What is intelligence? It implies good memory? Concentration? Learning fast? Creative skills? Ability to understand and solve complicated problems? Good intuition?If the answer is yes, chess GM are intelligent (and elite GM should be above them in terms of intelligence), if not, they aren´t. You see? It´s easy!
Lower-IQ Grandmasters?
Sort:
Aug 21, 2018
0
#243
DeirdreSkye wrote:
And that is why expert trainers like Grivas(and the very good trainer in my chess club) don't believe in talent or intelligence , they believe in hard work.
I personally believe that with all variants absolutely equal(motivation, practice , personality,environment, access to resources etc.) intelligence will give a lead , but we can never have all variables absolutely equal. It's a highly unrealistic hypothetical situation.
You read bios on Carlsen, Fisher, Kasparov, etc, and there is always the part where the trainer recognizes that he has a kid with special talent. I bet if you ask the trainers you keep referring to, they will admit that they also know that some kids have special talent. And of course they need to work to develop it, but they are born with an advantage.
forked_again wrote:
You read bios on Carlsen, Fisher, Kasparov, etc, and there is always the part where the trainer recognizes that he has a kid with special talent. I bet if you ask the trainers you keep referring to, they will admit that they also know that some kids have special talent. And of course they need to work to develop it, but they are born with an advantage.
You mistake the reason why "there is always the part where..." occurs.
Of course "trainers" talk about seeing "special talent" in bios...it's their most interesting story to tell, so they need to embellish it. Biography/blog writers want readers, and many will seek out the most sensational anecdotes they can find.
How the story goes at dinner parties...
"I saw a unique spark in this boy...nobody else paid much attention, but I did. I pushed him and groomed him and taught him how to explore his talent [insert 20 more minutes of how the trainer affected the boy's life and made the boy's career possible].
And that boy was...[insert world champion here]".
They only have an indirect connection to fame and they milk it for every ounce of attention they can get. Note how this can also apply to the writers. It's a messed up symbiotic relationship that leeches off fame/celebrity. The longer it goes, the more fantastically the story is remembered. If they had done anything else noteworthy, you would be calling them by name and not labeling them trainers first and foremost.
Aug 21, 2018
0
#245
DeirdreSkye wrote:
forked_again wrote:
DeirdreSkye wrote:
And that is why expert trainers like Grivas(and the very good trainer in my chess club) don't believe in talent or intelligence , they believe in hard work.
I personally believe that with all variants absolutely equal(motivation, practice , personality,environment, access to resources etc.) intelligence will give a lead , but we can never have all variables absolutely equal. It's a highly unrealistic hypothetical situation.
You read bios on Carlsen, Fisher, Kasparov, etc, and there is always the part where the trainer recognizes that he has a kid with special talent. I bet if you ask the trainers you keep referring to, they will admit that they also know that some kids have special talent. And of course they need to work to develop it, but they are born with an advantage.
You cherrypick everything that is convenient but I don't.
If you read Dvoretsky's inteview , he says that Dreev was more talented than Kasparov or Anand. Yet Dreev never won the world championship , he never even was challenger. So talent , whatever that is, certainly is not the most important according to Dvoretsky.
There other examples too.Nepomniatchi was a great talent as a kid. Yet he struggles to get in top 10. Mamedyarov was never a prodigy but he is No2 or 3.
You all know only Kasparov and Carlsen. There are 2 dozens failed Carlsens who didn't fail because of lack of talent or lack of intelligence.Alejandro Ramirez , GM at 15 , second youngest in the world , where is he now?Not world champion , not chalenger never even close to top 10.
Tal Shaked (who really remembers him).He won several national scholastic championships, including the 1987 National Primary Championship, the 1990 National Elementary Championship, the 1991 National K-8 Championship, the 1992 National K-8 Championship, the 1992 U.S. Cadet (under 16) Championship, and the 1995 U.S. Junior (under 20) Championship; he also won the 1995 National Open.[1] Shaked won the Laura Aspis Prize in 1991 as the number-one rated American chess player under the age of 13, and that same year became the youngest ever winner of the Arizona State Championship. He is probably highly intelligent. He works for Google as a software engineer. Talented and intelligent but never even near top 20. Why?
Obviously your theories have a big hole.
Overall a talented and highly intelligent kid means nothing. He has the same chances to succeed with a less intelligent and less talented kid. Many examples prove that.
REALLY? you are so sloppy in your reasoning.
