Study links intelligence and chess skill

well, yeah your right, but somewhere JUST yesterday

I read more off the cuff remarks about how a gm surely HAD to have a high IQ.  I don't remember where.  I read a lot in the forums and sometimes get to old threads. certainly its been asked...

so, since you're clearly pretty booked up on this let me summarize my understanding of this issue and see if you agree.  if something isn't right feel Free to explain.

• Intelligence is a vague term that refers to many thinking skills.  As such some forms of intelligence (such as pattern recognition) may be more relevant to chess skill
• Intelligence even Relevant forms of intelligence only dictate how quickly, accurately and consistently a student learns a pertinent skill.  SO.  chessplayers with more experience might beat a more talented player- but given the time to study and learn-  player with relevant high intelligence would be expected to outperform other students with equal training.  (apple to apple comparisons).
• IQ is a specific measure of intelligence- and therefore varies by the test that is conducted.  IQ measures how we stack up to other people using a standardized test and statistical analysis.   without the standardized test and Good analysis- there can be no "good" measure of IQ.  
• Chess skill and many tests of Intelligence are positively correlated, meaning that if you are good at figuring things out, and you play chess, you are likely better at chess than other people.
• the correlations is relatively strong- but the "causation" is still under investigation.  presumably, one theory is that people that are good at figuring things out (higher IQ)- like chess better we learn about it, and thus become better trained, more avid at chess, and are more likely to be a chess enthusiast.
• Also possible is that measurable forms of intelligence directly impact a persons chess game.  though, despite a lot of study there's still uncertainty about how intelligence factors (directly) in chess study and general improvement in a chess program. 
• Magnus Carlsen and others have argued that High intelligence actually can be an impediment to further improvement.  he (MC) gives the example of John Nunn as a brilliant guy who is SO good at thinking- that it limits (has limited) his chess.  researchers don't know if this is true.
• Equally unclear (and controversial) is whether gender factors into this.

are any of these statements wrong?

johnyoudell's summary was right on.  Conclusions about any study in this area are tied to the "intelligence test" used in the study.  There are lots of Different tests for "intelligence," and they're all multivariate, and almost all are skewed by cultural factors.  The closest to "pure" intelligence is G factor, but that alone doesn't have much predictive power.  

Definition of "intelligence?"  "Intelligence is what inteligence tests measure."  Tautology?  I'll say. ;-)

I think the subject needs to put to rest. Facts are facts and many on this thread have presented enough to back this statement.......................

If you are a 1000-1100, 1100-1200 etc. etc. and you hold that number then thats where you are in the game (on this site) for example. No matter what you do for a living or who you are, If you hold that rating then thats where you are at mentaly in the game.

Most players play as a hobby, and some do advance their play. But to label what a person does for a living verses playing the game is questionable. Althought we all know that a smart person can be smart in many things and this game may not be one of them and on the other hand it may be.

So with all that said, its simple ......."Do you want to be the best? Then you should do nothing but the game from the age of the ability to make a move." Do you want to enjoy the game? Then do so. Do you want to talk about the game in measures, well that can be infinite. I am to the point of taking time off from the game and yes will be reading some things about it.

I need a sabbitcal to re-focus. Jeesh, did I just say that. But thats just me. I enjoyed the reading, and thank all who replied. My perspective has changed of the game.

On the other hand, there is a strong positive correlation between (1) chess players who claim that chess skill is a measure of intelligence, and (2) insecurity.

I agree to you comment but it is a bit complex. Don't you agree ? IQ levels, have been rather high with many players. But they hold the rating. Again this conversation can go on forever. How old were you when you made your first move and is chess all you do ?

Please, think about it. Chess is game that does need an opponents mental ability to play. King is the target. All your moves are to put the King in a position where he has nowhere to go. How hard is that? Sounds simple right? And then you find yourself in a position to where YOUR plan to do that is looking pretty bad and sometimes in 18-19 moves you can be done.

So where does that put you on the chart of rating. I am far from an expert. I think much of the game is commen sense, depending on your mood. And then there are the serious players. Im a, hobby player wanting to lean more. But thats just me..........................

What is humbling, are the intelligence tests that have been done with different animals in different areas of intelligence, like memory, pattern recognition, puzzle solving ability. and speech even. The ability to build, and even use its environment.  If you want to be humbled check out the definition of intelligence on wiki links, and follow that yellow brick road. Numerous studies comparing animals intelligences to humans in different areas.

It will open many's eyes on just how little we really know.

