Author: Enrique Irazoqui
Date: 08:34:07 12/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 17, 2000 at 11:13:34, Fernando Villegas wrote: >As a matter of fact, famous, very rich, very important and so and so kind of >people tend to be considered, always, as "very good" at any activity they >perform. It is part of his glamour. Take the case of Napoleon. Or mine, for instance. > If you look at >any of his documented games, you will see he clearly is an agressive but at most >average kind of player AND playing against people very inclined to concede >victory to the Great Man. Nevertheless you always can get a book about Napoleon >where it is said he was a master level player. >Of course, smartness has a very asimetrical relation with chess ability. >Einstein was a less than average player and that would be enough to probe the >case. On the opposite side, a more than average chess player cannot be a dude. >In fact I.Q data has been collected about many GM players and if I recall well, >most of them or even all are above 140 IQ people, that is, in the 2 or 3% most >high part of the curve. So much for the IQ test. I met magnificent chess players that were magnificent imbeciles, and extremely intelligent people that played horrible chess. For example, I have never been a great player. >To say it as in an execize in basic logic: every good chess player is smart, but >not every smart guy is a good chess player. > >Fernando, not smart neither good chess player. But you must have some hidden qualities. Enrique PS. It seems I can escape from a big family Christmas lunch, which puts me in a very good mood and looking for chances to pester people. Sorry, Fernando, I couldn't miss this one.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.