FREE - In Google Play
FREE - in Win Phone Store
Anecdotally, I used to play someone who had a Ph.d and despite his high intelligence, he was a weak player, probably in the 1350 range.
My opponents always play someone with a Ph.D, which anyone who is not retarded can get with a little work. ;-)
$$ to pay for the Ph.D. is often times the reason for lacking that degree.
After 18-years old, many folks are on their own, financially.
Chess is a performance based game, not a knowledge based one. You need a lot of qualities to be able to play chess well, like endurance and concentration. Lots of high IQ people lack both of those.
so right. there are other factors that would keep one from attaining a ph.d, and none have any relevance to one's potential.
in singapore, the 18 year old male gets drafted & the military provides. in return they take part of your brain. so that doesn't really help either ...
Hello. Using the IQ to SATI conversion chart found at: http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/SATIQ.aspx
and the Levitt equation: Elo~ IQ*10+1000One can calculate SAT I to ~Elo conversions.
Please keep in mind these are SATI's taken after May of 1995 to whenever as long as its on the 1600 scale/roof (Verbal + Math). That is do not add in your writing score if you took the SAT when it had a scale/roof of 2400! IF you took the SAT test before May of 1995 good for you; your estimated Elo will be HIGHER than the one predicted by the formula!Namely (using IQ 15 SD column the leftmost column...as most IQ tests use a standard deviation of 15) picking a pair of points and finding the line IQ= .0724*SATI + 36.33 Elo ~ ((.0724*SATI+36.33)*10) +1000 = .724*SATI + 1363.3Elo ~ .724*SATI +1363.3The short and approximate version of the formula is take your SATI divide by 1.4 and add 1400. Cheers,JWILDp.s. Who pays for a PhD anyway? It's pretty standard for the university to pay the student, not the other way around.
Sometimes, people use math to camouflage hogwash. But it's still hogwash.
You have accused me of willful deception, of bearing false witness. I know I have not. So I ask you, SmyslovFan, what upsets you, that you should show ill will towards a stranger?
Does anyone have information about any direct correlation between OTB rating and general intelligence? I vaguely recall British G.M Jonathan Levitt putting forward the notion that an I.Q of 120 indicates a person could, with sufficient work achieve a rating roughly = 2000 + [I.Q - 100] x 10
Therefore, we can conclude that even a relatively weak G.M would have an I.Q above 140 while super GM's like Kasparov would be > 180.
Those of us who have not yet reached 2000 should not despair. Levitt would tell us either to work at chess more often or change our method.
Given the studies such as that cited at www.auschess.org.au/articles/chessmind.htm I am of the opinion that I.Q is not a genetic parameter like eye colour that is handed out at birth, but rather can be altered through one's environment. I think there are three groups of people...average of which I am unfortunately a member, the gifted and the handicapped.
Any ideas or information on the subject is appreciated.
The only thing is that Kasparov had an I.Q. of 110. He was a GM, I have an I.Q. of 135, and my Rating is 1500+
I didn't see anything about motive. SmyslovFan focused on content. If you don't recognize hogwash when you see it, you would not be deliberately deceiving anyone. Rather, you are among the deceived.
@Ziryab. lol. You claim there is content in SmyslovFan's post? If name-calling and so-saying amounts to content, then I have a quote for you about opinions and facts. You see, Ziryab, If you recognized so-called "weasel-words" (e.g. "sometimes" as used in "sometimes people use mathematics to camouflage hogwash") or if you recognized accusation of willful intent to deceive behind the usage of "camouflage" when used as a verb to describe another person's actions, you would not be DeRping anyone. Rather, you are the DeRp.
You have a point, JWILD. Maybe SmyslovFan was crediting you with the knowledge to understand that you were promoting fecal matter from male bovines. Nonetheless, the critique is not a personal attack, but rather the observation that the apparent content of your math was little more than a smokescreen. His focus was on the absence of content in your post, not on your morality.