Every example you have named have been exceptional chess talent, all GM's or the top 0.4% or so of chess players. that is far pickier than Mensa membership in terms of exclusivity.
Intelligence mattering DOES NOT mean a neat clean correlation between higher intelligence and guaranteed success at the pinnacle of pinnacles. do you even know the difference between necessary conditions vs sufficient conditions
Aug 21, 2018
0
#246
DeirdreSkye wrote:
forked_again wrote:
DeirdreSkye wrote:
And that is why expert trainers like Grivas(and the very good trainer in my chess club) don't believe in talent or intelligence , they believe in hard work.
I personally believe that with all variants absolutely equal(motivation, practice , personality,environment, access to resources etc.) intelligence will give a lead , but we can never have all variables absolutely equal. It's a highly unrealistic hypothetical situation.
You read bios on Carlsen, Fisher, Kasparov, etc, and there is always the part where the trainer recognizes that he has a kid with special talent. I bet if you ask the trainers you keep referring to, they will admit that they also know that some kids have special talent. And of course they need to work to develop it, but they are born with an advantage.
You cherrypick everything that is convenient but I don't.
If you read Dvoretsky's inteview , he says that Dreev was more talented than Kasparov or Anand. Yet Dreev never won the world championship , he never even was challenger. So talent , whatever that is, certainly is not the most important according to Dvoretsky.
There other examples too.Nepomniatchi was a great talent as a kid. Yet he struggles to get in top 10. Mamedyarov was never a prodigy but he is No2 or 3.
You all know only Kasparov and Carlsen. There are 2 dozens failed Carlsens who didn't fail because of lack of talent or lack of intelligence.Alejandro Ramirez , GM at 15 , second youngest in the world , where is he now?Not world champion , not chalenger never even close to top 10.
Tal Shaked (who really remembers him).He won several national scholastic championships, including the 1987 National Primary Championship, the 1990 National Elementary Championship, the 1991 National K-8 Championship, the 1992 National K-8 Championship, the 1992 U.S. Cadet (under 16) Championship, and the 1995 U.S. Junior (under 20) Championship; he also won the 1995 National Open.[1] Shaked won the Laura Aspis Prize in 1991 as the number-one rated American chess player under the age of 13, and that same year became the youngest ever winner of the Arizona State Championship. He is probably highly intelligent. He works for Google as a software engineer. Talented and intelligent but never even near top 20. Why?
Obviously your theories have a big hole.
Overall a talented and highly intelligent kid means nothing. He has the same chances to succeed with a less intelligent and less talented kid. Many examples prove that.
You are arguing that since great talent doesn't always lead to great success, then great success doesn't require great talent. That is faulty logic.
True.
There is another ability or characteristic, not yet mentioned, that great chess players seem to have: they are often unusually honest. There is intellectual integrity of a sort that is also seen in excellent, high-order, true scientists. Asimov noted this characteristic in true science.
It is in very sharp contrast to all the bs one sees in popular journalism, politics, pseudoscience, pseudospirituality, and the general oppressive atmosphere created by a low level of integrity about what we really know and don't really know.
"Accuracy" is the word Carlsen uses quite a bit.
The root meaning of "science" is similar.
It seems to be, in part, both an element of intelligence, and a contributor to it.
Godsoriginalfool wrote:
pdve wrote:
Aagaard says about Kasparov that he isn't a natural chess player but his determination more than makes up for it. Now anyone who has read a game annotated by Kasparov or has his predecessors books can clearly see that the man is a phenomenal chess player. Yet when his IQ was tested it was in the low genius range.
A genius is a genius bro and the truth is if you are fortunate to have an IQ over 125 you can do ANY THING. At this point it is all about drive and opportunity.
It's an excellent point, but incomplete.
There are more accurate or precise ways of saying it. You can do many, many things....
Simplification in wording can make for a nice, concise statement with good packaging and impact for the idea. But the imprecision can result in misunderstandings and misapplication. It can mislead.
99.99+% of people with IQs over 125 are not ever going to reach Carlsen. NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO. NO MATTER HOW THEY TRAIN.
NO MATTER HOW HARD THEY WORK.
NO MATTER HOW HARD THEY TRY.
NO MATTER HOW MOTIVATED THEY ARE.
NO MATTER HOW MUCH THEY WANT IT.
NO MATTER WHO TRAINS THEM.
THERE IS NOTHING.
darkunorthodox88 wrote:
Pondisoulenso wrote:
It's not a strict correlation, however, as demonstrated by computers and hypothetical megasavants.
