100 players OTB.
I've never met a player above 1700 Elo that was not familiar with all the standard strategy and tactics terminology. Note: not merely familiar with the tactics themselves, but the actual terms typically used, indicating that they have read or watched materials about these concepts.
And I have never met a 2000 Elo player that wasn't familiar with a wide range of openings (and again, could give the names of the openings).
I think if one were to list chess concepts in order of increasing nuance / difficulty, and give people a provisional rating based on the point in the list where they became unfamiliar, it would be pretty accurate in most cases.
It wouldn't work for titled players, who will all essentially know all the main body of chess knowledge, but that was my point.
The question was about what "objective" means. Objectivity is no more than an attempt to make the subjective look more real or an attempt to make it sound more real.
I think this philosophical tangent is something of a handwave. I am making a specific point about IQ tests and you seem unable or unwilling to actually respond to it.
I remember reading an article that Nigel Short was just an average student and teachers were disappointed because they expected him to be extraordinary in academics.
"I have no idea. People who boast about their IQ are losers."
-- Stephen Hawking, on being asked about his IQ score.
Don't accept that. He simply evaded the question in order to try to look "cool" but it was a relevant question.
ok. then how about this? "the only thing that being good at chess means is that you are good at chess." -bobby fischer
Better question: why are so many chess players obsessed with IQ? I know what Herr Freud would say...
Almost every non-player will say "yes" because they mistakenly associate chess with intelligence.
Every time I've seen this question asked to a GM they say "no."
The great majority of chess players will tell you "no"
No. IQ has nothing to do with chess. Im very high IQ and am 1200
No.
For once I agree with u
Lol I was saying IQ is nothing to do with chess
But the reason you gave, that you have a high IQ and aren't any good at chess, didn't support your claim. It wasn't logical in that way.
lol
It was evidence. It DID have something to do lmaoooo
So what's your IQ, if that's so funny?
Lolz Im 12 so IDK but I frequently win quizes, enjoy debating and I have historian level WW2 knowledge
You know very well it wasn't true.
What isnt true?
Who flew the Spitfire featured on the UK 17 pence stamp featuring Lord Dowding? And what happened to the 'plane?
IDK that but send a chat request and ask a bunch of questions to me and Ill answer correct
OK
Almost every non-player will say "yes" because they mistakenly associate chess with intelligence.
Every time I've seen this question asked to a GM they say "no."
The great majority of chess players will tell you "no"
What they may answer doesn't mean anything. They're chess players, not psychologists. And what's a "really high IQ"? 125?
Read the quote. He made a claim about what chess players say, and I disagreed with him.
Do you need really high IQ to be great at Chess?
No.