What I remember reading is that Einstein thought chess was a waste of time, but in later years took it up and quickly reached a very strong level.

Examples of famous people won't lead us anywhere.

Just think what you do to be good at chess. You study, and you solve problems. What is the organ in the human body that does that? The brain. Therefore it follows that a better brain makes you POTENTIALLY a better chess player.

It's like asking if you need physical strength to be a powerlifter.

Only two huh?

You would have to be a remarkably dim bulb to actually believe that.  

Besides the fallacy of assuming playing chess solely correlates with intelligence you would have to also accept the corollary conclusion that the majority population of the world (those who do not play chess) are therefore less intelligent than chess players, and that chess is the most important intellectual pursuit there can be in a culture.

I pity anyone who reasons the way you do.   I pity the rest of us so many fools live among us.

Just think of the different styles of play by the GMs. They're all distinct like how any decent trumpet player knows the difference in tone between Eric Miyashiro and Wayne Bergeron. Left-brained people I suspect would be stronger at brute calculation, memorizing opening lines and such. Right-brained therefore would tend to come up with more creative lines to play, confusing human opponents. (Is Hikaru left or right brained then? Komoto vs. Hikaru.) Different brains obviously has an effect on play style, so I would suspect it also affects how well you play.

The Nine Types of Intelligence

By Howard Gardner

1. Naturalist Intelligence (“Nature Smart”)

Designates the human ability to discriminate among living things (plants, animals) as well as sensitivity to other features of the natural world (clouds, rock configurations).  This ability was clearly of value in our evolutionary past as hunters, gatherers, and farmers; it continues to be central in such roles as botanist or chef.  It is also speculated that much of our consumer society exploits the naturalist intelligences, which can be mobilized in the discrimination among cars, sneakers, kinds of makeup, and the like. 

2. Musical Intelligence (“Musical Smart”)

Musical intelligence is the capacity to discern pitch, rhythm, timbre, and tone.  This intelligence enables us to recognize, create, reproduce, and reflect on music, as demonstrated by composers, conductors, musicians, vocalist, and sensitive listeners.  Interestingly, there is often an affective connection between music and the emotions; and mathematical and musical intelligences may share common thinking processes.  Young adults with this kind of intelligence are usually singing or drumming to themselves.  They are usually quite aware of sounds others may miss.

3. Logical-Mathematical Intelligence (Number/Reasoning Smart)

Logical-mathematical intelligence is the ability to calculate, quantify, consider propositions and hypotheses, and carry out complete mathematical operations.  It enables us to perceive relationships and connections and to use abstract, symbolic thought; sequential reasoning skills; and inductive and deductive thinking patterns.  Logical intelligence is usually well developed in mathematicians, scientists, and detectives.  Young adults with lots of logical intelligence are interested in patterns, categories, and relationships.  They are drawn to arithmetic problems, strategy games and experiments.

4. Existential Intelligence

Sensitivity and capacity to tackle deep questions about human existence, such as the meaning of life, why do we die, and how did we get here.

5. Interpersonal Intelligence (People Smart”)

Interpersonal intelligence is the ability to understand and interact effectively with others.  It involves effective verbal and nonverbal communication, the ability to note distinctions among others, sensitivity to the moods and temperaments of others, and the ability to entertain multiple perspectives.  Teachers, social workers, actors, and politicians all exhibit interpersonal intelligence.  Young adults with this kind of intelligence are leaders among their peers, are good at communicating, and seem to understand others’ feelings and motives.

6. Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence (“Body Smart”)

Bodily kinesthetic intelligence is the capacity to manipulate objects and use a variety of physical skills.  This intelligence also involves a sense of timing and the perfection of skills through mind–body union.  Athletes, dancers, surgeons, and craftspeople exhibit well-developed bodily kinesthetic intelligence.

7. Linguistic Intelligence (Word Smart)

Linguistic intelligence is the ability to think in words and to use language to express and appreciate complex meanings.  Linguistic intelligence allows us to understand the order and meaning of words and to apply meta-linguistic skills to reflect on our use of language.  Linguistic intelligence is the most widely shared human competence and is evident in poets, novelists, journalists, and effective public speakers.  Young adults with this kind of intelligence enjoy writing, reading, telling stories or doing crossword puzzles.

8. Intra-personal Intelligence (Self Smart”)

Intra-personal intelligence is the capacity to understand oneself and one’s thoughts and feelings, and to use such knowledge in planning and directioningone’s life.  Intra-personal intelligence involves not only an appreciation of the self, but also of the human condition.  It is evident in psychologist, spiritual leaders, and philosophers.  These young adults may be shy.  They are very aware of their own feelings and are self-motivated.

