Author: Ramón Martínez
Date: 07:09:45 12/02/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 02, 1999 at 10:00:05, Chris Carson wrote: >On December 02, 1999 at 09:32:03, Ramón Martínez wrote: > >>On December 01, 1999 at 16:22:15, Fernando Villegas wrote: >> >>>On December 01, 1999 at 14:18:09, Timothy J. Frohlick wrote: >>> >>>>On December 01, 1999 at 12:59:53, blass uri wrote: >>>> >>>>>On December 01, 1999 at 11:47:08, Timothy J. Frohlick wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>><snipped> >>>>>>but I can't touch the masters. Why? I am not smart enough. I only have an IQ >>>>>>of 137 and that is slipping every day. >>>>> >>>>>I do not think that most of the masters have more than IQ 137. >>>>>It is a question of learning the game and talent for chess and not of IQ. >>>>> >>>>>I believe that my talent for chess is not very good because I cannot see many >>>>>moves forward without seeing the board. >>>>> >>>>>Inspite of this fact I did a very good result in my last tounament including a >>>>>daw with 2 masters and a win against one master and my final performance out of >>>>>7 games was 2183 (The masters were not very strong masters(rating only >>>>>2200-2300)) and my rating is going to be again more than 2000 >>>>> >>>>>Uri >>>> >>>>Uri, >>>> >>>>You are partially correct. I can beat the snot out of my 170 IQ M.D. or PhD >>>>associates on the chessboard. I think that if they practiced though it would be >>>>the other way around. I really do think that at the high master level of chess >>>>you do need "smarts". Really smart is at the level of Sir Isaac Newton or >>>>Steven Hawkings or John Von Neumann---That is so bright that one would think of >>>>these folks as Martians. You can probably play better chess than these guys. >>>> >>>>I am also very good at mopping the floor with the smart people when it comes to >>>>blitz chess. There again, I think that it is merely a matter of practice. If I >>>>played Anand or Miles or Benjamin at blitz I would go down in flames in twenty >>>>moves or less. >>>> >>>>The truth is that neither of us is as dumb as they think they are. My point was >>>>that CCC members are not "average" chess players and that,indeed, they can more >>>>frequently beat the machines. Average chess players usually get slaughtered by >>>>the top chess programs. >>>> >>>>Respectfully, >>>> >>>>TJ Frohlick >>> >>> >>>Respect to that relation between IQ and chess hability, I remember a boy in my >>>scholl that was near moron IQ level, but he beat all of us almost without >>>thinking. It seems chess talent is a very specific thing that can be or not >>>related with IQ, that is a measure that reflects another kind of intelectual >>>endeavour. Nevertheles, if you see what kind of people are high level players, >>>it is truth they tend to be at the same time highly intelligent, but more >>>because they are high level pros or people with high level studies; tha's the >>>reason they tend to be people in the region of 135 IQ or more. But even in that >>>level there is not correlation in the strict sense of the word, that is to say, >>>is not the case that the 175 IQ master plays better than the 135 IQ master; they >>>all are smart people with different kinds of minds oriented to different kinds >>>of task. In fact, once you are an adult and you have followed certain >>>professional path, all that thing measured with IQ tends to lose his importance >>>or sense; you have not anymore general potential, but you have "programmed" your >>>resources to some task and even because of that it could be that you lose some >>>hability to solve fast enough IQ test as when you was young. But, are you less >>>intelligent? BTW, in the school I had a very similar IQ to yours -143- and >>>nevertheless that almost-moron boy all the time cutted me in pieces on the >>>board. Of course I knew nothing about IQ, I just got confused to see how bad a >>>player was I and how good was he, the recognized idiot of the group. So is life. >>>Now I am not sure what idiocy really means. Perhaps to expend so much time here? >>>Fernando >> >>I agree, Fernando. My IQ (measured 2 or 3 years ago) was about 148, and I >>regularly get beatten by friends which have 108-115. Once I read in a review of >>a book called Chess Genious (I think that was the title) that the soviets had >>done research in that particular relation between IQ's and chess potential. >>According to their discoveries, a high IQ does noy guarantee success at the >>board but, on the contrary, almost all grandmaster level players that submitted >>to the study did have high IQ's. The reasearchers said thgat the maximum chess >>potential, given ideal conditions, could be calculated with the following and >>simple formula: IQ x 10 + 1000. This kind of simplification seems like nonsense >>to me (we should remember that the leader of the enigma code decoding team, a >>genious with over 200 IQ, did never managed to get even a club player level, >>though he tried hard at times). The fact is that there is no correlation yet >>proven between high IQ's and success (in any field), specially on those areas >>that require creativity. > >I am a licensed professional in this field and conduct IQ assessments on >a regular basis. IQ is mental age/chronological age. Most IQ assessments >measure knowledge attainment (verbal and analytical skills). An IQ of 100 >should provide most people (on average) enough ability to master most >skills (interest and effort are necessary components for success). It is >not uncommon for a person with an average IQ (75 to 115) to out perform >a person with a higher IQ if the person with the lower IQ has an interest and >puts in the effort. An average (normal) IQ is not a limiting factor. > >Also, IQ is not static. You can increase your IQ by increasing your >knowledge (mental age/chronological age). Your IQ may lower if you do >not use your mental skills. > >I have not seen any valid IQ assessments (GRE, SAT, ...) that cover >chess knowledge, so I do not believe that IQ is a reliable indicator >of chess playing skill. However, IQ does give some indication that >a person is capable of learning if they have the desire and put in the >time to do so. > >I could go on about IQ and teach a 16 week course on IQ assessment, but >I hope you get the general idea. :) > >Just FYI. :) > >Best Regards, >Chris Carson, MA, Licensed Professional Counselor (Texas, USA) Thank for your very interesting comments, Chris.
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.