Author: Roger D Davis
Date: 19:37:49 05/09/05
Go up one level in this thread
On May 09, 2005 at 13:04:24, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On May 09, 2005 at 10:44:41, Roger D Davis wrote: > >>On May 09, 2005 at 09:21:17, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >> >>>On May 09, 2005 at 09:12:53, Roger D Davis wrote: >>> >>>>On May 09, 2005 at 08:42:56, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>> >>>>>On May 09, 2005 at 07:45:14, Roger D Davis wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>IN >>>>>>fact, a guy with a 500 IQ (were such a thing possible) could probably play chess >>>>>>like a guy with a 100 IQ...on his first game. I say this because intelligence, >>>>>>broadly conceived, is the capacity to acquire knowledge in any particular >>>>>>domain. Intelligence is concerned with rates. Accordingly, you could be the most >>>>>>intelligent person in the world, but with no experience, you'll lose. But you'll >>>>>>probably learn the game faster than anybody. >>>>>> >>>>>>Roger >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>That is wrong. If it were true then academics and doctors with high intelligence >>>>>would improve in chess over experience after some years. But this is easily >>>>>refutated. I know a lot of chessclubs and the genuine chess talent will always >>>>>play above the level of intelligent people without a special chess talent. So >>>>>you can find many doctors and professors playing in low teams while the chess >>>>>talents play in superior classes. >>>>> >>>>>I could still accept your general thesis. But we can't research it because most >>>>>intelligent people and academics don't play chess for years (anymore after their >>>>>youth). Perhaps the theory should go like this: >>>>> >>>>>- people with high intelligence and already great talent stop playing in their >>>>>younger age because they understand what all seperates them from highest chess >>>>>genius; they do also avoid to get lost in the more or less starving scene of >>>>>chess where they risk to become cases for social welfare. Other than in the >>>>>former SU states where chess was a highly supporte profession, you must get >>>>>attractive jobs to be able to make a living for your own family. Therefore a lot >>>>>of high talents simply stopped playing. They all would be better than the >>>>>average club players and they could prove your thesis. >>>>> >>>>>- people with high intelligence and chess talent but without great perspectives >>>>>in either chess or science will sty in the chess scene but they have no chance >>>>>to (ever) get really successful in chess [that is the sample I was refering to >>>>>above] >>>> >>>>Sorry Rolf, I couldn't understand your counterproposal. I know English is your >>>>2nd language. Perhaps you could rephrase it? >>>> >>>>Roger >>> >>> >>>If English were your first language then you could understand me without >>>problem. Sorry, that I can't rephrase it because this is already my best version >>>of the English. >> >> >>No harm done. No need to apologize. >> >>Roger > >It's just science which must suffer again. Same with Hsu, same with you. ;) There's no proof your follow up constitutes science. ;)
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.