Chess me is poor, smart need not be. Be chess be good iq fantastic-o
Lower-IQ Grandmasters?
Sort:
Optimissed wrote:
He's just a self-publicist. Obviously good at IQ tests. If I'd taken an IQ test when I was on form I might have achieved 190. It isn't important and it would just have meant that I happened to take it at a time when my mind was exceptionally fast and accurate. The next day, it might have been 130. People with high IQs are not necessarily the world's brightest people because they can use it badly, as Langan seems to have done. The world's strongest man can use his strength in a robbery and then have a heart attack.
So, you are saying that on a regular day, you are 169 (one in half a million people) or at the every least north of 160, but on a "good day" you might just test 190 (one in a billion people, i.e. 7-8 of you in the world)?
[https://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/iqtable.aspx]
Methinks you are taking some very questionable IQ tests.
I remember someone once trying to make the case that David Beckham's free kicks were the result of highly complex subconscious calculations. If you want to completely reductive, everything is Math.
Sep 1, 2018
0
#285
All co-ordinated movement requires unconscious calculations, because conscious thought is way to slow to get the timing right. We consciously see the world with about half a second delay, but are fooled into thinking we see it in real time by the subconscious. Half a second is as long to a free kick taker as to a sprinter in the starting blocks: it would encompass the entire kick.
But by that reasoning, everyone is a Mathematician.
"All co-ordinated movement requires unconscious calculations, because conscious thought is way to slow to get the timing right."
So the calculations must be unconscious! Hilarious. (Wittgenstein wrote thousands of remarks making fun of precisely this kind of thinking). The co-ordinated movements (supposedly) can't possibly be spontaneous. What is cool is how the organism managed to develop this very advanced and remarkable capacity for calculation. How did it make the calculations necessary to produce such a sophisticated machine?
This is what happens when scientists mistake themselves for philosophers, assume they don't need to study any philosophy because they are scientists, after all.
I once took a purported I.Q. test online. It consisted of forty multiple choice questions. Early on I realized the thing was written by math geeks and, second-guessing their geek-think (at university I sometimes hung out with the computer-science students) I managed to get 38 out of 40. The interesting thing is that the test contained both computational and analogical questions, the geeks who wrote the test having naturally (ahem) assumed they were ultra-competent at both. Their appended explanations of the reasoning behind the answers they gave to their questions for the right brain were truly entertaining, they were so utterly clueless. Specialization! (and implicit arrogance).
Sep 1, 2018
0
#288
OZmatic wrote:
"All co-ordinated movement requires unconscious calculations, because conscious thought is way to slow to get the timing right."
So the calculations must be unconscious! Hilarious. (Wittgenstein wrote thousands of remarks making fun of precisely this kind of thinking). The co-ordinated movements (supposedly) can't possibly be spontaneous. What is cool is how the organism managed to develop this very advanced and remarkable capacity for calculation. How did it make the calculations necessary to produce such a sophisticated machine?
This is what happens when scientists mistake themselves for philosophers, assume they don't need to study any philosophy because they are scientists, after all.
I once took a purported I.Q. test online. It consisted of forty multiple choice questions. Early on I realized the thing was written by math geeks and, second-guessing their geek-think (at university I sometimes hung out with the computer-science students) I managed to get 38 out of 40. The interesting thing is that the test contained both computational and analogical questions, the geeks who wrote the test having naturally (ahem) assumed they were ultra-competent at both. Their appended explanations of the reasoning behind the answers they gave to their questions for the right brain were truly entertaining, they were so utterly clueless. Specialization! (and implicit arrogance).
- You are so lucky you aren't a geek. I wish I was as cool as you.
lfPatriotGames wrote:
Taskinen wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
My guess, and it's only a guess, is that grandmasters probably have a lower than average iq. When I see what grandmasters do, and that is spend a tremdous amount of time to become good at something that returns so little, it seems that it might take someone a little slow to think that's a good idea.
A lot of people have dedicated a huge part of their lives to mastering games, sports or heck even crafts and arts, that someone could consider... less valuable.
For example you have played 25 000 blitz games here, what was it that you were saying about spending so much time doing something that returns so little? Are you saying that you are a little slow?
I'm sorry if I misled you. I didn't mean to imply that the average chess player, like myself, sees little return in chess. What Pondisoulenso was talking about, and what I responded with, was opinion about the IQ of grandmasters. Not average players.
Most of us, especially me, have no intention of expecting any significant return from playing chess. From what I understand, a chess grandmaster is a very rare and specific achievement. I think there are about 1600 in the world. My point is to spend the amount of time necessary to get that good (which definitely excludes people like me) means investing a huge portion of a persons life with very little return. Casual players like us dont have an expectation or need or desire to see any significant roi, grandmasters do. Which makes me think that might not be the smartest choice.
