FREE - In Google Play
FREE - in Win Phone Store
In my opinion,I.Q.,progress in real life,progress in the game of chess are completely different things.
I have read about people with 140 I.Q. who works as a waiter because their E.Q. is damn low.
According to a particular web-site,there has to be a balance between all the quotients,or else we are as good as screwed up.
completely different can be quantified as "no correlation" which I don't know if that's what you're intending to say.
Rybka is simply a large set of instructions written by humans. We all know that computers are faster by a factor of millions than human problem solvers in mathematics, however Human Intelligence is more profound than mathematical number crunching - in fact some people are smart and have low IQ, because they take a long time and solve harder problems properly (the human condition vs a machine at math).
Chess is related to IQ but also to combat, its a battle and an opponent moving fast with sharp logical movements can often intimidate (hence not exactly IQ) .
Chess programs aren't perfect, they're still being developed. In the end it boils down to incredible number crunching power that wins, I must admit that a lot of the math is skipped completely by the human visual perceptive system (the ability to comprehend an entire board at once is very helpful)
If a person is intelligent,he will do well in chess,however,its converse according to me,does not seems to be true.It is like that those who have courage,has a sword,but those who have sword might not be courageous. Chess no less analogous to sword here,otherwise everybody will become intelligent.
well Mr Wizard...there may be something to the IQ correlation to chess rating. I do not think you could ever prove or disprove the theory though. One can become very good at chess through practice and studies but still have an average IQ where someone with a genius level or higher IQ may not have a strong enough interest in chess to apply themselves(or the time).
I am a strong believer that anyone can learn anything given enough time but
in my experience those with higher IQ's tend to learn faster so that would give
them an advantage.
I feel for the theory to be proved you would have to take into account their
time playing the game and the amount of studying they have done on it.
This is an intersting theory though and I think there is some truth to it.
I might have to make some time to research it some.
Does it mean that a monkey with enough paper and an breakable typewriter plus a lot of time on hand will eventually type out a Shakespeare play ? How does practice help a chess player ? obviously by the mind absorbing the positions and the pitfalls and the standard moves which require Memory,and an Aptitude for logical thinking . Does it not mean that one has to have a better IQ to be better at Chess?
I've come up with this estimation including all the relevant factors
your IQ * 64 = your potential chess rating
Can someone tell me what a potential chess rating is?
Iam new here
@heinzie:How did you derive that formula?
That'd mean your average Joe should have a 6400 rating.
If there are 3 groups: gifted, average and handicapped, then I must be handicapped because I'm only 1700 rating :(
As can be read from the comment above yours, the average Joe doesn't bother to verify anything they are offered
You said it - this sums up exactly what I might have wanted to say if I could have been bothered writing it! :D
I don't know if intelligence has much to do with OTB ratings. There are a lot of dumb people who are good chessplayers, and it's due to the amount of work they put in and their determination to win. I've played chess since I was 10 (I'm now 42) and won a lot of games earlier in my life that I shouldn't have won, because my "killer instinct" was so much greater. Just as an offhand example: when I was, say, 18 and playing in the National Open in Vegas I would easily play a theoretical draw until 2 am just because I wanted to win so bad. I've since played many games as an adult, and the--difficult to admit truth--is that it just becomes less important: if I have the option of drawing and going back to the hotel and having dinner with my wife I will think about it, rather than sitting there for another 2 hours in a drawish game. That would never happen in my youth.
There's so much more that goes into chess than merely practicing and getting lessons and knowing the game. I have bad nerves, and when I say that I mean "Amateur nerves" and most of the players I see at tournaments have Amateur nerves (obviously not most of the GM's). Amateurs also have no poker face. None. You watch a GM at one of these tournaments and you have no idea if he's winning or losing or drawing. You look at most amateurs between moves, talking to their friends or whatever, and you can easily tell how their game is going. Amateurs also have no strategy, even if they feel otherwise: GM's and IM's will go into a game with a plan before the game even starts, playing either aggressively or positionally etc. An amateur plays the same every single game, he only knows one way (the way he thinks he plays and what he thinks he's strongest at). There's a whole host of factors that go into being successful in tournaments that have absolutely nothing to do with the actual position in front of you.
