Pros and cons of chess

Skinner was said to have remarked, "Damn rat crapped over the board."

Nice!

I tried to look for the researches in those years, but I did not find the research where there was a quantifiable increase in math IQ by 30  points and not just the general discussion of chess is good for developing math and analytical thinking.

Here is a page with summaries of experiments as I attempted to that particular "30 point" result in Math IQ increase:

http://www.mathandchess.com/articles/article/1302222/60347.htm

@grantchamp: Can you paste a link to web content that shows the experiment that you were referring to?

@Kupov3: What?

EDIT

The page linked from the above post has to be considered highly suspect, as it makes a ludicrous claim about an IQ of 250+ for someone. It is nonsense to claim that an extension of the IQ curve out to this distance makes any sense. The definition of the IQ curve is that it is a normal distribution with standard deviation 15, representing a total order on some measure of intelligence for the population. As 250 would be 10 standard deviations away from the central value of 100, there are not enough human beings on the planet to make such a value meaningful. [The frequency above 5 standard deviations is 1 in 650 billion, but the frequency above 10 standard deviations is enormously smaller]

here is something about chess and IQ

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-players/iq-and-chess-the-real-relationship

You mean the information about William James Sidis (1898-1944)? I belive that Bill Wall, the one who consolidated all the information on the page and a contributing writer for chess.com, only cited the information that exists but did not intend to prove every single one of the claims.

What do you say of the other listings? Were they real tests?

Also, I am still waiting for someone to help point me to an online reference of an actual experiment where there was an increase of 30 Math IQ points due to chess.

Yes, I realise now that he quoted as true a wild statement by someone who sounded authoritative, and the point was pretty irrelevant to the current discussion.

What's irrelevant? The claim of a 250 IQ or that chess is proven to raise people's IQ (math or otherwise)?

I don't think it is unlikely that chess (obviously a form of mental labour) would enlarge one's capacity in other areas of mental exercise. One of those might be math, that would be an interesting specification of 'other areas'.

That being said, I suspect the increase is more on the level of realizing potential than increasing one's potential. (I would expect people working at math to become better at math as well. Chess is probably a less efficient way, and if you think it is more fun, well than why would you want to get better at math at all? )

The claim of a 250 IQ, of course. However, I now realise the original source must have been referring to the original meaning of IQ as a ratio of mental age to chronological age. For example, a child of 6 with the mental age of an average 15 year old would have an IQ of 250. This definition of IQ is by its nature only applicable to subjects who are no more intelligent that the average adult.

This definition of IQ is very different from the "bell-shaped curve" definition, which may be used for adults, where an IQ of 250 would imply a 1 in 4 x 10^44 frequency (hence not meaningful for human populations).

I  came across these entertaining discussions and observations  in my search for a  better way  for this site to deal with problem of new member's  initial ratings .Can not intelligence be defined as an ability to understand situations and problems,and  to then devise ways of successfully dealing with them .

More intelligent people can understand more and can be more effective in their endeavours than less intelligent people.

I am indebted to site member Teja for the word "inscient" introduced to the word association thread.

 More intelligent people can become more inscient and their endeavours can become more instructive, useful or beneficial to others of the general population .

Etc. Etc. Note too that words can change their meanings in time and in context.Currently the phrase "gay abandon"is an example.

Now back to my little problem....btw is 1200 an ELo rating allocated by site to new members ?

That sounds a pretty good (if difficult to quantify) definition of intelligence.

New members are only provisionally given a 1200 rating. Also newer players do not have much effect on the ratings of others when they play (as their rating is considered unreliable).

(I'm super tired .. too lazy to check)

I'm pretty sure yahoo chess also starts at 1200

@echecs06, are you saying that is a pro or a con for you?

I don't like it.

What, chess?

  The biggest con of chess that i believe most players encounter is the inability to improve as rapidly as they would like.To many players their rating is an important thing (no matter how high or low it is). They always feel like they should be playing at a level 100-200 points above it. I believe this is true of players of ever class.

  There is also a (usually) brief period of frustration/unhappiness when one is defeated by a lowwer rated opponent whom you assume you should be beating.

  For me the pros of chess do outweigh the cons. I have made some of my best friendships via of the chessboard (I even met my girlfriend through chess). I have enjoyed the excitment of close games, even some of my loses.

  I do think it is best not to have chess as your sole recreation. I enjoy reading,movies,video games,and television as well. This might limit my improvement in chess strength but i do think it makes me psychologically healthier.

My beef with chess is that it really comes down to who is smarter/more experienced. There is no randomness.

Basically, if you know more about chess than your opponent, you should win.