Among other examples.
this is the most asinine point in this whole forum.
I can see how it could be seen that way by certain minds. In the interests of communication, I would add that we human beings are different -- as Kim Peek expressed so eloquently, both verbally and non-verbally -- in a variety of ways, including in the ways in which we think. Some people, not necessarily incorrectly, think along lines that others do not frequent so readily, or so enjoyably.
Some people might find these sorts of thought experiments quite revealing, or interesting.
If you want more concrete examples, Carlsen and Nunn would be one starting point.
Pondisoulenso wrote:
True.
There is another ability or characteristic, not yet mentioned, that great chess players seem to have: they are often unusually honest. There is intellectual integrity of a sort that is also seen in excellent, high-order, true scientists. Asimov noted this characteristic in true science.
It is in very sharp contrast to all the bs one sees in popular journalism, politics, pseudoscience, pseudospirituality, and the general oppressive atmosphere created by a low level of integrity about what we really know and don't really know.
"Accuracy" is the word Carlsen uses quite a bit.
The root meaning of "science" is similar.
It seems to be, in part, both an element of intelligence, and a contributor to it.
I like your post!
The most economically successful people in the world is not the geniouses with the strongest integrety.
Grabner's study is well known and it was included in Fernard Gobet's study.
Here is what he says:
a recent study
by Grabner, Neubauer and Stern (2006) could not establish a significant association between
chess rating and intelligence (as measured by the Intelligenz-Struktur-Test 2000 R) among 47
adult players (including solid tournament players as well as master players).
So scientists don't really agree if the specific study establishes an association between chess skill and intelligence.>>>
But the question remains .... is this science? I don't think it is. Science depends on hard observational data and accurate measurements. If they don't really know how to measure intelligence or even what it really is, it isn't science. It may be cognitive science, of course, but that's a soft science and certainly not real science.
Also, measuring correlations between chess rating and intelligence is problematic in other ways .... especially that we don't know how long it took for a player to reach that rating. That's an important factor ... so important that it would probably be more worthwhile to try to correlate measured IQ with a chess rating increase over a specific time when players have undergone a standardised course of chess instruction. And preferably for players new to the game.
The trouble with all this is that it most definitely is not science, at least as depicted in explanations here. OK, so it's an attempt at science by probably not very intelligent people (IQ < 150) who are **cognitive scientists**, which isn't a science at all. 
darkunorthodox88 wrote:
Richard_Hunter wrote:
What I.Q. supporters wont admit is that the tests are at best an approximation of some people's intelligence. They are no absolute guide, yet that is how the results are usually presented by right wing racists who want to discriminate against people.
its called margin of error. with IQ margins of error are not that significant. you will virtually never be off by a standard deviation unless the initial conditions made the test invalid to begin with.>>
Well, I personally tested that and it's complete rubbish. Back in the 1970s I did a series of IQ tests. They were Eysenck tests, which are quite culture-neutral. I did them over a year or so, spaced apart so I didn't really develop much expertise in doing them. I attempted them when I had a cold, was hung over, feeling tired, feeling good, feeling relaxed, jumpy, mentally alert, etc etc. The results I obtained included several at around 169 and when I did those I was aware that I wasn't working at my fullest potential and had made many mistakes. There were quite a few 150s, 140s and 130s and there was one 116. I know this because I found the tests recently when I was going through some old papers.
What was that about IQ tests being accurate and standardised and within so many standard deviations? It's complete rubbish. Oh, and I do come from a family of high IQ performers. What surprised me was just how low the results could be when I deliberately encountered adverse circumstances.
Another thing is how do you standardise the effort that people make to score well?
Anyone claiming to be or know someone with a 150+ IQ (less than 1 in 2500, yet we have several people claiming such right here in this thread...) needs to pony up some kind of evidence. I'm flat out saying you are full of shit if you don't/can't. Online tests? Self-administered tests? Laughable.
Aug 21, 2018
0
#255
btickler wrote:
Anyone claiming to be or know someone with a 150+ IQ (less than 1 in 2500, yet we have several people claiming such right here in this thread...) needs to pony up some kind of evidence. I'm flat out saying you are full of shit if you don't/can't. Online tests? Self-administered tests? Laughable.
I have proof. My mom said I'm a genius!
Aug 21, 2018
0
#256
Deirdre said:
The argue was never about talent. The discussion was about intelligence and it is your faulty arguments that try to derail it.
Talent is something that can't be defined so we can't argue about something we don't really know what it is.