Then you get into the "work" aspect. We all know successful people in life who are dumb as rocks and we wonder how they became successful, and usually chalk it up to luck or who they know, but the truth is successful people, and especially successful chessplayers, work seriously hard at it. That has nothing to do with intelligence, that has to do with drive and motivation and determination. I know several people who have way more "talent" than I but who are lazy as hell, who don't want to put in the work, and eventually it catches up with you.
Nothing replaces hard work. Nothing ever has. I'd rather be 50 IQ points dumber but have a stronger drive to be successful and a better work (practice) ethic.
In my experience as a tournament regular in Alberta, Canada, higher rated players tend to be what I consider smarter people by conventional standards and definitions. Having played tournament chess regulary for the last 4 years, I have met and chatted with almost all levels of players and come to what I consider to be some fairly correct generalizations. Spearman's theory of G, or "general intelligence" seems correct.
"Smart" people - those possessing modest to very good memories often make for very good(1900+) chess players. They also tend to have a good ability to visually rotate objects-- obviously an essential attribute to play well.
These two abilities are what I think most affect a person's aptitude for good chess. Not surprisingly, many IQ tests have sections that measure these exact skills. Object rotation, front-to-back recall, fill in the blank block etc.
On a side note, and perhaps more interestingly; I have found that the best blitz players in the province tend to be the most cognitively sharp, quick witted, most educated and so on. The most obvious confound however is the problem of trying to evalute kids, as their chess skills and minds have not fully matured.
Basically, the higher rated players seem smart( more education, income, better read on a variety of topics, more intellectually stimulating to be around etc) The lower rated players tend to have less of the above.
You think memory and education are measurements of intelligence. Enough said.
By western conventional standards, yes, more education usually infers greater intellect, and ones memory is often a great assest in being to do well in many school subjects as well as in the work world. Of course many different cultures have different definitions of what is "smart" or "intelligent" and therefore our thinking regarding how smart a person is usually subjective.
Fischer never finished school, knew nothing about even high-school math. His view of world was quite blind. He had no social life. Yet he was and still is a legendary chess player, probably the best ever existed so far.
There is no formula like this. I think if you want to be good at chess and are willing to study and be patient, anyone could become a GM.
I think IQ can only help with learning to play chess. More intelligent people are just way more adaptable. But with time and experience, anyone can become a strong player.
Although it is widely acknowledged that chess is the best example of an intellectual activity among games, evidence showing the association between any kind of intellectual ability and chess skill has been remarkably sparse. One of the reasons is that most of the studies investigated only one factor (e.g., intelligence), neglecting other factors relevant for the acquisition of chess skill (e.g., amount of practice, years of experience). The present study investigated the chess skill of 57 young chess players using measures of intelligence (WISC III), practice, and experience. Although practice had the most influence on chess skill, intelligence explained some variance even after the inclusion of practice. When an elite subsample of 23 children was tested, it turned out that intelligence was not a significant factor in chess skill, and that, if anything, it tended to correlate negatively with chess skill. This unexpected result is explained by a negative correlation between intelligence and practice in the elite subsample. The study demonstrates the dangers of focusing on a single factor in complex real-world situations where a number of closely interconnected factors operate.
Here's the full study. http://v-scheiner.brunel.ac.uk/bitstream/2438/642/1/Does%20Chess%20Need%20Intelligence-revision-finalINT.pdf
I agree there is a correlation in general between the two, however, if you are really intelligent, but aren't patient, or chess doesn't appeal to you, you probably wouldn't be naturally good at. The other thing you might think about is the subjectivity of IQ tests...