Relationship between Chess rating and I.Q?
Sort:
hi everybody
Well now, pattern recognition on IQ tests? Even That does not seem to relate directly to Chess rating. I am a GrandMaster of folding little blue lines into little blue boxes. I've never missed one, nor has anyone ever turned the page first ...
Why am I not a GM in Chess?? I studied and played over 5000 hours. On the otherhand, if I play Chess blindfold, and take the IQ test in Norwegian ...there seems to be a Definate Relationship~! }8-))
Ladies and Germs,
After trolling through this laborious set of argumentative rubbish, it’s time to shake up your uni-dimensional paradigm that traps your mortal brains within the confines of the proverbial square.
First of all, let’s not use the term I.Q. as the universal measure to quantify intelligence. What is the definition of intelligence? One possible way to define it may be:
Intelligence
“1 a (1): the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : reason; also : the skilled use of reason (2): the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests)” (Meriam-Webster)
That’s great, but consider this… What if you can use inductive reasoning to calculate a 6 move forced mate but cannot figure out that as the percentage of your total time devoted to chess approaches 100%, the likelihood that any women wants to exchange bodily fluids with you approaches 0%. You are intelligent enough to know that your intelligent mind cannot, forever and a day, suppress your need to get off from time to time unless you are a Shaolin Monk. Even then, some turn gay and succumb to their sinful mortal needs. In your case, you may rationalize somehow in your mind that having a wank is cheaper than having a woman. I guess that makes you intelligent. I digress.
Now, it just so happens that to play the game of chess well, you need some level of “intelligence”. It is also the case that I.Q. tests measure certain abilities that also fall within the definition of “intelligence”. These may include, but is not limited to: inductive and deductive reasoning, pattern recognition, mathematical calculations, semantic logic and language skills, etc, etc, etc, et ceteraaaaa! And it goes without saying that some, if not all of these I.Q. type skills will be handy when playing chess.
So here it is, the BIG PROFESSOR KNOX REVELATION:
- A person is born with a certain level of intelligence
- Intelligence is required in any task or situation that requires problem solving
- Chess is a problem solving task with complex situations
- Chess has a set of variables, constraints, and objective functions (intermediate and final)
- Chess has the properties of an optimization problem with nodes in a branching tree structure
- Optimization problems are solved by linear programming methods where a huge number of variables are considered against a set of defined constraints while you are pushing towards your objective function (ie. Checkmate)
- Intelligent people may recognize them quicker and more accurately than less intelligent people and will immediately have a higher than average Chess Rating.
- Less intelligent people can devote more time to learn the relationships between the variables and become good at chess and acquire a respectable Chess Rating. They just become better through more experience at chess.
- Less intelligent people with more chess experience may beat more intelligent people who have less chess experience.
- Less intelligent people with new found chess skills may also mean than they score better in IQ tests because of the cross-training of transferable problem solving skills. However their fundamental amount of intelligence is the same.
- For whatever reason, intelligent people may fail to recognize these variables and relationships, thus can play chess poorly, hence a below average Chess Rating.
- Intelligent people who take chess seriously and devote lots of time will become superior players very quickly.
- Intelligent people with superior chess skills learned through hard work and are obsessed with the game of chess become Grandmasters the hard way.
- The Grandmasters who had superior chess skills from natural born talent (freaks of nature) and are obsessed with chess, achieved their elite status the easy way.
- Grandmasters may have no other skills in life but know how to optimize the chess variables, thus they have superior ratings, but are generally socially inept. Get a life!
- Dumb asses at chess who also have no other skills in life will always suck at chess and are pathetic losers full stop. Ie. Deadbeats in society who milk taxpayer money from socialist governments or commit crime to pay for smokes, beer, and drugs, and those morons who bitch about their pathetic life but can’t get off their ass to do something about it. Just go dig up a deep hole and bury yourself.
- The rest of you are somewhere in the first 2 standard deviations of the infamous bell curve.
So there you have it, my thesis on the relationship between Intelligence, IQ, and Chess Rating. It sums up all your fragmented, uni-dimensional, and stupid responses into 1 consolidated argument.
Can we stop bickering now all you semi-intelligent, belligerent fools?Professor Knox
MrWizard wrote:
Isn't it obvious that intelligence would be very useful in any activity requiring thought?? Early in the thread I proposed that that the self-proclaimed intellectuals with low ratings need to work harder on their chess. It's becoming really irritating to read that the game that I love is diminished by stupid opinions about high chess skill not requiring high intelligence...and therefore a high I.Q
If people out there have had a bad experience doing an I.Q test...then I am sorry for them...perhaps it was one of the few that may have been poorly created. I think the academics generally do a good job in any of their chosen fields...while the layperson is ever-ready to cut them down...ignorance is strength...
