the same holds true for gamblers, you almost never meet anyone who admits to losing; in fact everyone tells you how lucky they are. yet the casinos and the bookies manage to eke out a living.
Does I.Q. = rating?!
Sort:
Oct 15, 2008
0
#63
amac, "eke" is not quite the right word. that could qualify for the understatement of the century. The casinos (dealers and management) do very very well indeed.
Oct 15, 2008
0
#64
RetGuvvie98 wrote:
amac, "eke" is not quite the right word. that could qualify for the understatement of the century. The casinos (dealers and management) do very very well indeed.
True, casino management does well. Perhaps, 5% of gamblers do win. One problem winners have is that casinos will ban them with excuses such as counting cards. Sometimes a casino will actually not pay off. Underage losers are accepted, but underage winners can be "caught." Here is a rule for horse players: "The horses always eat." That applies to casinos also, unless they are run by the government. Casinos extract wealth and could be said to be producing wealth by providing a service. Government cannot produce wealth, only tax it. I believe government run betting and lotteries should not exist, but those that do exist should not tax winners. Lottery winners in the USA, because of taxes do not collect their winnings. They only get the equivalent of an annuity on what they have won.
Some lotteries have the option for a one-time payout. Usually works out to 50% of the total but savvy investors assume they can do better with that than waiting for 20 years of annual payouts. Despite my high IQ I have never won the big one 
Oct 15, 2008
0
#66
goldendog wrote:
Some lotteries have the option for a one-time payout. Usually works out to 50% of the total but savvy investors assume they can do better with that than waiting for 20 years of annual payouts. Despite my high IQ I have never won the big one
Taking the lump sum is best. Then the winner can realize more after investing most of that. I have noticed news of the sum being clearly below 50%, but it is still better to take some principal than none. The only thing worse than simply getting, for example, $50,000 a year for 20 years to collect $1 million dollars, is not getting paid at all. It is just 5% a year without getting the principal. So, the government keeps the principal and pays the equivalent of interest to keep it and then taxes the winner on the 5%.
exigentsky wrote:
Duffer1965 wrote:
greasyfingers wrote:
Hopefully Bill Wall won't mind if I link to a piece he wrote on the subject:
Oddly, this was post #5 but it seems that most people did not read the linked article. One very interesting fact is that Kasparov had a measured IQ of 135. If the Great Kasparov "only" has an IQ of 135, we can say without hesitation that whatever component IQ might play in potential chess ability, it cannot be the most significant. It is interesting to note that Kasparov's memory was shown to be exceptional.
Kasparov also had an IQ test in the 180s. IQ tests are not a science or objective and do not measure everything. Tests vary in scales, upper limits, weighting etc., not to mention a person's general variance. Kasparov may very well be more intelligent than someone with an IQ 50 points higher and he also may not be. Read my previous post about this as well as the original thread if you're that interested.
Agreed. IQ tests are horribly inconsistent and ultimately prove very little. Quite often someone will have different scores at different points in their life...So who knows about Kasparov's IQ? Does is really matter? I don't really care. He is a smart dude, though. (I always wondered if his earlier score in the 180s may have been exaggerated by the Soviets to demonstrate how hyper-intellegent he is and thus emblematic of their entire idealogy.)
dsarkar wrote:
camdawg18 wrote:
greasyfingers wrote:
Hopefully Bill Wall won't mind if I link to a piece he wrote on the subject:
I read this this in that article:
In 1988, British Grandmaster Jon Levitt came up with the Levitt equation. His equation says that a player with an IQ of Y, after many years of tournament play and study, would tend to have a chess Elo rating of about 10Y + 1000. So if Fischer's IQ was 180, then his Elo rating would be 10x180 + 1000 or 2800. Fischer's Elo rating was 2785. His maximum USCF rating was 2825.
This is interesting... so any person with an average IQ of say 120-130 could have a high probability of at least achieving a rating of about 2200-2300 with those requirements!
camdawg18, many many thanks for the Levitt Equation! I learnt something new today, and very reassuring for people like me! Thanks!
Keep in mind that this "equation" that he came up with states "after many years of tournament play and study". Taking that into consideration this cant be accepted or denied without any proof one way or another, but it does sound somewhat appealing.
Oct 15, 2008
0
#69
I'll bet there are autistic savants that can play the Hell out of chess but can't make simple change.
princetrumpet wrote:
I'll bet there are autistic savants that can play the Hell out of chess but can't make simple change.
