Most Intelligent Music

a) The idea of ascribing intelligence to music is nonsensical.

b) Different music was created for different purposes, anyway.

c) The Mozart Effect and such are controversial and quite possibly due to other side effects of music (arousal, changes in mood, focus, etc) and not actual the music improving any of your abilities even in the short term. Some research has concluded that the temporary enhanced performance is due to the heightened mood resulting from enjoying the music (or other art/experiences, even) and not due to anything unique about Mozart's music.

d) Do you even give a second thought to how pretentious it is to say things like "Nothing else comes close" to how "intelligent" classical music is?

      Let me play the proverbial devil's advocate here.  Three people have now said calling certain music "intelligent" is a silly idea,
yet every day people call Country and Western music dumb.
     If that is true and it is dumb then it is only logical Captain Kirk, that some music
must be intelligent as opposed to dumb.
     Therefore, not all music is of equal intelligence.

OR Country and Western isn't music.

Why just Mozart? Why not other (better) classical?

So, you DO agree theat music can lift your performance?

d) Do you even give a second thought to how pretentious it is to say things like "Nothing else comes close" to how "intelligent" classical music is?

Not really pretentious, merely subjective. I picked jazz, but if Mylie Cyrus floats your (or anyone else's) boat, that's cool too.

     Very funny Scarblac.  While I like Mozart, I say we Virginians have learned
to appreciate the subtle nuances and brilliance of Johnny Cash and Alan Jackson.

~I think that deathmetal and nintendohardcore are the best because they are way more sophisticated than classical music!!~ <casper>

What do you even mean by intellectual quality?

 how good they are intellectually

Ya I think they are using dumb in a slightly different way than you seem to think.

Oh gee, that explains it.

You mean, like, instrumental? 

 look up the word intellectual and then you will know.

I have two nominations for songs that I like to listen to during OTB chess games. That being said, a long time ago my GM teacher, while not explicitly telling me not to listen to music during games, said "well, let's put it this way, I don't know any high level players who listen to music during games."

#1: http://preview.tinyurl.com/yham5cv
#2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q86Z6Xw_C0w

This one, I don't think would help my chess, but it's a great song nonetheless
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6MhjhMtq7s

     Bocelli may have the best voice on Earth, or at least he's up there don't
you think?

According to Merriam-Webster

"intellectual"

"1.b.  developed or chiefly guided by the intellect rather than by emotion or
experience:  rational"

"2.a.  given to study, reflection, and speculation  b:  engaged in activity
requiring the creative use of the intellect"

I think definition of intellectual is referring to sentient beings. I could be wrong though.

     This is a fun topic for debate, it reminds me of that philosophy class I
took way back in college, or was I really there?

Music can"t be intelligent but the composer can, as those asking either can be STUPID or intelligent but this one seems to be from the first group.  

If listening to any kind of music has any positive effect, it will be something which helps one to perform closer to the maximum level of which they are already capable, it will not extend one's capabilities.

Do you even give a second thought to how pretentious it is to say things like "Nothing else comes close" to how "intelligent" classical music is?

No.

Classical music involves a lot more thought, skill, and theory in the process of composition. Pieces generally involve one ore more themes which are worked out in any number of ways, often through elaboration, variation, combination, etc. They generally progress through a variety of different keys in what is ideally a logical and/or convincing fashion. There can be a significant differences in tempo, rhythym, volume, "density," etc.

Jazz is generally taken to be a means by which performers improvise on specific tunes. The performance is considered more important than the music. The tunes themselves are simpler, and the improvisation may (or may not) be logical, convincing, or even competent. (There is more pretentiousness among some jazz musicians and self-proclaimed aficionados I have met, than among any other group.)

Rock (all forms) is also much simpler. Frequently one is lucky to go beyond one chord or key change in the middle, before returning to the original. In the case of some McCartney tunes, it about seems you're lucky if he uses more than three notes. There are exceptions, (Jethro Tull's Thick as a Brick is practically a rock "tone poem."), but the bulk of rock is not particularly musically "intelligent" at all. (Especially anything written after about 1975.)

I could go on, but I think the point is made. So, no, I don't consider it pretentious. Facts are not pretentious.

Why just Mozart? Why not other (better) classical?

Composers must be considered in the context of their time. Mozart was likely the best of his time, and his music is still astonishing if you learn his "language." Both earlier and later composers worked in times with different "rules" and their "languages" are different. One may prefer Baroque or Late Romantic, but "better" is subjective. As to why not other classical, I can't think of a reason. Go with personal preference.  I just wouldn't want to try to play chess to a Bartok string quartet.