My IQ is -163 the negative isn't a typo
JWILD can rest easy at night knowing that Ziryab has confirmed that SmyslovFan does not question JWILD's morality. As a point of fact I will add that the math and inferences I used were air tight. Take it to the bank. Fat lady has sung. I think instead you criticize validity of the of IQ ~ SAT or IQ ~ Elo. IQ ~ SAT with R = approx. .7 IQ ~ Elo ....different story.
I guess my point is that if you don't believe in Levitt's equation. Good for you. I haven't made up my mind and am leaning the other way, but at least that's a respectable viewpoint. If, you're going to believe in Levitt's equation (Elo~ IQ*10 + 1000) then it seems like it might save time to believe the expected value of SAT ~ Elo to be found in my equation, seeing as how believing so would keep your beliefs consistent. If however, you are going to troll with a diamond membership by not knowing what your talking about, not attempting to learn by asking, and then, while pretending to know, accuse someone of "camouflaging hogwash" then you are SmyslovFan. In other words the Levitt equation may or may not be hogwash 50-50 or whatnot. My equation then too may or may not be hogwash. The link however, between my equation and the Levitt equation the "your math" as you call it is empirical fact. SAT I correlates with IQ. They are both scores on tests, and they generally move in the same direction. Oh Also, all the content is linked or IN my post so when you say there's no content, I wonder to what you refer.
P.s. I don't apologize when I'm right, except when I feel like it. I happen to feel like it, so I'm sorry if I offended you.
It doesn't matter how good the math is when it is rooted in a presupposition that is demonstrably false. There is no logical relationship between chess and IQ. Perhaps a bonafide moron cannot exceed weak master and most geniuses should probably rise above 1200. Beyond such crude limits, correlations break down. No amount of calculus will repair poor logic.
The whole idea of IQ is controversial and subjective so I don't think you can apply a formula between a chess rating and IQ. However, qualities of intelligence do transfer to chess, such as memory, learning and application of learned concepts to tasks, logic, creativity, causal relationships and likely more. Also, the exercise of the mind in solving chess problems is probably good for the old brain muscle.
Then I believe in the formula.
Einstein was a crap. Relativity theory is a b***shit, that delayed physics in 100 years.
This. I have no qualms with this argument; I find it to be maybe slightly overstated, but only slightly so. The Levitt equation (Elo ~ 10*IQ + 1000), yeah, it has a lot of noise, strict assumptions (the "~" meaning "years of concerted effort") as well as it's correlative nature (doesn't/cannot account for selection effects (where people who select to pursue chess are likely to be more apt to do well in it than someone who is less likely to pursue chess), to me means it doesn't make any meaningful predictions that couldn't be gleaned by playing the game. Also, as you point out, there may be certain thresholds. Like anyone with IQ over something can learn to play, and anyone with IQ over like 100 can become world champ. Beyond those thresholds the Levitt equation, and therefore my SAT ~ Elo equation don't really do all that much; they're just fun...like chess! In other words, if you're 8 years old and somehow (rather magically given that you're 8) know your IQ and you've never played chess AND want to guess at what your Elo MIGHT be with years of study, then in a jiff you can plug into the formula and get a result that has a large error term. So like if you're 8 and wanna become World Champion someday you can be like hmm... how far does an IQ of 91 get me? Oh...not quite to World Champion? oh well I'll play chess anyway to prove Levitt and JWILD wrong! Or if your 8 and have a known stable IQ of 167 (again magically...because who has a known and stable IQ at 8...or any age for that matter) and have never played chess, you can go hmmm...I might have a chance according to the Levitt equation. This scenario is so realistic as to be taken for immutable truth. jk. More likely the 8 year old with the 167 IQ will think, hmmm...this is fun and I'm really winning against my classmates. I like fun! I like winning! Can't win if you don't play... let's play chess! and the 91 IQ kid will say/think this this is fun! I too am sometimes winning! I too like fun! I too like winning! Can't win if you don't play... let's play chess!