logic IQ and chess
Sort:
If over a 50 year period or so, you were to have world champions in each of classical chess, rapid chess, blitz chess, bullet chess, chess960, bughouse (if it exists), and chess problem solving take IQ tests in logic only, which category of champion do you think would generally perform better? I am sure they’d all do well at the champion level, but curious what you think.
Dec 6, 2020
0
#2
You simply must remember that a standard IQ test is divided into different sections. In one study on prodigies, a subject scored in the 99.9 percentile in working memory, but in another section scored a 70–not 70th percentile, but 70, which is the bottom 2%. The subject’s overall IQ score was 110, which is simply above average.
ExploringWA wrote:
Logic only? Classical. Same answer for every category.
Why classical over, say, problem-solving?
Dec 10, 2020
0
#4
I'm not sure I understand the question, but I'm going to give an answer anyway.
Classical.
However, the real answer is that I don't know, but I think the real question is also different. I think what you are trying to get at is which forms of Chess require the most logical thought, as opposed to some other form of intelliegence.
I did some research (i.e. looking stuff up in journals, not original, experimental, research) a few years back on the subject of IQ tests and Chess. What I found was that while great Chess players often had high IQs, it wasn't as strong a correlation as you might expect. Some great Chess players had high, but not stellar IQs, and a lot of high IQ people did poorly at Chess, even with practice. One of the interesting findings is that when a great Chess player is analyzing a game, the portion of the brain that deals in logic is not as strongly activated as the portion of the brain usually associated with facial recognition.
The general feeling was that the great Chess players were not using logical ability to find the right move. They were "seeing" the right move, and using logic to confirm that it was right.
So, the classical players would have more of an advantage if they were great logical thinkers, while the great players at fast games would have much less of an advantage. Therefore it seems moderately likely that the classical players might be better at logic.
Those are very broad statements about this sort of player or that sort of player, and the research I was reading about was not universally accepted or universally applicable. In other words, please don't jump down my throat if you disagree. It's just what I read. (Last time I participated in a thread on the subject, one person in particular took offense and totally personalized it. It was an unpleasant experience. I find the subject very interesting, but not if people get emotionally wrapped up in it.)
Dec 10, 2020
0
#5
Honestly, chess960. Everyone has studied chess, read the books, learned the opening principles, etc. Most people just memorize positions and go by working muscle-memory. In chess960 (Fischer Random), the entire game becomes a puzzle from the second or third move in. Positions arise which are completely alien-like, and chess960 is all about being able to adapt quickly and creatively formulate new strategies.
Meadmaker wrote:
I'm not sure I understand the question, but I'm going to give an answer anyway.
Classical.
However, the real answer is that I don't know, but I think the real question is also different. I think what you are trying to get at is which forms of Chess require the most logical thought, as opposed to some other form of intelliegence.
I did some research (i.e. looking stuff up in journals, not original, experimental, research) a few years back on the subject of IQ tests and Chess. What I found was that while great Chess players often had high IQs, it wasn't as strong a correlation as you might expect. Some great Chess players had high, but not stellar IQs, and a lot of high IQ people did poorly at Chess, even with practice. One of the interesting findings is that when a great Chess player is analyzing a game, the portion of the brain that deals in logic is not as strongly activated as the portion of the brain usually associated with facial recognition.
The general feeling was that the great Chess players were not using logical ability to find the right move. They were "seeing" the right move, and using logic to confirm that it was right.
So, the classical players would have more of an advantage if they were great logical thinkers, while the great players at fast games would have much less of an advantage. Therefore it seems moderately likely that the classical players might be better at logic.
Those are very broad statements about this sort of player or that sort of player, and the research I was reading about was not universally accepted or universally applicable. In other words, please don't jump down my throat if you disagree. It's just what I read. (Last time I participated in a thread on the subject, one person in particular took offense and totally personalized it. It was an unpleasant experience. I find the subject very interesting, but not if people get emotionally wrapped up in it.)
Thank you for your answer. This is all for fun and musing. I assume all of those categories require hardworking talented folks with high IQ's and high levels of logical thought. Grandmasters are becoming younger and younger and younger and the research you mention about facial recognition would imply that much of chess "evolution" over the years is the imprinting of various positions into long-term memory as opposed to novel problem-solving. Why does Magnus hardly ever lose at classical chess, only to be wiped out like an amateur by Wesley So in chess960? Of course, this could be a multifactorial answer. Why do I come across comments in chess books such as "Adolf Anderssen could solve combinations as well as any modern super-GM", yet it is accepted that he would get easily annihilated in any modern tournament. I also wonder if this would affect chess teaching ... Is there a better or different way to teach chess to someone with a strong memory and poor logic (and vice-versa)? Are there teachers, coaches, authors, and high level FIDE trainers aware of any memory-logic discrepancy in players and students, including how that might play out in teaching amateurs versus professionals or adults versus children, etc.?
i'm done with it days ago.
