Place a king on an empty square. The king cannot be in check.
What do you think GM Hikaru IQ is?
Sort:
Mar 8, 2023
0
#583
Kyobir wrote:
Place a king on an empty square. The king cannot be in check.
The white king can be on c2, c5, or g6.
The black king can be on any empty square.
I'm guessing you didn't even know this is the answer heh.
Mar 8, 2023
0
#584
aoidaiki wrote:
Kyobir wrote:
Place a king on an empty square. The king cannot be in check.
The white king can be on c2, c5, or g6.
The black king can be on any empty square.
I'm guessing you didn't even know this is the answer heh.
c2 and g6 are protected by pawns
but yes, the black king is completely safe
Mar 8, 2023
0
#585
Kyobir wrote:
c2 and g6 are protected by pawns
Nope, pawns only attack squares in front of them.
Mar 8, 2023
0
#586
aoidaiki wrote:
Kyobir wrote:
c2 and g6 are protected by pawns
Nope, pawns only attack squares in front of them.
[redacted by Chess.com]
This is definitely the funniest thread I’ve seen so far
IQ doesn't affect much
Mar 12, 2023
0
#590
Nepotamy wrote:
chaotikitat wrote:
I thought it was covered in like elementary school
You took AP Statistics in elementary school?
If you were 78 years old, as you claimed, you wouldn't know about AP classes.
(Also you wouldn't have said your 10 year old self scored a certain score on a website.)
hi
hahahaha lmao this was hilarious.
Hopefully a step towards the refutation of the complete garbage IQ perceived link with intelligence is.
How do i get to 1k rating
1st up: as Steven Hawkings once said: "I don't know. Losers brag about their IQ".
Also: IQ doesn't connect to chess. Someone can be a chess genius while only having average IQ, while someone gifted may be only average.
Read the article after searching it up
Mar 21, 2023
0
#599
IronSteam1 wrote:
I believe the issue is that some people believe IQ tests measure "intelligence" - as if it were a single, cohesive unit. They then conclude that since we need to think while playing chess, we are therfore using this singular "intelligence" of ours.
Seems logical enough.
But that doesn't align with what we know of how the brain works. Intelligence is a complex, multifaceted process, that changes depending on the nature of the activity involved.
Most tasks involve a complicated network of activity, spanning across different regions of the brain. And this brain activity can change quite drastically, from task to task.
To use an IQ-relevant analogy:
IQ tests are to chess, as fishing is to carpentry.
Both activities involve their own manners of thinking, of problem-solving, of visuo-spatial awareness and pattern recognition ... But there are also considerable differences. And the differences should be enough to invalidate IQ tests as a reliable comparison ...
I’m not sure that any of the so-called IQ tests are designed to produce that one number. Rather, they are designed to measure a range of the skills and aptitudes that constitute something we might call intelligence. The single score was created by Eugenicists and kept alive because psychologists know that the public are like hungry dogs who need a bone.
Wechsler’s original test included ten scores. Of course, these were combined to create the one number that the public craved, but as a clinical instrument (Wechsler’s primary focus), this was the least important number.
IQ was originally designed to measure the intelligence of some, as many may call it, "school subjects". However, after a while, the original creator realized that it couldn't measure creativity, emotional intelligence, etc., so they updated the IQ measuring system so that it could include some of those.
I'm older than you
I wouldn't want to admit that if I were you
edit
Nah, looking at some of your topics, you gotta be around teen age.
Which ones? I'm 78 years old.
Really? What’s your degree in, and what jobs did you do during your work life?