Chess skill is a subset of IQ skill. People with very advance developed memory and spatial intelligence quotient will do well in chess. I have neither, hence I am a poor chess player.
Lower-IQ Grandmasters?
Sort:
Aug 19, 2018
0
#82
wanna unblock me?
forked_again wrote:
Race realists?.....
I didn't say I am one of them; and I can call you names too; but I won't because it doesn't really make for a good discussion.
If "race realists" make you sick, you can take it up with them.
Playing chess according to memorized openings and patterns is mechanistic. Fischer pointed this out very clearly, and it's why we have Fischer Random/Chess960.
So what is creative, non-repetitive, non-mechanistic chess? Or what is true creativity in chess? Or true intelligence in chess?
Is novelty true creativity?
pdve wrote:
Chess skill is a subset of IQ skill.
Complete BS. Show us one credible connection (i.e. scientific study results)...
Richard_Hunter wrote:
A lot of people in the American military are idiots and will believe anything.
As a veteran of the American military, I will agree...but this applies to every generalized cross-section of any population. There are also lots of people in the military with higher IQs...mine, for example, is slightly higher than the IQ Preggo reported for Kasparov (Kasparov actually claims he has never been tested). I could give a rat's ass about IQ scores, though...I consider my SAT score far more indicative of something meaningful, and even that test only truly proves that someone is good at taking specific kinds of tests.
IQ is a monolithic measurement mechanism that is ill-suited to the task of quantifying overall cognitive ability; it should have been improved upon long ago...but there are lots of average/mediocre people around who are very content with everything being reduced to a single number . It makes them feel comfy to have things very black and white, and ergo to be able to toss around judgment with ease.
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.
IQ is not the same as business talent and that kind of drive. It is common that humans like to compete, and high IQ is an advantage in chess. It is common to compete in games where you have an edge, because its fun to win. Therefore chess attracts people with high IQ.
Kim Peek's memory would help him in chess. He could memorize openings farther out than others. He could memorize a large number of endgames, mating patterns, forks, pins, skewers, traps, etc.
He could call out the moves, and someone could move the pieces for him.
The ability to generalize somewhat would help, so he wouldn't have to go by exactly identical positions only.
He would need motivation and interest.
Is there anything that would prevent such a person from reaching grandmaster level?
If a computer with a low IQ, or an IQ of exactly zero, can do it (in some cases just to grandmaster level; in other cases to levels beyond all grandmasters), why couldn't someone like that become a grandmaster?
DeirdreSkye wrote:
One of the most important studiues on the subject was the one from Oxford University
From the official report I copy some parts:
"Our results highlight how difficult it is to find an unambiguous association between
intelligence and chess skill. When we tested the whole sample of children, some of whom had
just recently started to play chess, we found a moderately positive correlation between
intelligence and chess skill thus confirming some previous studies (e.g., Horgan & Morgan,
1990; Frydman & Lynn, 1992). But when we examined the role of intelligence among highly
skilled young chess players we found not only the same absence of the association between
intelligence and chess skill that is usually reported among adult chess players (e.g., Cranberg &
Albert, 1988; Djakow et al, 1927; Doll & Mayr, 1988; Ellis, 1973; Grabner et al., 2006;
Unterrainer et al., 2006; Waters et al., 2003), but also that smarter children had actually
achieved a lower level of chess skill. This unexpected negative association between intelligence
and chess skill is partly the consequence of the different chess skill measures used for the whole
sample and the elite subsample. When the chess skill measures were used instead of chess
rating in the elite subsample, the association between chess skill measures and intelligence was
not negative. But, nevertheless, the association was nonexistent which implies that intelligence
does not have a major impact on the chess skill of very good young chess players.............Practice is a better predictor of chess skill than intelligence, even among children with limited experience. This seems to be particularly true for highly skilled young chess players as in our study the association of chess skill with intelligence in this group was at best nonexistent
and at worst negative."
The same study proves that even visuo spatial abilities are irrelevant for chess skill and practice is again the dominant factor.
"One of the reasons why visuo-spatial abilities did not correlate with chess skill in this
study with young players is practice. Practice had the biggest effect on chess skill measures in
all analyses."
Overall intelligence doesn't guarantee any success in chess except in the first levels where the relative success might keep the more intelligent kids more motivated.
"..........given that intelligence seems to correlate with chess skill at the beginning (our subsample
of non-elite players; Frydman & Lynn, 1992; Horgan & Morgan, 1990), it makes sense
to assume that intelligent children will have more success at the beginning. The positive
association between intelligence and practice could hence be the consequence of this initial
success – more successful children will be more motivated and interested which will turn result
in more time spending on chess activities. The children who lag behind their peers in chess
development are more likely to be less motivated and to eventually stop with the activity
altogether."
If the correlation of intelligence and chess skill is that obvious and that logical as many in these forums claim why so many studies failed to prove it?
"Lane (an unpublished study, D. Lane, mentioned in Cranberg &
Albert, 1988, p. 161) found no association between chess ability and performance on a visuospatial
task (the Guilford-Zimmerman Spatial Visualization Subtest, Form B; Guilford &
Zimmerman, 1953)."
"Djakow, Petrowski and Rudik
(1927) tested eight grandmasters—including several world champions and some of the best
players at their time—with a number of measures of general intelligence and visuo-spatial
memory. They found no differences between this highly talented group and a control group of
adult non-chess players."
"Doll and Mayr (1987) also failed to identify any reliable correlation
between chess skill and various intellectual abilities as measured by the Berlin Structural Model
of Intelligence Test in 27 expert chess players."