9. Spatial Intelligence (“Picture Smart”)

Spatial intelligence is the ability to think in three dimensions.  Core capacities include mental imagery, spatial reasoning, image manipulation, graphic and artistic skills, and an active imagination.  Sailors, pilots, sculptors, painters, and architects all exhibit spatial intelligence.  Young adults with this kind of intelligence may be fascinated with mazes or jigsaw puzzles, or spend free time drawing or daydreaming.

=========================================

I'll throw my two penneth worth here & say in regard to the above that many people tend to collapse intelligence into a singularity when  'theoretically' at least it may well be a little more complex than that. And I think Gardner's model is just the tip of the iceberg.

Chess intelligence would be under category 9 according to this particular model.

But obviously has other categorys too!!!

Do you know your strong points & your weak points in the list

1-9? 

=====================================

Then let's hear your explanation for why women suck at chess.

Before I explain you why your coral makes no sense at all.

Nikprit, yours was a good contribution to the discussion.

I used to believe in the theory of the 9 types, but then I started having some doubts. Think about it: intelligence (as defined as the ability of your brain to solve problems) is at its core just brain cells. I do not see us having a certain type of brain cell specifically dedicated to certain type of thoughts. It's like the CPU of a computer. You might play with SPSS or with COD and you'll get different results (weird numbers vs a chat with strangers who claim to sleep with your mom). But your ability to run either comes from the same source.

Then it hit me: in this politically correct society a need has arisen to make stupid people feel better. Therefore we can now say that they have "interpersonal intelligence". Ever noticed how many people with no medical training now think they could be a psychologist out of the blue?

They suck at math, they feel they MUST have something that compensates for it.

Truth is, the stereotypical greedy investment banker would be just as good as statistics as he would be at understanding how to be nice to people. He just prefers to do the former.

Post 112 Plutonia - yes but that would be a typical number 3 reponse. I have met plenty of greedy investments bankers & their is no indication whatsoever that they were 'ever' good at number 5 or number 8 and never will be. Then again there are some who are much more rounded. 

Thank goodness Maths is not the be all to existance. Logic is cold and ruthless with no heart. Don't you think? 

I appreciate your suggestion too that psychologist are somehow inferior to the banker or is it that you just have more number 3 than you do 5 or 8? Your reply is highly suggestive of this. Is it not? 

We approach things through a lens or intelligence & if one lens dominates then that will be our stance. 

1) This lacks creativity for only coming up with 2. 
2) It also fails to consider that there might be a mix of both.
--1 and 2 are basically false dichotomy sloppy reasoning.
3) I can take the statements and come up with the opposite conclusion:

Women are more intelligent, therefore they don't excel at chess. Two ways to rationalize: either because chess doesn't correlate as positively with intelligence as something else (like memory or early training) or because women are more intelligent overall, but are inferior only in some specific facet.

Women give more weight to intellectual endeavors and therefore don't excel at chess. At least two ways to rationalize again: chess is not seen as an intellectual endeavor to them, or other intellectual endeavors are given much more weight.

Post 117 Fkey - mmm yes interesting.

Must have logically got tired & fallen asleep perhaps!  

Don't bother, you already wear a brand...

It says "FOOL".

Why are there so few female chess grandmasters?

Three years ago, Lawrence Summers, former president of Harvard University, claimedthat genetic differences between the sexes led to a “different availability of aptitude at the high end”. His widely derided led to his dismissal, but is views are by no means uncommon. In the same year, Paul Irwing and Richard Lynn conducted a review of existing studies on sex differences in intelligence and concluded:

“Different proportions of men and women with high IQs… may go some way to explaining the greater numbers of men achieving distinctions of various kinds for which a high IQ is required, such as chess grandmasters, Fields medallists for mathematics, Nobel prize winners and the like.”

Irwing’s opinion aside, there clearly is a lack of women in the areas he mentioned. In chess for example, there has never been a single female world champion and just 1% of Grand Masters are women. And as long as that’s the case, there will always be people who claim that this disparity is caused by some form of inferiority on the part of the underrepresented sex. Thankfully, there will also always be others keen to find out if those who hold such views are full of it.

Among them is Merim Bilalic from Oxford University. Himself a keen chess player, Bilalic smelled a rat in Irwing’s contention that men dominate the higher echelons of chess because of their innate ability. In an elegant new study, he has shown that the performance gap between male and female chess players is caused by nothing more than simple statistics.

Far more men play chess than women and based on that simple fact, you could actually predict the differences we see in chess ability at the highest level. It’s a simple statistical fact that the best performers from a large group are probably going to be better than the best performers from a small one. Even if two groups have the same average skill and, importantly, the same range in skill, the most capable individuals will probably come from the larger group.