Gotta go...dinner is ready :-)
Intelligence is very useful for a lot of things. I don't think many people here will deny that. High correlation between I.Q. and chess ability? I have yet to see an argument that proves this is true.
Remember, in your first post you had a formula to determine one's chess ability based solely off of IQ (from what I can tell looking at the formula). This is where the disagreement starts. The other part is that you say with "sufficient work" What qualifies as sufficient? This seems to be some sort of variable to me and I would argue that this goes along with what most people are saying (determination, practice, practice, practice...).
I would be tempted to believe you if you could prove the formula is correct by knowing the IQ and peak rating of every GM. It would be hard since it seems that IQ test are not "standardized". I wonder how many GMs are in Mensa? For any of the geniuses here, does Mensa have a list of members and their IQs?
My final question...why do you love this game? Hopefully, it isn't because it gives you some sense of intellectual superiority or elitism. (This is in response to you being irritated). Actually another question: How in the world is this game being diminished?
I'm definately not picking on you, but I like a good debate from time to time.
Intelligence is very useful for a lot of things. I don't think many people here will deny that. High correlation between I.Q. and chess ability? I have yet to see an argument that proves this is true.
MW-- Firstly, thank you 'Checkers' for a far more thoughtful post than some of your previous low-level jibes. My original post clearly stated that my interest in the equation [invented by Dr.J.Levitt, not me] was related to 'high level chess players' and not the vast number of wood-pushers gathered here [ok, by high level I would place a minimum rating of say 2300]
I find it simply amazing that many people here are 'quite surprised' that high level requires high intelligence! You must know very few strong chess players!!
Remember, in your first post you had a formula to determine one's chess ability based solely off of IQ (from what I can tell looking at the formula). This is where the disagreement starts. The other part is that you say with "sufficient work" What qualifies as sufficient? This seems to be some sort of variable to me and I would argue that this goes along with what most people are saying (determination, practice, practice, practice...).
I would be tempted to believe you if you could prove the formula is correct by knowing the IQ and peak rating of every GM. It would be hard since it seems that IQ test are not "standardized". I wonder how many GMs are in Mensa? For any of the geniuses here, does Mensa have a list of members and their IQs?
My final question...why do you love this game? Hopefully, it isn't because it gives you some sense of intellectual superiority or elitism. (This is in response to you being irritated). Actually another question: How in the world is this game being diminished?
I'm definately not picking on you, but I like a good debate from time to time.
Sorry folks...I pressed the "TAB" key and that caused my partially completed answer to appear above! Next...
Remember, in your first post you had a formula to determine one's chess ability based solely off of IQ (from what I can tell looking at the formula). This is where the disagreement starts. The other part is that you say with "sufficient work" What qualifies as sufficient? This seems to be some sort of variable to me and I would argue that this goes along with what most people are saying (determination, practice, practice, practice...).
MW -- I think to become an "expert" in any field takes about 10 years. Even a chess prodigy like Bobby Fischer with an I.Q OF 187 achieved Grandmaster status after at least 4 years of intensive study, and was completely dedicated to chess from the age of 8! He famously claimed..."when I was 11, I just got good" So what chance do the rest of us have? I think it quite feasible for most people to play at 2000 strength within a few years of study and /or guidance from a good coach. Those of us who have trouble maintaining even 1500 really haven't applied themselves to the task at all well.
C4M -- I would be tempted to believe you if you could prove the formula is correct by knowing the IQ and peak rating of every GM. It would be hard since it seems that IQ test are not "standardized". I wonder how many GMs are in Mensa? For any of the geniuses here, does Mensa have a list of members and their IQs?
MW -- The Philosophy PhD [Levitt], would be well aware of the methods required to arrive at his "rough" formula. Simply reading [where possible] the biography of any Grandmaster will be enough to provide a strong suggestion of high intelligence. I know 3 G.Ms personally and a few I.Ms and 'know' them to be supremely capable people. Again, where do you guys out there obtain your anecdotal evidence to suggest that strong players are not highly intelligent?? Sounds like simple jealousy to me...cut'em down and it makes us look taller...
I've read people like Neneko's posts about Pattern Recognition and have to completely disagree with 'her'?[ I note 'she' is too shy to put any pic or information about 'herself' but does claim to have a "broken" version of a chess program called Rybka to 'assist' her] Locke is a "bucket of words searching desperately for an original idea"...or to quote Locke him/herself "a reciprocal bucket..."
