Who else with Average IQ sucks at Chess ( lol ) ?

IQ and chess ability are unrelated.  This has been covered many times in these forums.  Some people just have poor chess ability regardless of their IQ while others have talent.  End it!

Well IQ means nothing, but intelligence and chess are definetly related.

Thanks for the recent posts.

Moriluk_2: Best of luck with your Academic Career, you seem to be making good progress.

Xtophr1: Wow ! You seem to be so Very Very sure of your facts, could you please tell us what YOUR PHD is in ???

TetsuoShima: I like the way you put your statement, makes sense to me.

100 is average IQ: 148 would be less than 5% of population.

well iq is not such a great measure, but we must still face the facts that we might be below or average intelligent when we suck at chess. Nothing is as honestly true as chess. Sure we can say we didnt study enough, but it also could be that we are just idiots. I mean you know wasnt there a famous story, about someone looking for some hidden secret in a temple or labyrinth and when he got there the magic writing was recognize yourself.

Thanks for the new posts.

Chasm1995: Going way back to that post where it was said that the average IQ for people on the internet is 148, well perhaps that seems a bit self-serving ?

TetsuoShima: One question that has come up several times in this thread is what do IQ tests measure ? ( including earlier here on this page ).

Thanks for the info and the posts.

JDzokic: Thanks for the update on the ratings and the GMs.

David_Carruthers: That is indeed the sort of thing that has been discussed here, is it a given talent or not.

lol

Somehow they get that idea about me too (damn passport photos).

Thanks for the Posts AndyClifton.

I see that the " Anyone can be a Super GM " thread has been brought back again. My memory is not the best, are we awash in Super GMs by any chance ? The Super GM thread does however bring up ( again ) the question of how can we discover any major talents and/or abilities that we may have ? I mean we are sent off to school at a young age and if we have any Academic abilities they should soon be seen. Also at School we often partake in sports and thus would show off any talents in that area. However what about Opera singer, Poker player ( pro-level ), Heart surgeon, Movie star, Race-car driver etc etc ( dare I add Chess Super GM ? ). I should add that in my case I'm slightly under 6 feet tall so the NBA was probably out but, for example, suppose that I could have been a knuckleball Pitcher ? How do we ever know with so many choices ?   

Irish Coffee ( St.Patrick's Day yesterday ), my Cold, IQ and Chess, do they have something in common ? Well I have just completed an experiment that started 6 days ago when the cold-bug came to visit ( I like to use my own version of Irish Coffee to fight the cold-bug ). Recently there was also a thread on the go here about the effects of Alcohol on playing Chess and I think that that it had some good points. While enjoying my Irish Coffee ( for medicinal purpose only  ) and playing some games I noticed that my Chess was worse that ever. I can hear some characters in the background snickering " we didn't think that your Chess could be any worse cabby ... " but the liquor had an effect. After a strong drink the brain becomes more relaxed and seems to work less efficiently ( so the rule is do not drink before playing Chess ! ).    

Thanks for the post David_Carruthers.

One thing that seems to come up quite often in these threads is the 10,000 hour formula ( 10,000 hours of study plus talent equals a GM ). As the age for the youngest GM keeps getting lower with each new record holder one could ask how long are people studying now ? At the rate of 10 hrs per day for 50 weeks per year about 3.3 years are needed. We have not yet reached the era of 10 year old GMs but may do so in the future. With a young person needing to devote time to study at School and also to study Chess the rate of 5 hrs per day at the Chessboard might be possible ( on average ). That would be 6.6 years to reach 10,000 hours and the need to  start at 3.4 years old in order to get a 10 year old GM. We may just need to adjust that 10,000 hour rule a bit I guess. 

It's not a rule, it's a chimera. 

And a very general rule it is too. 

Not sure when simply stating the obvious--that in order to be good at something you have to practice it a lot--acquired this desperate need to be quantified.  It does seem awfully silly though (to me anyway)...no doubt about it.

Which is another good point (and one that seems to get ignored a lot by the "behaviorists"):  your passion/talent for the activity automatically means that your "x number of hours" will be more intrinsically valuable than that of the average Joe.

Thanks for the new posts.

In a way I have been somewhat lucky to not have had some major type of talent that I needed to nurture for years on end. Two main areas of interest that I had were in History and in Electronics ( I liked playing Baseball going back to Grade 4 in School, but I had no talent ). In this area up here Hockey is the big sport and over the years I knew two players that were trying to work toward getting into the NHL but fell a bit short. However the amount of time spent in chasing this type of dream is immense. They started learning to skate before they were old enough for Kindergarden and for the next 15 years or more it was nothing but Hockey Hockey Hockey ! The pursuit of excellence is not easy nor is it for the timid.

Yeah, and then you always have worry about breaking your leg and having your dream end in an instant...not to mention no partying and all those limitations.

Very good points Andy Clifton. I used Hockey as an example as I knew both of these fellows thru my job. The amount of work needed to reach their level made quite an impression on me ( the level that they managed to reach would have been equal to being between single A and double A in Baseball ).  

There have been some rather young GMs over the years and now there is a 14 year old Golfer playing at the Masters in Atlanta ( youngest ever ). In the discussion about talent vs hard work when did this young lad start to seriously practice his Sport ? ( some here would claim perhaps around age 2 ).

We return yet again to the question of Talent and/or Ability ( Oh No ! Not Again ! ). Recently I was over on Youtube checking on some Classical Music and bumped into some clips of Child Prodigies on the Piano in the range of ages 3 to 5 years. I mean Good Grief ! At that age I was still learning about what I was supposed to do in the bathroom ( is it going to be a #1 or a #2 ? ). How can these youngsters even comprehend playing a Bach keyboard piece for example  ( shades of Mozart ? ). In Chess the youngest GMs are now down to near age 12 ? I guess that at this rate in a generation or so we can expect a GM at age 5 or 6 ? Scary stuff.