My Hypothesis on Chess and IQ

I haven't seen any research cited here yet.

Exactly -- and I think Tonydal has said as much in past threads like this.

The responses can be much more creative if they aren't confined to research results. Besides, at the end of the thread, the answer will still be 42.

To be great at chess (not just okay, like me, on a good day), what you need - in addition to lots of work - is a great memory. Not just to remember opening lines, but to also remember positions and patterns.  A great player will look at a position and be able to recall other games with the same dynamics and tensions, and remember - rather than find - the solution.

In watching chesstv coverage of the championship, I noted several times when one commentator would spot a pattern - such as a mating net - and the other would say, well of course, before then showing people like me what they had instantly recognised/remembered.  

Just for the record, you didn't give a hypothesis. In 6th grade science is when we all learned that a hypothesis is a "if, then" statement.

Example:

If food is yummy, then people will eat more chocolate.

So you have no hypothesis. I suppose you have a thesis, but even that isn't entirely clear .

P.S. I feel bad for tonydal. He has to keep repeating himself over and over again in IQ, resigning, best WC ever, and other common threads.

1. There are more number of snake bites in summer.

2. People drink more beer in summer.

Therefore the number of snake bites is causally related to the quantity of beer people consume (in summer).

         =      

If above hypothesis makes sense, so does OP's... 

I think thesexyknight ought to look up the word 'hypothesis' in a dictionary.  ;)

Are you repeating yourself if your can't remember that you've said it before

I think IQ has very little to do with it.  I have a relatively high IQ (140+ is all i'll say), but I bet i'd have trouble making 1600 in a many years (OTB) on 1800+ ever.

This is a fascinating thread the only thing I can add is with reference the "How To". This questioned has concerned me over the last few years, as I am quite happy to dedicate the time, I just want to ensure I dedicate it to the right things.

I had read the Dan Heisman stuff at Chess Café in a bid to put together a home study program, then last month Andrew Soltis GM released a new book called  Studying Chess Made Easy. This blew some of the old myths away about studying openings & calculation giving me hope for an all round study program that would work for most sub 2000 players and wasn't just about tactics.

Well worth a read and may well help to get the most use out of the hundreds of chess books many of us already have on the shelf collecting dust.

buhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh shi. 

Threads like this remind me of why I don't discuss chess at all with my non-playing friends: it's the idea that people who play chess are somehow magically smarter than other people. I can see the incentive for a chess player to try to establish this as a fact, but truth remains there's not as much correlation as one would expect. In fact, a study of German players with an average chess Elo of 2300 found that their IQ's averaged only 110 IQ. This horse has been beaten, if not dead, then senseless here at chess.com forums and many other places aswell. Good memory, pattern recognition and visualization ability equals good base proficiency in chess.The rest is hard work utilizing those abilities.

So in short: being good at chess makes you *drum roll* good at chess. It doesn't automatically translate to one being a member of any sort of intellectual elite. Even worse, being a chess enthusiast lowers one's chance to pick up chicks! ;D

Through effort I have given my chess rating a boost. I don't know if I could do the same for my IQ. All around me I see the aging process take its toll, yet some gain wisdom with the advancement of their years. Some seize opportunity while others devote themselves to destructive indulgences. Inspiration, motivation and a sense of purpose can be huge factors toward achievement. I am more interested in my chess rating than my IQ these days. I really don't know much about IQ. Perhaps I should Google IQ before I next return to this rather provocative forum. I've enjoyed my visit with all of you. I hope to return with you soon.

Chess is just a hobby that everyone can improve it by training

but, IQ is a degree can't be changed easily.

this is complete nonsense. IQ and chess skill are two different things. many peoplle with average IQ are absolutely stunning chess players and I know of people with astronomical IQs who are worse than me at chess.

I know it was 3 years ago but it's worth replying to: chess is indeed a science and should be treated as such.  There is objective right and wrong and the game is governed by certain immutable laws.  Botvinnik for example has one of the best chess philosophies, that chess involves the search for the truth, but what is the truth?  On the first move there are many truths (1.e4,1.d4,1.c4,1.Nf3) whereas in many endgame positions there is only one (only one move wins, the rest draws). 

and remember some people with "high IQs" might dismiss chess as a waste of their time.

Einstein for one example said chess was kind of a waste of his time. Well good for him. He obviously had some other stuff he was working on.

Some?  Might?