"Waters, Gobet and Leyden (2003) found
virtually no association between chess skill and the Shape Memory Test (MV-1), a measure of
visual memory ability, among 36 adult chess players despite a positive correlation between the
scores on the Shape Memory Test and the recall of random positions."
"Similarly, a recent study
by Grabner, Neubauer and Stern (2006) could not establish 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). Finally,
Unterrainer, Kaller, Halsband and Rahm (2006) found no association between chess skill and
the scores on the Raven’s Progressive Matrices, Digit Span, and Corsi block-tapping test
among a group of 25 experienced chess players. In addition, the same group of players did not
have better fluid intelligence (Raven matrices), memory capacity (Digit Span), or visuo-spatial
working memory (Corsi block-tapping test) than a group of non-players matched for age and
education."
Personally , I had the luck to watch many kids improving the last years. From a class that started 8 years ago, 2 of the kids are today GMs(not kids anymore) and they were not the most clever kids. The kid that was the last of the class in all tournaments and tests is today IM. A kid that went faster to 2200(2 years) and was without doubt the most clever(learning faster , excelled in all tactics tests, champion in the first tournaments of the class) still struggling around 2200 with peak 2245(I hope he doesn't see that).
I think that very intelligent kids often drop out of chess, because they easily get good results, and after a while they see that other kids (less intelligent kids) starts to beat them (because they have trained harder). It is very discouraging to drop from the ten year old top ten to the eleven year below top ten. I was clubchampion when I was 15, and lost the two first matches in the next clubchampionship, combined with smokey environment this dropback got me quitting competetive chess.
Some intelligent kids also drop out because they can't really go 'all in' -- somewhere in their minds, they are wondering if it really makes sense to dedicate so much time and energy to such a thing. It would be like dedicating your life to the game of Monopoly, or becoming a world class taxidermist, or a Gilligan's Island scholar.
Even saying something like you need a good memory is very shallow/misleading. I am a software developer, and I have a great memory for things I have coded, how the systems work, etc. But in some other kinds of memory, I am very average at best. The brain is incredibly complex, and like most things complex, sometimes defies easy categorization.
Yes, some people are more intelligent than others at most things. But a "smart" mechanical engineer may be next to worthless at actually fixing a car. They just don't have that kind of smarts.
Grandmasters have brains that are wired to play chess well. They may or may not be wired very well in other things.
Aug 19, 2018
0
#93
Pondisoulenso wrote:
forked_again wrote:
Race realists?.....
I didn't say I am one of them; and I can call you names too; but I won't because it doesn't really make for a good discussion.
If "race realists" make you sick, you can take it up with them.
Here it's what you did say.
Some on the right (some of the "race realists") actually take a compassionate, realistic, pragmatic approach, like vocational schools.
First, referring to race realism as a legitimate thing is racist in itself. Furthermore, you imply that vocational schooling is for lower IQ people which is what "compassionate" people on the right see as the correct way to compassionately deal with certain races.
Your comment is not ambiguous and I will stick by what I said. It makes me sick.
hello
forked_again wrote:
Pondisoulenso wrote:
forked_again wrote:
Race realists?.....
I didn't say I am one of them; and I can call you names too; but I won't because it doesn't really make for a good discussion.
If "race realists" make you sick, you can take it up with them.
Here it's what you did say.
Some on the right (some of the "race realists") actually take a compassionate, realistic, pragmatic approach, like vocational schools.
First, referring to race realism as a legitimate thing is racist in itself. Furthermore, you imply that vocational schooling is for lower IQ people which is what "compassionate" people on the right see as the correct way to compassionately deal with certain races.
Your comment is not ambiguous and I will stick by what I said. It makes me sick.
No. I did not refer to it as a legitimate thing. You read that into it.
And calling someone a racist when they are not is just a form of cheap and thoughtless name calling.
"Compassionately deal with certain races" -- no, not at all. Compassionately deal with people who do not have the math aptitude to expect them to do well in advanced math courses, yes.
I've seen what such expectations can do to people. It can destroy them.
What is non-compassionate about that?
And I haven't looked into this one much, but maybe the same could be said for chess.
DjonniDerevnja 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.
IQ is not the same as business talent and that kind of drive. It is common that humans like to compete, and high IQ is an advantage in chess. It is common to compete in games where you have an edge, because its fun to win. Therefore chess attracts people with high IQ.
Chess might attract people with higher IQs. I dont know. But I was talking about grandmasters, not average chess players or beginners, or even good players. I agree IQ isnt the same as business talent or drive, but it seems like it might be helpful to be smart if you want to go into business.
So it seems like grandmasters, more than any other type of chess players, are going to be the ones who take chess seriously or try to get something out of it. Because this one particular type of chess player is probably the one that is looking to get the most out of chess is why I said their IQ might not be very high. I think a smater person, say an average chess player, knows there are a lot better things to do with a persons life.
I'm not talking about the rare exception like Bobby Fischer or even the current world champion. These people are probably just made for being great at chess and get a lot out of their profession. And there are people who love chess and it doesn't matter how good they are or how smart they are, they are doing what they love. All the smart people I know think being a chess grandmaster is a bad idea.
r2d2bb8 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.
If one thinks that chess is nothing but a game, that person hasn't understood anything about chess.
Chess is nothing but a game. I understand that. it's a complex game that some people are fascinated with, some people love, and some people make a career out of. But still just a game. Some people maybe take it too seriously, like with some video games, gambling, or any other recreation. The important thing to remember is that chess should never get in the way of more important things, like family, shopping, the beach, school, work, and of course golf and tennis.
Aug 19, 2018
0
#99
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.
Says an eight year veteran of the site after having played nearly 25,000 blitz games.
hello