Sadly, every fool and his auntie now uses the word "iconic" inappropriately. That means that it's now very difficult to find old articles on iconic thought, written by creative psychologists.
Relationship between Chess rating and I.Q?
Sort:
Uhohspaghettio1 wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
^^ Don't think so, because with long lines, visualisation is inaccurate and chess is all about detail.
So you're saying even chess calculation is not truly based on visualization? My intuition would tend to disagree, but maybe.
If a football player receives the ball and isn't facing the goal and wants to turn and shoot, is it correct to say they have to "visualize" the goal because otherwise how will they know where it is? Do they visualize the goalkeeper and the grass? No, not at all really, they just know where the goals are, it can be called spatial awareness. Same in chess - if a file becomes opened good players don't need to have a continual visualization of this for the rest of their calculation, they just know or have an awareness that this file is opened and all that that entails. They also count up attackers vs defenders of a piece (while checking carefully for intermezzos), and do plenty of other logical and heuristic analysis. Visualization of an actual position is an incredibly hard and effortful thing. I would even go so far as to say visualization is the last thing you want to be doing.
Also think about this - noone "visualizes" the entire board all at once even when having full sight of the board. You look at one segment of the board, that's it. The human brain only views a few pieces at a time. Nobody just looks straight at and perceives the entire board all at once - when you look at super gms their eyes are constantly darting from one part of the board to the other. You have to remember that one diagonal or file is "hot" as in the opponent is attacking on it even when in full sight of the board. That's why I think even super grandmasters may be a slightly more vulnerable to long-range pieces that hit from another side of the board, eg. Kasparov's famous blunder against Anand where he was looking at one side of the board and "forgot" about the rook attack.
It is a mix of intuitive sub-conscious spatial processes and conscious visualization, role of which depends on the context. A calculation of a long line I would intuitively say requires more of actual visualization to keep track of each moving part relative to each other. Most of the time intuitive (spatial) understanding would play a larger role compared to rigorous calculation, but I'm sure that varies depending on the strengths and styles of the players.
Feb 12, 2025
0
#2024
We should stick with the definitions put forth by C.S. Peirce:
There are 3 kinds of sign : the ICON, the INDEX and the SYMBOL.
- from philosopher Charles S. Peirce in the late 19th century.
- a sign is a stimulus pattern that has a meaning.
- The difference is in how the meaning happens to be attached to (or associated with) the pattern.
https://legacy.cs.indiana.edu/~port/teach/103/sign.symbol.short.html
ICON
The icon is the simplest since it is a pattern that physically resembles what it `stands for'.
- A picture of your face is an icon of you.
- The little square with a picture of a printer on your computer screen is an icon for the print function.
- The picture of a smoking cigarette with a diagonal bar across the picture is an icon that directly represents `Smoking? Don't do it' (at least it does with appropriate cultural experience).
- Your cat is preparing to jump up on your lap, so you put out the palm of your hand over the cat.
- Words can be partly iconic too. Bow-wow, splash and hiccup. And the bird called the whippoorwill. (These are also called onomotopoetic words.)
- Also words can be pronounced iconically:
- His nose grew wa-a-a-ay out to here.
- Julia Childes grabbed that carrot and went CHOP CHOP CHOP CHOP.
- Aw, poor widdow ba-by!
Chess is work and dedication. The best are not the ones with big iq
Ziryab wrote:
We should stick with the definitions put forth by C.S. Peirce:
There are 3 kinds of sign : the ICON, the INDEX and the SYMBOL.
- from philosopher Charles S. Peirce in the late 19th century.
- a sign is a stimulus pattern that has a meaning.
- The difference is in how the meaning happens to be attached to (or associated with) the pattern.
https://legacy.cs.indiana.edu/~port/teach/103/sign.symbol.short.html
ICONThe icon is the simplest since it is a pattern that physically resembles what it `stands for'.
- A picture of your face is an icon of you.
- The little square with a picture of a printer on your computer screen is an icon for the print function.
- The picture of a smoking cigarette with a diagonal bar across the picture is an icon that directly represents `Smoking? Don't do it' (at least it does with appropriate cultural experience).
- Your cat is preparing to jump up on your lap, so you put out the palm of your hand over the cat.
- Words can be partly iconic too. Bow-wow, splash and hiccup. And the bird called the whippoorwill. (These are also called onomotopoetic words.)
- Also words can be pronounced iconically:
- His nose grew wa-a-a-ay out to here.
