Probably would have been a very good player had he applied himself, as he did to music.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdUaNVPI1nU
If Albert Einstein played chess he could have been one of the greatest Chess Player🏤🏡⛲
Sort:
camter wrote:
yep that could be true🍦
Probably would have been a very good player had he applied himself, as he did to music.
Einstein's strength was his ability to get to the bottom of a question, ignoring all the common prejudice and looking at raw facts - and not being afraid to interpret them in the wildest-looking, but mathematically impeccable ways. I think this ability would translate to chess well, and he would probably be very innovative and precise player - but his personality was very much against competition and towards cooperation, so I'm not sure if he would do well in actual tournaments, with enormous psychological pressure.
One_Autumn_Leaf wrote:
maybe who knows we can o my guess for now
He did play chess, and was around 1500-1600 strength... his Iq does not reflect his skills in chess. But I do agree, if he continued.... he would be quite.... Unique in his play.
MayCaesar wrote:
if he tried I think he could have🐇
Einstein's strength was his ability to get to the bottom of a question, ignoring all the common prejudice and looking at raw facts - and not being afraid to interpret them in the wildest-looking, but mathematically impeccable ways. I think this ability would translate to chess well, and he would probably be very innovative and precise player - but his personality was very much against competition and towards cooperation, so I'm not sure if he would do well in actual tournaments, with enormous psychological pressure.
"... The level at which one plays is governed by a number of vague and poorly understood factors. The first is what one might term 'natural talent'. ..." - GM John Nunn (2006)
"... It is all too frequent that a wrong evaluation is made of what a talented player can achieve. ... Most players have the potential for a certain level; once they have reached it they can only make further progress with a great effort. ..." - GM Thomas Luther (2016)
Don't be so rude!
BobbyTalparov wrote:
... USCF did not have ratings until 1950 ...
I think it was about a decade later that Elo's ideas were adopted.
Whats an IQ ,
There are different types of intelligence.
Having a high IQ is not a guarantee that you will be a chess super expert.
May 28, 2017
0
#33
In my teens I took 2 tests that placed me at about the top 1% of general intelligence -- about evenly balanced between math and verbal. In chess, my rating currently is about 400 after playing a couple hundred or more games. I've noticed it is very, very hard for me to think ahead. I also make many mistakes such as mistaking one of my opponents pieces for mine. Jumping across lines so that when I visualize the line of a bishop across the board I switch it to the other color somewhere along the path, forget to look at the whole board and miss the presence of an enemy piece's long-range attack, etc. It's one reason I have no desire to play FAST. If I take enough time I can eliminate most of those errors, but I still have trouble forcing myself to think ahead. It's very frustrating!
Albert Einstein actually played chess. You can check his game at MatoJelic YouTube channel.
He wasn't so great of a player, but he was strong. Although, only one game to judge from.
I think chess is more about practice and hard work. You don't need very high IQ to become a world champion.
For example, TBH, do you consider Magnus Carlsen an intellectual? Does he produce philosophical/scientific works or is he a genius engineer or polemicist? Nevertheless he is the best at chess.
Why is there a picture of a building, house, and fountain on the forum title?
May 28, 2017
0
#37
Einstein was clearly stronger than 1400. A 1400 player doesn't play as many and as sophisticated tactics in one game as Einstein did vs Oppenheimer. His rating should be at least 1750. Now, this is completely irrelevant since he didn't take it seriously. Its like saying that Carlsen is an idiot because he doesnt know enough physics or Indian history or whatever. "Not learning/practicing" doesn't equate "not being smart". But on the other hand, being able to play at his level despite not being too immersed in the game just show even further what a genius he was. Had he taken chess seriously he undoubtedly could reach a very very high level. Though, being number one isn't guaranteed since being a super genius in one thing (physics) does not guarantee being a genius in another (chess).
May 28, 2017
0
#38
Chess is a great game. And Game is the operative word. It is a game not the meaning of life. But a great game, and good for recreation, and exercising the mind.
I am not in the least worried that I never was, or will be, a great or even expert player. So, I am not in the least envious of the great players, and derive pleasure from their excellence. I take my dreadful defeats without much loss of sleep, and enjoy my occasional wins and brilliancies.
I had someone come to the door, so I may have more to say later.
May 28, 2017
0
#39
Back again.
The point I am making is that Chess is a spice amd a diversion for many folk, abd a very valuable one.
I also get thrashed at tennis, or used to. Do I chuck away the Tennis Racquet in spite. No. The exercise does me good, and I can still admire a great like Federer.
You don't know this, and you don't know how IQ relates to chess.
No. Skills are unique. I'm sure he could have been a very good player if he had started young, worked hard, and had a passion for chess, but it's doubtful he could have been one of the very best. Different skills are different.