C4M --
My final question...why do you love this game? Hopefully, it isn't because it gives you some sense of intellectual superiority or elitism. (This is in response to you being irritated). Actually another question: How in the world is this game being diminished?
I'm definately not picking on you, but I like a good debate from time to time.
MW -- I have to admit that I have found 95% of the posts to lie between 'plain stupid'and 'bordering on the fringe of intelligent life'...The rest has been fairly stimulating [more or less] It is because of the general stupidity level that I feel chess is diminished...after all, are these remarks being made by "chess players"?? Certainly not the type I associate with!
How did I come to love the game! I guess it was through going through the games of greats like Andersson, Alekhine, Tal and many others...plus reading brief biographies about many players. I remember being blown away by the beauty of chess combinations...the clock-work precision of a master when executing a strategic idea or method in a complex endgame. There are so many facets to becoming a really strong player...vision, quick & accurate calculation, retention of those calculations, ability to plan in quiet positions, ability to form completely original ideas...and to do all this over several hours without falling victim to one's own fatigue! Finally, to the non-"chess players" out there [most of us] you might like to watch 'Knights of the South Bronx" and "Searching for Bobby Fischer". Oh yeh, my favourite..."Fresh"!
Mr. Wizard: There definately is a correlation between intelligence and chess potential. I just don't think it is the main determining factor. There reason why I find this a tough one now is because it is true that if someone does have above average intelligence, things should come more naturally and quicker for them.
My main gripe is trying to put this into a formula. It very well may be possible, but it would have to be more complex than the one posted. I would think that it would still be a rough estimate.
p.s. I don't think I really took a jab at you.
"I've read people like Neneko's posts about Pattern Recognition and have to completely disagree with 'her'?[ I note 'she' is too shy to put any pic or information about 'herself' but does claim to have a "broken" version of a chess program called Rybka to 'assist' her]"
If you're so keen to seem intelligent then keep the personal insults to yourself. Resorting to personal insults when you can't defend you standpoint rationally makes you look dumb.
The fact is that you havn't shown anything to strengthen the formula you provided. Very few people in the thread have argued against that chess potential and IQ or intelligence could be related but the formula seems to be taken from thin air.
If you had bothered to try to understand my posts you'd know that I'm actually arguing for that chess potential and IQ are highly related. I don't see any reason to belive the formula though, do you even have any statistics or anything to back it up a little?
Dear Neneko...I only gave you the source of the idea [Jon Levitt]! Another guy has even listed the website which contains his equation with his own explanation of its origins. My memory was inexact, but neither he, nor anyone else has bothered to point this out. However, for ratings > 2000, my equation links IQ and rating in the same way! You could easily track the info down for yourself which is what I expected curious people to do. The link you provided on Pattern Recognition doesn't work, but I found another which completely supported my understanding of Pattern Recognition as it applies to chess, which I will provide if anyone is still interested in the subject.
My friends, all strong OTB players [see 'Integrator' for example] agree that my interpretation is accurate and are quite surprised that you, also a highly rated player, seem to be in disagreement. This led to the supposition that you are not a strong player at all, but one who uses a program to gain great results while in reality you prefer to debate and try bring people down? [I thought this was a more masculine trait...which is why I'm suspicious that you could be a male]
I haven't read many of your posts, just those mild attacks upon me...and those I have were many days ago now. I see a person who just wants to be argumentative for it's own sake. You just claimed that few people have argued against high chess ability correlating with high intelligence...this is just astonishing! If I go back through the thread, I could list post after post from people claiming to be very intelligent and yet having low chess ratings. Remember? There has been little support that a high rating [say 2300+] is indicative of high intelligence!
I'm beyond caring now as I have read far too much stupidity in the thread I created...mostly from those with low ratings. I have, until now only supported you N. But when you try to get nasty you can expect to stir me from my slumber.
Perhaps we could arrange for some on-line chat and we can see who really knows their chess and who has to go looking up unfamiliar terms like pattern recognition, IQ tests, spacial perception and perhaps a host of chess specific material. Bring it on Neneko...or should I call you Rybka?
Aren't we all high and mighty today. I like your reasoning. I don't agree with you wich implies that I'm less intelligent than you (of course nobody could disagree with you for any other reason) and since I'm less intelligent than you this implies that I can't reach a high chess rating.
Your reasoning is disputable at best wich leads me to belive that you might not be as smart as you think you are.
I havn't attacked you in any way until you started throwing personal insults at me for disagreeing with you. You're the one that's trying to drag this discussion down to a level you're more comfortable at.
If you're unable to defend your standpoint then just don't respond to critique or even better, learn from it. Responding to it with personal insultwon't help you get anywhere.