Pondi also brought up another very good point. Some people with low IQs can often seem to have a better grasp of things that are really important, like love and compassion. If someone loves chess and wants to spend the necessary time to become a grandmaster, good for them, because they are doing what they love. But to me it seems like a bad choice. And it wouldn't surprise me if people with low IQs make more bad choices.
Grandmasters have other jobs that come with being a grandmaster, so it's actually not a bad idea.
OZmatic wrote:
"All co-ordinated movement requires unconscious calculations, because conscious thought is way to slow to get the timing right."
So the calculations must be unconscious! Hilarious. (Wittgenstein wrote thousands of remarks making fun of precisely this kind of thinking). The co-ordinated movements (supposedly) can't possibly be spontaneous. What is cool is how the organism managed to develop this very advanced and remarkable capacity for calculation. How did it make the calculations necessary to produce such a sophisticated machine?
This is what happens when scientists mistake themselves for philosophers, assume they don't need to study any philosophy because they are scientists, after all.
I once took a purported I.Q. test online. It consisted of forty multiple choice questions. Early on I realized the thing was written by math geeks and, second-guessing their geek-think (at university I sometimes hung out with the computer-science students) I managed to get 38 out of 40. The interesting thing is that the test contained both computational and analogical questions, the geeks who wrote the test having naturally (ahem) assumed they were ultra-competent at both. Their appended explanations of the reasoning behind the answers they gave to their questions for the right brain were truly entertaining, they were so utterly clueless. Specialization! (and implicit arrogance).
Just FYI, the whole right brain/left brain thing has been under scrutiny for years longer than this post 
...
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/right-brainleft-brain-right-2017082512222
https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2013/12/02/248089436/the-truth-about-the-left-brain-right-brain-relationship
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-athletes-way/201712/left-brain-right-brain-study-debunks-decades-old-neuromyth
Optimissed wrote:
The crossover probably isn't a false concept so much as an overly simplified one, btickler?
Since I am responding to a post that said this:
"Their appended explanations of the reasoning behind the answers they gave to their questions for the right brain were truly entertaining"
...I think it's applicable. Whenever the concept is used in the same way that an Oprah or Dr. Oz episode would use it...it's BS.
Since this thread has already veered decidedly off-topic.
Main foosball promoter in the USA
International foosball rules
https://www.tablesoccer.org/page/rules
Uhh yeah this has gone a little off topic 0_o
Oct 8, 2020
0
#295
There's also the fact I.Q. isn't a good measure of intelligence. There's also the question of "what is intelligence?". It's entirely possible the multiple intelligence theory is true, with logical-mathematical intelligence only being one of many.
Oct 8, 2020
0
#296
This may very well be the first intelligent discussion on chess.com I've seen in a while.
Oct 8, 2020
0
#297
Pondisoulenso wrote:
The average IQ of chess grandmasters seems to be around 130
Incorrect.
Oct 8, 2020
0
#298
Some people also think about a particular subject way longer than the average person. Consciously, subconsciously (which ultimately turns out to be the main number-cruncher, we are aware of only 2,000 bits of information processing per second, while subconsciously it can be 100 million bits).
Oct 8, 2020
0
#299
llama wrote:
Pondisoulenso wrote:
The average IQ of chess grandmasters seems to be around 130
Incorrect.
Among super GMs, that statistic may be accurate, but otherwise, that is an outrageous statistic, yes.
“Really, chess is mainly about intuition instincts. So when you play classical chess, at least for me, my intuition usually tells me something. It gives me an idea of what I want to play. Then I’ll have plenty of time to verify that and to calculate it in different variations, to see if I’m right. In blitz, we don’t have that luxury. So [you] have to go with what your intuition tells you, so that’s basically what’s going on. There’s not so much thinking. Of course, I’m calculating some variations, but usually I do what comes to my mind first. … I think you shouldn’t play only blitz, but playing some blitz is definitely pretty useful, especially when you’re developing as a young chess player. For me, it was very useful to develop my instinct...."
--Magnus Carlsen
I think you develop the intuition during experience. If you have done some calculation often you get a feeling which directions is good to move, and during experience you develop an understanding of positions and where you want to put your pieces. I think instinct is buildt on experience. It also has an element of combining different experiences, and that combination probably is faster with good intelligence,
I think Magnus also have developed the intuition by reading other games, and looking at the other boards in tournaments. Because he is very intelligent, he can understand a high number of ideas and add them to his memory /instinct.