You seriously think talent can't be defined, yet you are so certain that intelligence can be? Have you thought about that?
Of the two, talent is much easier to define. Talent is a term that can be applied to a specific skill, and it is easy to determine if a person has that skill or not. Intelligence on the other hand, is a general term that is supposed to define the capability of the mind to perform in general.
That is the whole problem with this discussion. Outstanding brain performance in one area (like chess) is not intelligence if that same brain does not do well on a standardized test that someone defined as a measure of intelligence. It's a joke, really.
btickler wrote:
Anyone claiming to be or know someone with a 150+ IQ (less than 1 in 2500, yet we have several people claiming such right here in this thread...) needs to pony up some kind of evidence. I'm flat out saying you are full of shit if you don't/can't. Online tests? Self-administered tests? Laughable.>>>
Interesting. It's amazing (no, it isn't!) how angry some people can get when their cherished ideas are inadvertently challenged.
However, a thread on IQ might well attract people with a high Q?
Fun facts ... apparently the army measured my father at 171 in 1943. My wife did a Mensa entrance test well before I met her and I think she said she came out at 156. My son's a quantum physicist with a PhD in that subject. I've always known a lot of brilliant people.
So what though? I'm only relating these facts to wind you up. I've been drinking Yeni raki. Want a glass?
forked_again wrote:
Deirdre said:
The argue was never about talent. The discussion was about intelligence and it is your faulty arguments that try to derail it.
Talent is something that can't be defined so we can't argue about something we don't really know what it is.
You seriously think talent can't be defined, yet you are so certain that intelligence can be? Have you thought about that?
Of the two, talent is much easier to define. Talent is a term that can be applied to a specific skill, and it is easy to determine if a person has that skill or not. Intelligence on the other hand, is a general term that is supposed to define the capability of the mind to perform in general.
That is the whole problem with this discussion. Outstanding brain performance in one area (like chess) is not intelligence if that same brain does not do well on a standardized test that someone defined as a measure of intelligence. It's a joke, really.>>>
You're making a reasonable argument here but all the same, I don't think we can be too sure about it. When you get people who didn't have a formal education to a high standard, they can still be highly intelligent but sometimes they don't have the self-discipline to be able to apply it to areas that don't attract them. So we say they're talented, which, of course, includes physical or musical abilities, for example, which is another way of saying that they tend to acquire an easy mastery in subjects they feel an affinity for. For instance, I was good at table football.
In chess, we meet a lot of people who can play well but don't demonstrate the same levels of ability in other areas. It's probably that the other areas of expertise haven't attracted them, or they've been put off them by lack of confidence. But we can't say they're unintelligent if they can play chess well, no matter what their measured IQ may imply, because chess requires abstract thinking and problem solving to quite a high level.
And basically, that is the fundamental flaw in the studies that apparently show that chess ability and measurable IQ are unrelated. I think we can genuinely assume that the researchers aren't researching to a very high level of expertise. Or maybe they just aren't talented at it?
IQ means nothing.In fact dumb, stupid and smart don't mean anything. A person with IQ 50 for lets say if he spends lots of time and dedication in chess, he can become a GM. Many GM have only spent lots of time in chess and might lack in other aspects. If smart means well-rounded, that in itself is a contradiction. Even if some of them have low IQ, the amount of work and effort they put in chess is admirable.
https://psmag.com/social-justice/champion-chess-players-smart-yes-question-65735
Abstract of the original article:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613001165
Grabner's study is well known and it was included in Fernard Gobet's study.
Here is what he says:
a recent study
by Grabner, Neubauer and Stern (2006) could not establish a significant association between
chess rating and intelligence (as measured by the Intelligenz-Struktur-Test 2000 R) among 47
adult players (including solid tournament players as well as master players).
So scientists don't really agree if the specific study establishes an association between chess skill and intelligence.
Diedre, the quote you posted refers to a 2006 study. The study that Pondesoulenso linked to is from 2013. No wonder your quote says the opposite of what the study says. There was a correlation between chess skill and intelligence. You like data, there it is.
Going around in circles here. Hard work yields better results in general, But no amount of hard work is going to get me to play basketball like Lebron James or play chess like Magnus Carlsen. No how, no way, never going to happen.
General rules for the masses don't apply to the elite, who are gifted in a particular way that average people aren't in their certain specialty. If you don't want to call it intelligence that is fine with me, but you have to admit that the top players have brains that do not work like an average guys brain when they look at a chess board, and they were born with that difference.