- Julia Childes grabbed that carrot and went CHOP CHOP CHOP CHOP.
- Aw, poor widdow ba-by!
Yes, what is meant is a process of thinking in images which isn't visualisation, which takes effort and time. The images can consist of any meaningful sign, so they could be a picture, a word or maybe even the image of an idea. It is believed to occur in a more primitive part of the brain than the cerebral cortex or whatever.
Optimissed wrote:
Regarding your last bit, I believe that highly intelligent people won't BE highly intelligent without self-confidence. This is about how our brains actually work. There are two reasons. One is that when you're performing mental gymnastics, maybe in a calculation, if you doubt your mind then you have to check the calculation. Once you do that, you're lost. No-one will achieve a high IQ score if they check their calculations. You have to back yourself at all times.
However, the other reason is regarding how the mind actually works when you are thinking creatively. You have to be able to think at the natural rate that a particular cognitive function works. Some people have called it "iconic thought". It works at about 5 frames per second. If you can't follow that, you just get lost. You experience that "can't think what I was thinking about" feeling.
I think you've put this well and my thinking does align with this quite a bit. It depends how you view intelligence - It may be thought as a potential resource, that confidence as in certain neurotransmitters allow you to access. If you consider intelligence as your output capability at a given moment then, yes, you have to consider confidence instrisic to intelligence. It certainly affects your score in an IQ test. Some may have be more stable performers than others. I tend to separate IQ score and intelligence though.
Feb 12, 2025
0
#2028
Optimissed wrote:
^^ Don't think so, because with long lines, visualisation is inaccurate and chess is all about detail.
My (and your) visualization may be inaccurate, while Morphy's or Kasparov's is far more accurate, giving them some advantage over us.
Feb 12, 2025
0
#2029
Representing a situation in the mind as an image is a form of visualization. The term may be popular today in relation to meditations and coaching, but I'm being pragmatic here.Personally I have tend to visualisations naturally.You can tell me a story and my mind created images as a movie.Im naturally sinestesic also.I give in my mind collors to the days of weeks and mounths,as example.
Feb 12, 2025
0
#2030
Optimissed escribió:
Ziryab wrote:
We should stick with the definitions put forth by C.S. Peirce:
There are 3 kinds of sign : the ICON, the INDEX and the SYMBOL.
- from philosopher Charles S. Peirce in the late 19th century.
- a sign is a stimulus pattern that has a meaning.
- The difference is in how the meaning happens to be attached to (or associated with) the pattern.
https://legacy.cs.indiana.edu/~port/teach/103/sign.symbol.short.html
ICONThe icon is the simplest since it is a pattern that physically resembles what it `stands for'.
- A picture of your face is an icon of you.
- The little square with a picture of a printer on your computer screen is an icon for the print function.
- The picture of a smoking cigarette with a diagonal bar across the picture is an icon that directly represents `Smoking? Don't do it' (at least it does with appropriate cultural experience).
- Your cat is preparing to jump up on your lap, so you put out the palm of your hand over the cat.
- Words can be partly iconic too. Bow-wow, splash and hiccup. And the bird called the whippoorwill. (These are also called onomotopoetic words.)
- Also words can be pronounced iconically:
- His nose grew wa-a-a-ay out to here.
- Julia Childes grabbed that carrot and went CHOP CHOP CHOP CHOP.
- Aw, poor widdow ba-by!
Yes, what is meant is a process of thinking in images which isn't visualisation, which takes effort and time. The images can consist of any meaningful sign, so they could be a picture, a word or maybe even the image of an idea. It is believed to occur in a more primitive part of the brain than the cerebral cortex or whatever.
Philosophy and others schools can use words in another sense.As example the word PLURALISM have a meaning in philosophy other about political ,social and others
mpaetz wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
^^ Don't think so, because with long lines, visualisation is inaccurate and chess is all about detail.
My (and your) visualization may be inaccurate, while Morphy's or Kasparov's is far more accurate, giving them some advantage over us.
It's just that current thinking tends to indicate or postulate that visualisation isn't dominant in chess calculation.
HernanCacciatore1 wrote:
Philosophy and others schools can use words in another sense.As example the word PLURALISM have a meaning in philosophy other about political ,social and others
Can you explain what pluralism means in philosophy? My guess is that it might refer to a plurality of philosophic standpoints. It isn't something I'm familiar with but new words have been used since I got my philosopohy degree, which was around 1993 or 4.