I sort of get why you try to insinuate that I'm cheating at chess, to prove that I'm less intelligent than you but why would I pretend to be a girl? It's not like it do me any good on a site like this. I've even thought about deleting this account and make another where I keep my sex secret because of the steady stream of pretty disturbing messages I get here. Anyway I don't see how my sex relates to this discussion at all.
You got pretty high thoughts about yourself and try to play elitistic based on your chess rating. This is laughable, especially since you call yourself leftish in your profile. The fact that you're unable to have a rational discussion without trying to bring it down with personal insults and then get outwitted by someone half your age says more about your intelligence than your chess rating will ever do.
Dearest Neneko,
how is it possible to make a 'personal attack' against a mere 'name' contained in a computer. The totality of your existence here is six letters...no pic, no personal desription, nothing? You are basically a 'name' who pops up here and there discussing many and varied matters...but without a 'persona'...an identity!
I will take this direct to your inbox ok, as I don't want this to become a crazy slanging match between myself, a real identity...and a bunch of letters calling itself neneko. Very flacky...I believe you really are a young woman now :-o
I think perhaps removing all my personal data and pic will at least make me feel less pressured in this and future discussions. So, like you I will now don a cloak of invisibility!
I assure you that I'm a real person. Would I be more real to you if I put up a picture of myself? If so, why? What I choose to tell others about myself is none of your business. I'm a real person nontheless. My friends on this site know more about me than strangers like you do, just the way I want it.
Your post is actually rather scary, do you see other people you see every day as real people or do they just become real to you after they tell you something about themselves? Seeing the world as a collection of faces and names where you and a few choosen ones are the only real people seems like a rather sociopathic way of viewing the world. I assure you that the people you talk to online and people you see everyday that you don't know well are all real people with real feelings. Maybe you should talk to someone about this, it doesn't seem like a very healthy way of viewing the world and other people.
Yours truly, neneko
Interesting topic. Love the stoush bewteen MrNeneko & MrWizard :)
I did a search about this pattern recognition thingy in chess and it seems that mrwizard is correct to me! it also seems that this neneko guy is a real coward who hides behind his name just as mrwiz pointed out but neneko is just being juvenile by saying 'i am not a name in a computer...i am a human being' :) [anyone seen that movie 'elephant man']
the link about pattern recognition is http://chess.about.com/library/weekly/aa101902a.htm but there r many others saying similar stuff.
love this site!
Cret1n, You do realise that your profile is empty right? Just thought that you wanted that pointed out to you.
Pattern recognition is the ability to recognice patterns (as the wiki will tell you) not how many patterns you have memorized. This is of course from the main definition of the word. It's used rather sporadically in some chess articles with a different meaning.
| Pattern recognition is one of the skills that makes a master. It's not inherent; it's learned. | |||||
 | |||||
Why is one chess player a struggling club player and another a master? There are many skills that make a master, but one of the most important is pattern recognition. | |||||
im no so good at chess yet but i can read ok, and the link i gave above says pattern recognition is not inherent its learned. if it was inherent that would mean its a native ability right? but its not. you learn many patterns and store them in your memory. i guess thats why good players can play so fast right, coz they know lots of positions and remember what to do most of the time in a similar situation? its all explained in the link. seems like u just didnt read the link i gave? so if its learned then it means how many positions you can dig out from your memory. and thats just 1 skill that makes a master. i guess very good players can remember lots more patterns or positions than weak players.
yay! a topic on which we are all completely qualified to discuss with equanimity.
rather than further dip my pen/fingers in the wells of sarcasm i'll say this. plenty of people that are (a) smarter than us (b) have higher IQs and us ... (c) are not better at chess than us have already had this discussion.
voy a venir al casa. hasta luego, muchacho/as...
Cret1n, I did read it. Did you read my reply? That link does not show the definition of pattern recognition as it is used in IQ tests. It's a article about chess written by a single chess player.
For the definition please look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_recognition
http://www.iapr.org/ got alot of interesting text on the subject" target="_blank">http://www.iapr.org/ got alot of interesting text on the subject
http://www.jprr.org more material mainly focused on ai
Not that I think this will convince you. I think you're more likely to just go back to complaining over my profile (since that's completely related to the topic)
IBM's
IBM's Deep Blue gave Kasporov a run for his money but couldn't figure its way out of a paperbag.
deep Blue
o now..i looked at the formula..and if i did not miss a word or smth...ur rating is
(IQ-100)X10
so,someone with a rating of 900 would have an IQ of 190!Isnt that stupid?!?!?!
dude...makes me wonder what your IQ is how much is 2000+(190-100)x10?