With this statistical effect in mind, Bilalic wanted to see if the actual sex difference that we see among chess players is any greater than the difference you would rationally expect. Fortunately, there are easy ways of finding out the answer for chess, as opposed to many other intellectual disciplines like science and engineering where success is nigh-impossible to measure objectively.

Every serious player has an objective rating – the Elo rating – that measures their skill based on their results against other players. Bilalic looked at a set of data encompassing all known German players – over 120,000 individuals, of whom 113,000 are men. He directly compared the top 100 players of either gender and used a mathematical model to work out the expected difference in their Elo ratings, given the size of the groups they belong to.

The model revealed that the greater proportion of male chess players accounts for a whopping 96% of the difference in ability between the two genders at the highest level of play. If more women took up chess, you’d see that difference close substantially.

Overall, the women actually performed slightly better than the model predicted and the top three in particular were playing well ahead of expectations. From positions 3 to 73, the men have a small but consistent advantage, wielding a competitive superiority that slightly exceed what statistics would predict. From the 80th pair onwards, the advantage shifts back to the fairer sex. 

Bilalic describes the world’s top female player, Judit Polgar, as “a phenomenon, by far the strongest female player the world has ever known [and] the only female player in the top 100”. But according to Bilalic’s study, the exceptional thing about Polgar is not necessarily that she is an incredible female chess player, but that she is a female chess player at all. Increase female representation in this game and you would probably see many more prodigies rising to the fore.

Bilalic’s analysis is a scathing blow against people who claim (and frequently so) that the dominance of men in the world of chess is a sign of their intellectual superiority. His explanation is remarkable for both its simplicity and the fact that hardly anyone has thought about it. Recently, the website ChessBase asked some of the world’s best female players to explain the male dominance in their chosen game. None of them mentioned differences in participation rates.

Of course, sceptics could argue that low participation rate is itself caused by the fact that women simply give up chess in greater numbers than men based on some innate disadvantage. As Bilalic says, the argument is “reasonable” but there is no evidence that the drop-out rate is higher in women than men.

In fact, Christopher Chablis and Mark Glickman recently found equal drop-out rates for boys and girls among 600 budding chess players of comparable age, skill and interest. Their study also found that both sexes improve at an matching pace, and they concluded that the success of men at chess’s highest tiers is fuelled by the overwhelming majority of boys who enter the game at its lowest levels.

So why are there so few female chess grandmasters? Because fewer women play chess. It’s that simple.

This overlooked fact accounts for so much of the observable differences that other possible explanations, be they biological, cultural or environmental, are just fighting for scraps at the table.

In science and engineering, where men dominate the top ranks but also have an advantage in numbers, it’s likely that the same explanation applies, rather than the innate differences cited by Summers and Irwing. There will always be those who take their position, but it’s always nice to have hard data to show how demonstrably daft it is.

http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2008/12/23/why-are-there-so-few-female-chess-grandmasters/

Well that was an interesting 10 min research thread anyhow. End of debate? Yes I guess so. In regard to your number 3 above for some people....

lol- I am going to steal that one!!!

I couldn't find a gif with 'closest to the truth'.

Sidis could speak 40 languages & supposedly had an IQ of 254. Which makes me only 39 behind him in the language department & ONLY 200 points below him on the IQ scale. I wonder if he could have beaten me on my 62 EQ scale?  You are obviously far higher than me on all 3 as your chess rating is higher. Therefore 'logically' you must be smarter than me in 'every' department across the board. 

Oh I believe I have become converted by the might of mere logic alone!!! 

If you wish & only when you feel like it, try this simple test, takes 2 minutes. You obviously don't have to make it public.

It is very basic but it gives you a little  'self' information.

http://www.arealme.com/eq/en/

That information can point towards how much info you can pick up at that particular level.

Which covers 5 & 8 very broadly.

If you know what your weakeness are - they can be worked on.  

What you call my "generalisations about women" are drawn from science about gender differences.  I am well aware this is an area in which there is a lot of disagreement between experts, so perhaps I should have said that in my post.

Your own post is full of generalisations, and many of them, e.g. "Women tend to do Mickey Mouse degrees and then they think they get paid less than men because of gender discrimination. Fun fact: no feminist has ever opened an economics book." are obviously not based on science.   There are more women studying law than men in Australia and have been for decades, so law is a Mickey Mouse degree?

 A google search reveals a lot on the topic of feminist economics and an academic journal of that name.  Perhaps you should check the meaning of the word "fact".

Men are uglier than woman, therefore we have more need to prove some power, either mental or physical, to get some credit. If you need to win something it is more likely that you put in the necessary effort.