Is everybody equal in emotional toughness and resilience? Does everybody have the necessary competitive drive. Can everybody experience crushing defeat and become stronger as a result? Does everybody have the same capacity for intense concentration? Does everyone have the same willingness to study hard? These are also important elements in becoming a strong master. IQ tells only a small part of the story
Is having a high IQ necessary to become World Champion in chess like Magnus Carlsen?
Sort:
MMTMIT wrote:
I feel so hopeless in this endeavor already as I didn’t even make the state competition in math in high school after working on it so hard for 10 months. A genius in the same situation would make state while I did not and it is f*cking unfair and making me feel bitter.
I appreciate your honesty. But it's usually a bad thing to over-emphasize the comparison with others syndrome.
You have talents and skills that will benefit others, and it's good to focus on those instead.
Feb 11, 2019
0
#24
Botvinnik4Ever wrote:
It depends. I think an IQ of 125 is enough, which is about the average IQ, say, in computer science departments at most universities
I agree. If you're not excelling in chess or math, try computer science. A 6 figure annual salary isn't bad.
Mar 11, 2019
0
#25
I have had a real IQ test done on me ordered by the probation service & I scored 142. I find this game is more about concentration ability more than anything else. Meditation & praying to Jesus is the tools needed for this game 
I seen a statement that could be applicable to this situation. it was in relation to Einstein. it goes so you have an IQ of 190, try coming up with the theory of relativity. change around and make it in regards to chess , so you have an IQ of 190, try becoming a 2700+ rated chess player!
Mar 11, 2019
0
#27
MMTMIT wrote:
I have set my sights on becoming a world chess champion, probably the best ever (not trolling).
Says the guy who has been here almost 3 years, only plays blitz and bullet, and is under 1100 in both. Need we continue with this?
army_of_sixteen wrote:
Rat1960 wrote:
I do not believe the numeric rankings of IQ above 150.
Show me a room full of doctors and I will show you a room full of people with IQ's around 130.
I am pretty sure there is a relationship between pattern finding IQ tests and playing chess.
The game of chess has a lot of simple counting. If material is attacked twice but defended once it is at risk.
Who says doctors are smart? Anyone can just cut out a few limbs.
Once your a doctor you can become dumb, but becoming one in the first place requires passing organic chemistry which is the course that weeds out 75% of medical school students.
MMTMIT wrote:
If I don't become a Putnam Fellow in the Putnam competition, then I'd focus entirely on astrophysics and computer science. If I do become one, all three.
you might be better off trying to be a puddy fellow.
Mar 11, 2019
0
#30
army_of_sixteen wrote:
Rat1960 wrote:
I do not believe the numeric rankings of IQ above 150.
Show me a room full of doctors and I will show you a room full of people with IQ's around 130.
I am pretty sure there is a relationship between pattern finding IQ tests and playing chess.
The game of chess has a lot of simple counting. If material is attacked twice but defended once it is at risk.
Who says doctors are smart? Anyone can just cut out a few limbs.
I agree. They do have excellent memory. Imagine memorizing the Drugs Manual.
bong711 wrote:
army_of_sixteen wrote:
Rat1960 wrote:
I do not believe the numeric rankings of IQ above 150.
Show me a room full of doctors and I will show you a room full of people with IQ's around 130.
I am pretty sure there is a relationship between pattern finding IQ tests and playing chess.
The game of chess has a lot of simple counting. If material is attacked twice but defended once it is at risk.
Who says doctors are smart? Anyone can just cut out a few limbs.
I agree. They do have excellent memory. Imagine memorizing the Drugs Manual.
I have seen doctorsthat have memorised a lot in Africa and Asia, but here in Europe they depend entirely on the drug manual. They search your symptoms through their database to figure out what's wrong with you..
I think that you should just practice as much as you can and learn lots of different positions.
Someone who is great at differential calculus and n-dimensional geometry might be terrible at chess and someone who is great at chess might be hopeless at complex maths. I think it's possible different people might use different centers of their brain to play chess:
A strong memorizer might use pattern recognition and great recall of sequences
A strong calculator might evaluate lots of variations very quickly
Someone who learned to play chess very young may just be more of an intuitive player- they aren't actively calculating variations, they just know which moves look good and which dont
Maybe every person uses some complex combination of memory, calculation and intuition.
There are astrophycisists who could be scholars mated (the irony), and there are great chess players who dont know pythagorean theorem. All systems in nature can be described mathematically, so yes ultimately chess is math, but that doesn't mean being good at one means you will be good at the other.
I'm great at math, programming, drawing in 2D and 3D, autocad, etc but I suck at chess. My excuse is that I started learning chess not as a kid, but in my mid 30s so I didn't develop any intuition about chess while I still had the neuroplasticity of a child. Maybe I can still become decent, but I think the strongest predictor of chess skill is the age at which you start learning.
Mar 16, 2019
0
#34
ghost_of_pushwood wrote:
zeeperson wrote:
I think that you should just practice as much as you can and learn lots of different positions.
lol Looks like we've got us a Life Coach in the making...
More looks like a Love Guru
If you don't have an IQ above 120, you must work hard in order to achieve your goal. If you are a born genius like Kasparov or Fischer, you just need to work a little bit lesser than others. Like in the movie Wrath of the Titans, where Perseus struggles to fight against Ares but finally Perseus defeats him.
fail troll has to double bump his fail thread again. hey why don't you show me love by looking at my profile and finding some way to discredit me like my tactics rating or something. people who troll chess forums never reach their own potential let alone the potential of Carlson... who is a twat.
Despacito_slowly wrote:
If you don't have an IQ above 120, you must work hard in order to achieve your goal. If you are a born genius like Kasparov or Fischer, you just need to work a little bit lesser than others. Like in the movie Wrath of the Titans, where Perseus struggles to fight against Ares but finally Perseus defeats him.
I think Fischer worked harder than anyone in history at chess- he immersed himself in it 24/7. There is stories about him going out to dinner with others and setting up a chess board and playing against himself if he got bored of the conversation.
The common understanding of intelligence substantially deviates from what constitutes high IQ. Genius relates to mental acuity not directly to knowledge. Time is the only game factor that will separate the average from the above-average.
guess I didn't pay attention. I'm not to stoked on Carlsen. Calrson is a better way to spell it though. Also by insisting there are exceptions... yourself I presume... your admitting to being a troll. just pointing that out to those of you who are trying to seriously answer this garbage.
It depends. I think an IQ of 125 is enough, which is about the average IQ, say, in computer science departments at most universities