Truth about chess and life intelligence

I have been long time interested in chess and intelligence and I can confirm that smart in chess does not mean smart in life. And another thing - most good chess players are incredible dumb, I have spoke to many titled players.

I have an internet friend who is stupid in life but he understood chess much much better than me. I have known him for two years. I can`t understand why he is smarter than me in chess he does not read books, never had a coach and does not use engine. He does everything him self. I can write a huge list of things that I misunderstood or did`t understood at all in chess when I used to be a 1850 fide player (now 2150) but one thing he did`t understand is how to evaluate who stands better and that its bad to attack from worst position which results that he often overpushes worst position but he has strong calculation so he compensates but against strong opposition he goes down in such cases. Also he tends to believe that Knights are superior to Bishops which backfires some times. Very strong and fast in calculation. His playing strength are 2180 fide but due to his strong calculation he can unexpectedly outplay titled players. 

There are multiple types of intelligence ,you know? Calling your friend or other players "stupid" might be a mistake.

You make a very good point.  I think most of us have encountered some really immature trolls here, but some of them are really strong players.  :-D

The explanation is probably he has a high IQ and fluid quick thinking mind. Also he does everything himself in otherword he learns from experience, tests and checks things for himself. Such an attitude is commendable and will lead to good sound play.

Too much reliance on the book or the computer can lead to a lazy mind which when left to itself, is unable to think for itself.

Chess and life skills, however you may interpret that phrase, are two different ball games. Members of Mensa (IQ over 140) come from all walks of life they are not all rich fat cats.

Unlike you I have found most chess players sensible and intelligent, some may have wild ideas and delusions of granduer, but on the whole they are friendly easy going lot.

i 

"If you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid."
— Albert Einstein

if u say so, ape.

This guy IS stupid. I know him for two years. 

Einstein died before your mother was born. Einstein was not stupid. Some people bad to remember the right spelling, some are bad at remembering numbers. That you find him stupid only reveals how stupid you are. Hahaha.

Andy_18 made a funny; Einstein suffered from dyslexia. I doubt anybody here actually thinks Einstein was stupid.

ITT: trolls trolling trolls

If arrogance is an art, then this guy is an idiot.

I doubt that intelligens can be measured by some random test. the test says more about the persons who made it. 
being a paying member of mensa should be a reason to determine that people are less intelligent since they decided to pay for being intelligent. 
the smarter fools the less smart.
it is very easy to prepare for a test if you wanted to get a high score.
but I think a test should never be prepared for otherwise it is useless.
An IQ test should test your skill to solve something you haven't seen before.
so if you have seen it before it is useless.

IQ tests are designed so that they are completely new you cannot gain from any knowledge you may have. These tests do not test what you know but what you can figure out using your brain.

Remember there are many very clever people who have been investigating this for many years. So as you say 'they test your skill to solve something you have never seen before.'

i know of a guy  similar to your descriptions.he usually says what is important has a value,thats how game he evaluates .he is a monster at two minutes games but in tournaments he is like a child learning to play chess.he doesnt even know how to record his moves,he is also funny is just a simple man but is hated and fearednot   appreciates books for learningbut when i asked the national master now international master whos the best of what he played in us .he says to the one of your description,if only he has  been educated in school,i think he will appreciate books.i see him always have a smile whenever a move is made and is the best critic that everybody hates him with what he have to say.

No...that's not right.   Just a quick example to show that.  What if you are born and raised in Africa and then come to the United States and take an IQ test?  Do you think you'd score better or worse then an American?  Language is something you know that you bring to the test (but not the only thing).  Immigrants coming into the US in the early 20th century were given IQ tests and scored horribly, leading some to believe that they were dumber then Americans.  

Since those early days the tests have been much improved many do not contain language they are visual diagrams ect. I am not saying IQ tests are perfect but they are a way ( the only way as far as I know) of assessing peoples innate ability we call intelligence.

We all know this quality exists in individuals that is why some are quicker than others and some are exceptional.

You must not confuse a persons ability with their value as a human being. Their value as a human depends on their character which is a thing of far wider scope than their intelligence.

I am not a believer in the super-race theory or that any particular ethnic group is more intelligent than any other or indeed that men have the edge of women, but common sense tells me every day that some people are more intelligent than others.

I understand what is being talked about here. But I didn't raise it into discussions because most people wouldn't understand what is going on. And I don't have the answer either. And I hate it that I don't understand it!

My prediction is related with how intelligence works biologically. Our brain consists of billions of neurons, each with its own functions, working together in a very complex way. It is not impossible that certain neuron doesn't work as expected, and this makes something "strange" with the human itself.

The ability to calculate may be fine but some "abilities" lost due to this damage to the brain (or it can be abnormal from birth). This damage makes him look stupid, idiot, or has inability to do/act/behave like most human beings.

Human inherit some genetic traits from both their parents. A clever husband and a not so clever wife (too wide gap in intelligence) may produce an "instable" intelligence within their children. A kid may have a well functioning neurons that is used to calculate or something that he inherits from his father, but may have his own not so well functioning neurons that makes him not at all smart like his father.

The sky is the limit for imaginations

You people are thinking to much!

If someone wants a serious discussion on intelligence, they need to stop using the word "smart." "Smart" is one of those ambiguous words like "conservative" or "shy" that is a worthless conglomerate of disparate concepts, in this case usually intelligence, wisdom, and knowledge. Intelligence is different than wisdom, and many people have one attribute but not the other. Also, as others pointed out, IQ tests are quite flawed, and different people excel in some types of skills but not others. Anyway, this thread is probably going to be overrun by trolls soon.

----------

(p. 196)
Intelligence does not guarantee common sense;
alas, it just makes you able to put your crazy ideas in a more persuasive
fashion--crazy ideas that are often grown from emotional roots, rather
than rational ones.
   For most people these warnings will not be needed. A measure of
intelligence is just that--a measure of intelligence. It is not a measure
of man--or, as the title of Gould's book asserts, a mismeasure of man.
Much more would enter into that than just intelligence. But without
intelligence man would be little better than a brute, so let us value it for
what it is--an important part of man, but only a part. Carlyle's profe-
sor, dry-as-dust no doubt, had a formidable IQ but no originality or
creativity, things we value more highly. Many members of Mensa, the
high IQ society, have made little or no real contribution to society.
Intelligence derives some of its importance from the fact that we can
measure it, and in consequence know a great deal about it. Not enough,
but research is constantly improving our knowledge, and making it
more and more likely that we will be able to use our knowledge for the
good of society. To pretend, as voluable writers often do, that psycholo-
gists are only concerned with IQ, and neglect other aspects of man, is
absurd and untrue. It takes its place among the other absurd and untrue
criticisms I have discussed earlier. No psychologists ever put forward
such notions, and only the ignorant would imagine that anyone ever
did.
   As Thomas Arnold of Rugby once said, "What we must look for is,
1st, religion and moral principles; 2ndly, gentlemanly conduct; 3rdly,
intellectual ability," [sic] In other words, moral behaviour is more impor-
tant; only slightly less important is the quality of being cultured, cour-
teous, and chivalrous; intelligence only comes in third. In other words,
what is needed is intelligence in the service of morality and decency.
Would anyone disagree?

Eysenck, Hans J. 1998. Intelligence: A New Look. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.