HernanCacciatore1 wrote:
Representing a situation in the mind as an image is a form of visualization. The term may be popular today in relation to meditations and coaching, but I'm being pragmatic here.Personally I have tend to visualisations naturally.You can tell me a story and my mind created images as a movie.Im naturally sinestesic also.I give in my mind collors to the days of weeks and mounths,as example.
I don't think so since I see visualisation as being deliberate. Iconic thought is something we can perceive only if we are capable of it. It's from the subconscious and not many people are aware of it.
Kotshmot wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Regarding your last bit, I believe that highly intelligent people won't BE highly intelligent without self-confidence. This is about how our brains actually work. There are two reasons. One is that when you're performing mental gymnastics, maybe in a calculation, if you doubt your mind then you have to check the calculation. Once you do that, you're lost. No-one will achieve a high IQ score if they check their calculations. You have to back yourself at all times.
However, the other reason is regarding how the mind actually works when you are thinking creatively. You have to be able to think at the natural rate that a particular cognitive function works. Some people have called it "iconic thought". It works at about 5 frames per second. If you can't follow that, you just get lost. You experience that "can't think what I was thinking about" feeling.
I think you've put this well and my thinking does align with this quite a bit. It depends how you view intelligence - It may be thought as a potential resource, that confidence as in certain neurotransmitters allow you to access. If you consider intelligence as your output capability at a given moment then, yes, you have to consider confidence instrisic to intelligence. It certainly affects your score in an IQ test. Some may have be more stable performers than others. I tend to separate IQ score and intelligence though.
Yes, IQ only consists of the parts of intelligence which are relatively easy to measure.
Feb 12, 2025
0
#2035
I kind of agree, but not so definitively. It is a measure of some aspects of intelligence that are relatively easy to measure. Other things that can be considered part of intelligence have been measured independently. For example, emotional intelligence. Here is a list of aspects of intelligence outside of those measured in IQ tests, some of which can be measured fairly well.
Feb 12, 2025
0
#2036
Optimissed wrote:
mpaetz wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
^^ Don't think so, because with long lines, visualisation is inaccurate and chess is all about detail.
My (and your) visualization may be inaccurate, while Morphy's or Kasparov's is far more accurate, giving them some advantage over us.
It's just that current thinking tends to indicate or postulate that visualisation isn't dominant in chess calculation.
In the 1920s the French Chess Olympiad team was given a variety of mental acuity tests. Alekhine was on the team, as well as artist/chessplayers Marcel Duchamp and Man Ray. The only areas in which all those strong players scored in the 99th percentile were visualization and visual memory.
mpaetz wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
mpaetz wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
^^ Don't think so, because with long lines, visualisation is inaccurate and chess is all about detail.
My (and your) visualization may be inaccurate, while Morphy's or Kasparov's is far more accurate, giving them some advantage over us.
It's just that current thinking tends to indicate or postulate that visualisation isn't dominant in chess calculation.
In the 1920s the French Chess Olympiad team was given a variety of mental acuity tests. Alekhine was on the team, as well as artist/chessplayers Marcel Duchamp and Man Ray. The only areas in which all those strong players scored in the 99th percentile were visualization and visual memory.
OK that sounds like a strong argument but it has to be taken with a bit of a pinch of salt. Firstly, isn't visual memory different from visualisation? But the real question is "how did they measure it?" It may be that the visual tests were too much like chess. I'd want to verify the tests. It was the 1920s after all.
Feb 12, 2025
0
#2038
Optimissed : Clearly you say "I don't think. I can accept your subjetive point of view.Im being pragmatic in chat means. About pluralism /Philosophy,appologyes.I want to amply my point and respond you soon.Now is my time of bit exercise.Im not trying to gain time to study neither to web /AI searchs.🤣 "see you later"
I'm not getting ANY Google hits except to chess.com links. I even tried an alternative search engine.
There are no genuine links that I can see, in the chess.com links. I don't think the term "cognitive scientist" existed then. In any case, by their very nature, cognitive scientists aren't people of great ability, since cognitive science is the very opposite of a specialism. I mean, Sam Harris was one! But I suppose they may have been termed "psychologists".
It's an interesting topic. Whenever the relationship of IQ and a given subject is brought up and discussed, it tends to get a pretty strong reaction from people. Some of it, I think, has to do with people interpreting the word correlation too strongly, as if it was implied that something cannot be achieved without a certain level of intelligence. In reality that rarely the suggestion (atleast when talking about above average levels), but the question of how useful is intelligence in this particular subject, or if there are other reasons that may lead to a correlation. I think in terms of chess it's both, intelligence is useful but intelligent people also tend to be more interested in problem solving. This isn't to say there aren't other factors that are more significant.