Excellent news!  I'm not autistic! :-)

I don't know if any convincing correlation has been measured between autistic tendencies and chess skill.  But I have personally observed a few high-functioning autistic boys use chess as a means to increase the quantity of their social interactions.  I am overjoyed when I see this happening -- it is one of the main justifications I see for promoting chess in schools.

Two people sit within a couple of feet of each other, saying nothing for three or four hours.  Yet immediately afterwards they can embark on a very lively conversation with a great deal already shared because they have been thinking about exactly the same things.  Communication by chess move. 

Even the subsequent conversation will take place by moving the pieces around to demonstrate various points.

 The song of Silence.

Or the "Whispering Mind's".

A major problem in many scientific studies is not having terms thoroughly well defined.  In this case, it really makes results difficult to interpret and conclusions vague --and at least as vague as the terminology used.  Folk vocabulary is anything but clear.  If the studies defined 'intelligence' as the ability to perform processes in the mind and the short-term memory's ability to perform in placeholding tasks, then it is going to be hardly shocking that chess augments this ability.  However, assuming that these are the only facets of intelligence, or that intelligence doesn't entail creativity, is horribly limiting.  Anyways, from the level of meta-data, the results of numerous studies are effectively incommensurable, since the terms quite literally mean different things.  Even a move to operational definitions, which science does in many cases, would be more helpful in drawing lofty and specific conclusions than what I've seen.  In short, if chess improves chess-like brain activities, I'd have to say these studies have proven a waste of time.  It's basically the equivalent of making the equally uninteresting claim that ice skating can improve one's roller blading ability.  Unless one could see why it wouldn't, there's really no point to the research.

Probably one of the most important conclusions I've seen on survey statistics is that chess points toward optimal brain function during and long after one has played chess.  From a medical and biological standpoint, this seems to happen as a result of chess' ability to improve the brain's glucose economy efficiency, or more technically, chess improves the brain's glucose/oxygen metabolism.  As the medical sciences move in the direction of acknowledging Alzheimer's as a type of diabetes, i.e., a tissue-based insulin and glucose resistance resulting from the failing glucose metabolic rate, I think chess' value for physical health could be realized in the near future.

1)  Does chess-playing require some minimal level of "intelligence?"

2)  Is chess-playing a good way for intelligent people to spend their free time, or is it a waste of time?  

3)  How Should "intelligent people" spend their free time?  What constitutes "a waste of time?"  Give examples.

          Discuss. 

(Bonus points for responses featuring whimsy) 

1) Of course. I'm guessing upwards of 99.99% of people exceed this level.

2) Is free time really free if some activities aren't allowed? Anyway it depends on what constitutes "a good way" and "a waste." Do you mean personally or professionally? For the individual or for the society? Does this person enjoy chess? etc.

3) Anytime you ask how anyone "should" do anything it implies purpose, but this is the difficult part. Compared to agreeing on a purpose, agreeing on the best way to meet the purpose is child's play.

Oh my, bonus points for whimsy, oh... umm... *looks around nervously*

I don't see the point of this study.  Nobody that I've ever heard/read is seriously contesting the notion that high intelligence improves basic chess skills (as it improves pretty much everything)...

The study that is controversial is whether playing chess improves cognitive ability, not the reverse.

I agree with Milliern about the poorly defined meaning of "intelligence" leading to vague study conclusions.  And I agree with btickler that there is nothing controversial about the claim that superior cognitive ability can enable (with the proper support) superior chess skill.  This is about as surprising as the idea that tallness helps when guarding the net in basketball, or that keen eyesight helps with archery.

There have been many studies claiming that chess practice improves intelligence -- this is what is controversial.  Recently chess.com had a link to a study that denied this claim.  I can't find the article, but it might have been the one carried out by the Education Endowment Foundation (see newspaper article link below).  Whether chess improves intelligence or not, I really like the last sentence: “Teach chess for its own sake – for its intrinsic value and the enjoyment pupils gain from it.”

Playing chess doesn't make your children any smarter, study finds

Finally, at long last, we reach consensus on this astounding finding from Post # 1

 "Intelligence—and not just relentless practice—plays a significant role in determining chess skill"  

Yep.  And tallness helps basketball players.  And vision's a Big asset in archery.  Equally true:  playing basketball doesn't make you taller and shooting lots of arrows doesn't give you better vision.

Excellent discussion of my silly little essay test (add 10 points for whimsy)!  

Yes I agree MIL. We didn't really need a study for that did we, lol.

soothes the soul.........