We hear of idiot savants who excell at math and music, for example, but
I've never heard of anyone who could be classed as both a good chess player
(let's say USCF Expert at least?) and otherwise mentally low functioning. Is there
someone like that out there?
Oct 15, 2008
0
#71
there's probably a correlation but I'm sure there are many exceptions. For example, if someone with an average I.Q. studies chess alot, he would most likely have a higher rating than someone with an I.Q. of 140 who hardly ever studied chess.
Although all of us know about the importance of intelligence, but there are also other important elements for which are a must for a good chessplayer, such as physical health, strong nervous system, personality, creativity, passion for winning and so on.
And if you look at the equation, even a person of "average intelligence" i.e. 100 IQ can reach a rating of 2000. Clearly the IQ part only matters at expert and master levels anyway. However, this equation could be a lot of gaarbage and was created by taking somone's rating and the same person's IQ and just making an equation out of it. So this is just all hypothetical talk.
Oct 16, 2008
0
#74
A view of intelligence and chess achievement that I have seen in chess literature states that an average person can be a high achiever in chess while a genius can be a high achiever in a greater number of fields.
Oct 16, 2008
0
#75
Unfortunately, IQ tests don't really measure intelligence. They probably measure testwiseness, the ability to understand how multiple choice pen and paper tests are designed and the ability to guess which responses testmakers consider correct. Playing chess is a somewhat different skill. You need to be able to calculate variations, evaluate positions and apply your experience in order to be able to win at chess.
i believe that good chess playing ability is a mixture of many mental capabilities. some of those abilities are made stronger by hard work, study and training,... Some other abilities on the other hand, do depend on ones IQ. so anyone quite intelligent can become a master, but not a master like the ones who have higher IQ , because they have some intrinsic mental advance....
Oct 16, 2008
0
#77
A couple of people have mentioned Howard Gardner's ideas on multiple intelligences, but I think Robert Sternberg's concept of practical intelligence is perhaps even more important here. Chess is a very practical skill based on the evaluation of advantage derived from one's experience in games in the past. Sternberg's main point is that traditional IQ tests consist only of questions where there are clear answers that testmakers agree on. Chess is more like real life in that two grandmasters may have different opinions on the value of different lines. Chess is a practical skill, while IQ is a fairly abstract theoretical skill which probably does not tell you very much about how you solve problems in real life.
rigamagician wrote:
A couple of people have mentioned Howard Gardner's ideas on multiple intelligences, but I think Robert Sternberg's concept of practical intelligence is perhaps even more important here. Chess is a very practical skill based on the evaluation of advantage derived from one's experience in games in the past. Sternberg's main point is that traditional IQ tests consist only of questions where there are clear answers that testmakers agree on. Chess is more like real life in that two grandmasters may have different opinions on the value of different lines. Chess is a practical skill, while IQ is a fairly abstract theoretical skill which probably does not tell you very much about how you solve problems in real life.
with the exception of its logic and pattern recognition questions, no?
Oct 16, 2008
0
#79
Good post peter although I must disagree that computers are 'far' from solving chess. Its just a matter of time before quantum computers get off the ground and solving chess will no longer be an obstacle.
It might also be added that ones IQ by no means is a static and unchangeable factor. It is surely right that the ability to train up a high IQ is highly affected by the childhood years IQ is too something that you can change by "training your brain".
If you study chess and play chess it is bound to increase your IQ...
wow the average IQ on this thread alone is about 160, maybe you could all get together and solve the worlds problems in like....3 minutes?
IQ = E.G.O.
90% of people think that they have higher than average IQ's...how can this be possible?
While chess players generally have a higher IQ than average, the most likely explanation is that the IQs given here are not accurate. They were taken from online tests, weren't professional, had a different scale or... people guessed and made up numbers. The latters is very common online. I have yet to find a forum where the average IQ isn't at least in the top 1%. It all leads to one answer: BS.
In reality, I don't even know anyone from a lage group of my friends and aquaintances that has taken an IQ test (nor have I taken one). The reason is that you would generally need to be determined to do it yourself since you're not going to be forced to take something like the WAIS, Stanford-Binet or Cattel. Given that it costs quite a bit of money and takes many hours without even offering anything too useful, many will not be that interested.