To me the relationship appears to have some similarities to one of intelligence and level/field of education. There is some correlation (I havent done any research, dont know how much) that may be explained by intelligence being a useful asset in studying, but also theres the motivational factors. A masters degree may allow one to be highly skilled and knowledgeable about what is going on in their field and apply their knowledge in pratice, where as a doctorate degree will force them to ask more fundamental questions on why and how, providing them more tools for generating new knowledge. A highly generalized statement, but what I'm aiming at is that an intelligent person might be more likely to be asking those fundamental questions and not be satisfied without that knowledge. Does that mean that a person of a slightly below average iq couldn't achieve a doctorate degree? No, it is certainly possible. More challenging and less likely, yes.
Both education and iq are influenced with (almost) unlimited other factors, external and internal, not the least of which is culture. If one would like to truly measure the role of iq in chess performance, the study would need control groups with standardized studying resources and maybe even backgrounds in more detail.
Some already got into the questions of what do the iq tests truly even capture. That's a whole another topic but they do capture something when the sample size is appropriately big. When an individual person says their iq is either 109 or 125, I'd say it's unclear what conclusions you can draw out of those numbers.
That's an interesting comment. I'm aware that you can have a research Masters degree or a wholly taught one. The taught ones will usually contain a small element of basic research work.
Regarding doctorates, my son did a theoretical physics PhD after his MMath and he told me that everyone who works diligently is almost sure to get the PhD. That is because they do tailor the difficulty of the research project according to the ability of the candidate. He also told me that less able candidates were tending to opt for cosmology-based research projects. Why? Because there's much less positive feedback in cosmology (positive meaning evidence-based) and so many of the checks and balances are evaded or avoided.
His project was to depict magnetism in terms of fermionic spins. He found it intensely difficult even though he was the equal best mathematician at St Andrews (equal with a female German candidate) and also because some of the criticism of his work was due to the assessors' lack of understanding of the subject, which was cutting edge at the time.
I think he would tell you that maybe a large majority of PhDs do not imply being able to think fundamentally or to break new ground. I've talked to some physics PhDs and found them not particularly able to understand what I'm talking about. That means they were not over-bright.
IQ is, more or less, a measure of mental clarity, mental fluidity and the ability to apply that to diverse problems, with time being of the essence. This means that to get a high IQ score, you have to apply it and get the appropriate answers VERY fast, which means total self-confidence. And some people wonder why I have a lot of self-confidence!
Interesting anecdote. One thing to consider is that there are levels above levels to fundemental thinking. If your son happens to be a genius, he might stand out among impressive people. That is not to say PhD's on average aren't more advanced thinkers than the rest. Confidence by the way is a very good and underestimated aspect of cognitive performance. A highly intelligent person wont be able to access half of their potential if they (severely) lack confidence.
He was called a genius at St Andrews by his peers but that was more anecdotal .... meaning that he was the go-to for any of them who found something procedurally difficult, whereas I think the German girl was a slightly better equation solver than he was. Now he fulfils the same function as leader/manager of about ten people, many of whom have PhDs, in data analysis. But in this case it's more about directing their efforts and helping them if they have software problems.
Regarding your last bit, I believe that highly intelligent people won't BE highly intelligent without self-confidence. This is about how our brains actually work. There are two reasons. One is that when you're performing mental gymnastics, maybe in a calculation, if you doubt your mind then you have to check the calculation. Once you do that, you're lost. No-one will achieve a high IQ score if they check their calculations. You have to back yourself at all times.
However, the other reason is regarding how the mind actually works when you are thinking creatively. You have to be able to think at the natural rate that a particular cognitive function works. Some people have called it "iconic thought". It works at about 5 frames per second. If you can't follow that, you just get lost. You experience that "can't think what I was thinking about" feeling.
Now, you can slow it down but not all that much. That is because when you use mental associations, when you get a "hit", that sends a small burst of energy to the brain, which powers the next association. If you get it wrong, you get lost and "lose the thread". If you check it, you stop the process and "lose the thread". You have to be able to think fast to be a genius because you have to be able to think at the speed your mind actually works and not slow it down or stop it perhaps by being too cautious. You can always check it later but many people are not confident enough, intellectually and therefore they will never trust themselves or trust their minds sufficiently to allow their minds to work as they should or might.
Let's see if anyone comments on this. negative comments are always GREAT!