http://www.healthfitnessrevolution.com/top-10-health-benefits-chess/
I disagree with that study on its premise despite the fact that those involved probably did become "smarter." Why? Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. (Latin for "after this, therefore because of this") Just because event A and B happen close in time, it does not necessarily mean that event A is responsible for event B.
Does chess help some people become "smarter?" Yes, I believe it does for some, but I noted this earlier on. What I debate is if it is the chess intrinsically, or something else about the process of learning chess (what I find more likely). In summary, I find it likely that presenting chess for someone to learn may very well make them "smarter." However, this is because it is a new challenge for them to grow and meet. If I were to present anything new to someone, the expected result is that they would become "smarter" for it. The question is essentially: Does chess intrinsically make the player "smarter," or is it the case that the player usually becomes "smarter" as a result of the chess study and work ethic that is needed to improve at chess? (I tend to lean towards the latter option, but this is philosophical grounds by this point)
In Dutch the word smart ( in Dutch slim (does not mean not thin) ) or clever in English can mean also handy or skillful. And is really something else as intelligence. The last is all about one thinking or cognitive abilities such as good in studying on school. Problem solving thinking. Etc. It can be expressed by IQ. But being smart does more mean that one is handy to make things work for them self, is handy on the work for example to get a promotion or is praktikal and found out something to sell something or making a fishline with some improvisation. Making friends saying the right things etc etc.
It has nothing to do with inteligentie. It is possible that someone with a IQ of 140 is not smart at all lives alone and have little social abilities. And someone not the brightes light on school can be very smart and make it in live very easy because of that. I don t know if this also is the case in English.
I read a lot of assumptions that does not have to be true. I personly do not think that chess makes you smart or that smart people are more likely to play chess. But what have shown is that if you learn chess to childern on school it benefits other things like they also perform better in other tasks. For example calculating, planning, space insight , combinating and finaly even to cope with losing and to cooperate with other childeren in the class.
I believe playing chess moderately make you smart. Playing excessively make you good in chess only.
Being "good" is relative.
Being "smart" is relative.
Being relative is relative
But can he sing!
Wait, perhaps that should have been a question. One never even asked.
True. Does being good in chess makes you a good singer? Or is it that if you are a good singer you become good in chess?
Only smyslov can answer that. When smyslov sings, I hear mandolins.
I believe playing chess moderately make you smart. Playing excessively make you good in chess only.
Playing, studying chess 6 hours and up daily means devoting no time studying anything else.
So chess is music to your ears? That's sounds reasonable. 
Take a pro player for example.
They are great at chess... they've devoted thousands upon thousands of hours to it. Yet they only have a skill with a board game. They've spent their life studying pieces on a board, which is no more than a game invented to pass the time.
Wouldn't it be smarter to have studied a scientific subject? Or invested time into becoming a doctor, or researcher? If they are so smart, shouldn't they have put in the time into cancer research, for example?
If it makes anyone feel better about themselves to sit on their fat asses playing chess to pretend they are participating in a sport, then go ahead and call your self a chess athlete lol.
If it makes anyone feel better about themselves to sit on their fat asses playing chess to pretend they are participating in a sport, then go ahead and call your self a chess athlete lol.
Chess athlete? That sounds awkward!
I disagree with that study on its premise despite the fact that those involved probably did become "smarter." Why? Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. (Latin for "after this, therefore because of this") Just because event A and B happen close in time, it does not necessarily mean that event A is responsible for event B.
Does chess help some people become "smarter?" Yes, I believe it does for some, but I noted this earlier on. What I debate is if it is the chess intrinsically, or something else about the process of learning chess (what I find more likely). In summary, I find it likely that presenting chess for someone to learn may very well make them "smarter." However, this is because it is a new challenge for them to grow and meet. If I were to present anything new to someone, the expected result is that they would become "smarter" for it. The question is essentially: Does chess intrinsically make the player "smarter," or is it the case that the player usually becomes "smarter" as a result of the chess study and work ethic that is needed to improve at chess? (I tend to lean towards the latter option, but this is philosophical grounds by this point)
Did you read the study or you disagree with a study you haven't read? I ask because a good study would be designed to rule out confounding data by use of a control and blinding or other methods.
I would also say that your argument that chess study and discipline makes you smarter but not chess itself, is illogical. Practically, if you immerse yourself in chess and become smarter, then the play, study, and the discipline are all part of the same thing; just playing chess.
I disagree with that study on its premise despite the fact that those involved probably did become "smarter." Why? Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. (Latin for "after this, therefore because of this") Just because event A and B happen close in time, it does not necessarily mean that event A is responsible for event B.
Does chess help some people become "smarter?" Yes, I believe it does for some, but I noted this earlier on. What I debate is if it is the chess intrinsically, or something else about the process of learning chess (what I find more likely). In summary, I find it likely that presenting chess for someone to learn may very well make them "smarter." However, this is because it is a new challenge for them to grow and meet. If I were to present anything new to someone, the expected result is that they would become "smarter" for it. The question is essentially: Does chess intrinsically make the player "smarter," or is it the case that the player usually becomes "smarter" as a result of the chess study and work ethic that is needed to improve at chess? (I tend to lean towards the latter option, but this is philosophical grounds by this point)
Did you read the study or you disagree with a study you haven't read? I ask because a good study would be designed to rule out confounding data by use of a control and blinding or other methods.
I would also say that your argument that chess study and discipline makes you smarter but not chess itself, is illogical. Practically, if you immerse yourself in chess and become smarter, then the play, study, and the discipline are all part of the same thing; just playing chess.
Ironically, I did read the study (that you accused me of not reading). Furthermore, I am quite well versed in studies as I have conducted many quasi-studies myself (To say that I am familiar with control groups and blinding would be an understatement). Also, I would have to disagree with the last point you asserted there. There is indeed a distinction between chess intrinsically helping one become "smarter" and the chess discipline taught making one "smarter." If it truly would be "illogical" as you claim, then why are there many chess players considered of "lesser than average 'smart-value?'" If your claim was correct, then everyone who plays chess should become "smart" (as a result of playing chess). Reductio ad absurdum to this would be all of the chess players we have all encountered who are not "smart." Playing chess also has to do with things like your love for the game of chess that we all here love; this has nothing to do with intelligence directly.
Although it has nothing to do with smarts, it will change the way you think strategically. That's what has happened to me.
I don't care how smart, intelligent, bright, gifted, etc. you are. If you lack common sense, it doesnt matter.
Smart people love to say they know a lot. Wise people say they have lots to learn.
Smart people love to say they know a lot. Wise people say they have lots to learn.
Indeed!
And like those that like to tell you how much they dont care. When in fact they do care.
A good question. Personally, I believe that if a person pours all they have into a specific art, they'll eventually reach zero, the point where mastery of one thing means mastery of another.