26 Mar 07
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveExcellent. 😀
The intelligent-est people don't bother themselves playing chess.
The intelligent people who do play chess realize it has nothing to do with intelligence.
The people who are good at chess and think this makes them intelligent are actually the dumbest of the lot.
Information obtained from the chess university of life.
28 Mar 07
Question: What exactly is intellignece?
Answer: Intelligence is what the intelligence test is measuring.
What does an intelligence test doesn't measure: endurance for example. My weakness is that I am not doing enough analysis. I already hear people shouting: than DO!
So my thesis on this would be: Chess ability is a combination of the ability to think logically, to concentrate on the game at hand and to be patient enough with oneself to go through the analysis until one is sure to have the best move.
Oh and being able to learn from the Grandmasters surely helps...
28 Mar 07
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveIntelligence is hard to define though, and the tests measure IQ, which is not anything in particular but what the tests measure, and is not nearly as meaningful as people make it out to be, in terms of chess performance or life acomplishments.
Eh?
Intelligence is there [or not] regardless of any tests.
The amount of it, is what is measured in tests.
28 Mar 07
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnowI think we've pretty much established that IQ has no direct bearing on chess ability.
Intelligence is hard to define though, and the tests measure IQ, which is not anything in particular but what the tests measure, and is not nearly as meaningful as people make it out to be, in terms of chess performance or life acomplishments.
But, if I had to chose between two people [say for employment] who were identical in every other way I would pick the one with the higher IQ. I think most companies would too.
28 Mar 07
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveThere's no such things as two identical people, which means that IQ is irrelevant unless you assign it a non-marginal value.
I think we've pretty much established that IQ has no direct bearing on chess ability.
But, if I had to chose between two people [say for employment] who were identical in every other way I would pick the one with the higher IQ. I think most companies would too.
28 Mar 07
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveWhat if you defined chess as one limited index of intelligence? Given its intellectual components, you could make a good case for doing so. Then it would be partly constitutive of IQ. Hence, it correlate with a broader measure of IQ.
I think we've pretty much established that IQ has no direct bearing on chess ability.
But, if I had to chose between two people [say for employment] who were identical in every other way I would pick the one with the higher IQ. I think most companies would too.
28 Mar 07
Originally posted by Pawnokeyholewhat if you defined red rubber bats as one limited index of intelligence....
What if you defined chess as one limited index of intelligence? Given its intellectual components, you could make a good case for doing so. Then it would be partly constitutive of IQ. