The first part of your reasoning is correct, but the rest isn't.
First there's only a limited correlation between IQ and chess.
Second, I doubt you'll find many competition chess players in the ranks of what you call 'the brightest minds'.
Third, there are countries where chess offers more career opportunities, thus stimulating the development of strong players (eg. India).
So if you live in London / New York, you'll go against much stronger opposition than if you live in a small town in Wales / Utah. Thefore your rating would be greatly inflated in the latter case: even a mediocre player facing only bad players will be able to get his rating up.
Depends on the local pool you're playing in. If there are a couple of strong players in your area, the opposite could happen as those guys may be under-rated (ask US players about this).
In the United States this is an interesting idea that I don't know how much is true and how much is imagined. I've heard people say e.g. "When I moved from this state to some other state my rating dropped / went up 100 points"
I wonder if certain areas of Russia are considered tougher for local amateurs than others.
The rest of the post, as hicetnunc said, is not correct I think. First of all, IQ =/= chess strength. Also having a career (especially one that requires a lot of thinking) is more likely to make you a weaker player because there's less time for chess.
Knowing that there is a correlation between math/logical intelligence and chess, it stands to reason that the strongest chess players will have to be found where there are jobs for the brightest minds. And I'm sorry for you, politically correct crowd, but the average guy who works in investment banking is much smarter (at least as far as math/logic goes) than the average guy who shags sheeps in a godforsaken countryside.
you're just incorrect about chess and intelligence. I know nothing of your politics except that you assume labourers are less intelligent that non-labourers. That, too, is incorrect.
This is just obviously wrong. Investment bankers are more educated than the average country Joe but intelligence, or IQ, is fairly evenly distributed across populations. Even in math your average farmer may be much better than you imagine. They spend all day evaluating costs and returns on everything from fuel to feed and seed to fertilizer. Heck, I grew up out in the wonderful godforsaken countryside. I'm a system administrator managing about twelve servers, three hundred PCs, several field sites, and all the associated network infrastructure and software. But I'm country so I must be stupid.
This is just obviously wrong. Investment bankers are more educated than the average country Joe but intelligence, or IQ, is fairly evenly distributed across populations. Even in math your average farmer may be much better than you imagine. They spend all day evaluating costs and returns on everything from fuel to feed and seed to fertilizer. Heck, I grew up out in the wonderful godforsaken countryside. I'm a system administrator managing about twelve servers, three hundred PCs, several field sites, and all the associated network infrastructure and software. But I'm country so I must be stupid.
yes, but let's not beat up on this guy plutonia too hard. He's obviously stating an opinion that has no grounding in any knowledge. And plutonia, I don't mean that as an insult; I'm just very interested in the difference between opinion and knowledge, and I find it very interesting when I see people confuse their opinions with knowledge.
yes, but let's not beat up on this guy plutonia too hard...
You're right, of course. It's just a touchy subject with me. Too many people think rural means "dumb redneck". I went to college and received an engineering degree. Friends of mine stayed put and became farmers, painters, mechanics, etc. I'm no smarter than they are, just more educated.
I dont personally know any investment bankers who play chess.
I have met plumbers, people who only play chess, a second grade schoolteacher, students, retirees, and minimum wage perennials.
But the geography thing is interesting - A local chess club I knew had a couple of people who were on the rating floor perpetually, certainly helping to artificially keep ratings high. A probelm that needs fixing IMO. If someone has been at the floor for some time, like 5 years, lower the thing, thats a pretty wild stretch to think its a long term sandbagging plan.
yes.
In the uscf, I think if you want to lose rating points play in tournaments with large class prizes or play younger people. If you want to gain rating points play older adults who hit their floors.
I would say otb ratings do vary by geography. States with bigger cities such as Illinois and New York will tend to have more higher rated players because there are more people in general that are playing chess. There are also more tournament opportunities. States that tend to have fewer well-known cities seem to have fewer chess tournament opportunities and thus, have fewer higher rated players. This occurs because tournament organizers know that they will be able to attract more people in larger cities and therefore, they offer their tournaments in cities where they can get the most success in terms of number of people.
If you want to learn more about the distribution of otb ratings by state, the USCF offers a list of top players by state. http://main.uschess.org/datapage/top-players.php
If you do a quick search you can easily tell that states with larger cities have more higher rated players. For example, Illinois seems to have 39 masters while Idaho has 1 master.
I agree with Redchessman.....bigger cities greater opportunities.
yes
I wish USCF would release stats like this. I always wanted to know the average adult rating, average rating for my state, or even my city. Would be interesting.
There is little correlation between rating and iq
This is just obviously wrong. Investment bankers are more educated than the average country Joe but intelligence, or IQ, is fairly evenly distributed across populations. Even in math your average farmer may be much better than you imagine. They spend all day evaluating costs and returns on everything from fuel to feed and seed to fertilizer. Heck, I grew up out in the wonderful godforsaken countryside. I'm a system administrator managing about twelve servers, three hundred PCs, several field sites, and all the associated network infrastructure and software. But I'm country so I must be stupid.
They are not only more educated, they are also much smarter. You have no idea of what is required to succeed in certain fields. You talk like your average guy could just wake up and get a degree from a top uni and then be hired by Goldman Sachs or JP Morgan.
Yeah, keep dreaming. Have you ever looked at a psychometric test?
And I didn't say that a bright individual cannot be born in a farm. I'm saying that if this person really is bright he'll end up in a big city to do a job that uses and rewards his talent.
As you mentioned yourself as an example, let me ask you this. If you really had the chance to live in a beautiful city like New York or London making a 6 figure salary in your early 20s....would you still decide to stay in the countryside counting fertilizer and spending your saturdays at the local mall?
I rest my case.
I work in a warehouse for a living and I beat professors, lawyers and math teachers at my club. So i'm pretty sure your theory is wrong.
It is a common belief in the UK. Every region thinks they are under-rated and there may be some variation due to the pool of players you would play against. I don't think it is anything to do with intelligence but in areas with a high number of juniors people tend to be under-rated and this equates to how successful their teaching programs are in schools etc. So there is geographical variation but it is not for the reasons stated.
Luke McShane is the strongest amateur in the world and is an investment banker but I think this is just a coincidence. People in London tend to read more than in other areas of the country but this is more to do with the fact that they spend so long on tubes and trains and public transport, stuck in rush hours trying to get somewhere and there is nothing else to do - besides sleep!
All Elo rating systems are deflationary. This is because the ratings can't keep up with the improvement of rapid improvers like juniors. So these improvers suck rating points off the people they play because their actual percentage chance of victory is much different to the percentage chance indicated by their out of date rating. This is why FIDE have increased the frequency of their list being published. But this is largely negated by the fact that you can enter the list at a much lower level than you could in the good old days. Now there will be many young juniors who will get a low initial rating and then rapidly improve. In the old days they wouldn't have got onto the list until they were over 2000 and already gone through their rapid improvement phase.
A lot of people claim the ratings are inflationary, you are claiming deflation. I tend to agree with your deflationary view, but I would like to know if there are any real studies demonstrating this one way or another.
I lived in Boston making an upper middle class salary for eight years. I lived in Washington D.C. for two years. They don't hold a candle to the peace and beauty of the country. I gave up the big salaries and the asphalt jungle. I've worked my way back to a good salary and I live in a much, much better place.
I fully agree with aronchuk's observations.
I've done some analysis on the FIDE rating lists of Nov.'12 and Nov.'13 and I intend to follow up in the next years :
https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1koiKWVmyl4ULBypAyEcvLWrZiVc79swcwbNKpvEaTbs/edit?usp=sharing
https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1Eeu-xMNWtx6-_A08tUn5sGmHwBPZwpIKdzEB4NCJnYY/edit?usp=sharing
While the # of players increases (+10%), the average FIDE elo has dropped 30 pts, with people in the 2200-2400 bracket being the most affected by this evolution.
Just a thought. Rating is a measure of relative performances, not absolute, so my rating depends on the strength of the people I play with.
Almost all amateurs play in the area they live, so they encounter only opponents who live nearby.
Knowing that there is a correlation between math/logical intelligence and chess, it stands to reason that the strongest chess players will have to be found where there are jobs for the brightest minds. And I'm sorry for you, politically correct crowd, but the average guy who works in investment banking is much smarter (at least as far as math/logic goes) than the average guy who shags sheeps in a godforsaken countryside.
So if you live in London / New York, you'll go against much stronger opposition than if you live in a small town in Wales / Utah. Thefore your rating would be greatly inflated in the latter case: even a mediocre player facing only bad players will be able to get his rating up.