why cant we just be skibidi
What do you think GM Hikaru IQ is?
Sort:
Dec 16, 2024
0
#1104
piratebt99chess wrote:
I really don't care about skibibdi nakamura's IQ
thats true breh nobody cares about his rizz aura
Lots
I have come across many such threads in the past negotiating about on Hikaru and streamers like Anna cramling, I'd more on Magnus Carlsen or someone having a good postion indicating their brain, it makes more sense. Thanks
Good
piratebt99chess wrote:
yo. why are you guys acting sigma? sigma? sigma?
you can't possible be older than 8
Apr 13, 2025
0
#1112
MaetsNori wrote:
I'll keep beating the same drum, because I'm repetitive that way . I'm quite confident that the reason Hikaru is a top player is because he's lived a relatively priveleged life that's allowed him to stay centered around chess since childhood.
He dropped out of the education system at a young age to focus on chess, which he studied daily and nightly under the tutelage of his FIDE Master stepfather.
When the rest of us were watching cartoons or shows, Hikaru was playing chess. When the rest of us were playing with toys, Hikaru was playing chess. When the rest of us were going to school, socializing, and making friends ... Hikaru was playing chess.
This is a kind of chess-focused upbringing that few in the world have - which is why few players in the world have been able to reach his level.
It's not a bad argument but it ignores that intelligence and level of effort / motivation are related. Someone with a stronger, more resilient nervous system has a greater ability to sustain effort at mental tasks. The task itself requires less exertion. Try reading for 8 hours without stopping and see how long you last, you will get exhausted and stop probably after an hour. IQ just reliably predicts performance across almost all tasks requiring any mental ability, the data on that is rock solid.
Ultimately there are numerous studies linking IQ and chess performance. How strong the effect is mostly depends on the experimental design. A study posted earlier showed that 2000+ elo players had 130+ IQs on average. But all these players also undoubtedly had put tremendous amounts of time into chess... chess is a skill and if you don't control for something like level of time/effort put in you're going to observe a very minor effect, no different than if I put a chess newbie with a 140 IQ up against someone who's played for 20 years but has a 100 IQ - the newbie simply gets slaughtered, that's not a surprise. When we talk about chess and IQ we're really asking how strongly IQ predicts where a persons elo will cap out at, assuming they actually put the effort into learning the game. Studies which have yielded only minor correlations with IQ have not controlled for variables sufficiently to test this.
Any skill, even including math and language abilities, requires cultivation. However, there are literally math and verbal questions on most IQ tests. IQ tests assume that intelligence in these domains will crystalize reliably over time. And the statistics validating IQ indicate this assumption is justified. Now, with language or math everyone has to cultivate these abilities as part of their basic education, they're also not testing higher level math so much as basic mental math ability, so it's a reasonable assumption. In the case of chess, there are likewise visuo-spatial questions on IQ tests that are of the same nature as chess problems. Chess also requires memorizing vast amounts of information. People with genius memories can often memorize things immediately and almost effortlessly. Magnus can do that with chess games, he can remember a game he played 15 years ago in some random obscure tournament by just seeing the endgame position on the board. Thus, when we hold effort constant... which is what we'd like to do, you are inevitably going to see a strong correlation between IQ and chess ability. It is unavoidable.
Also, again, in any domain with vast numbers of people competing (in this case millions), the people at the very top are going to have advantages in all aspects which predict success in the domain.
why is everyone acting sigma?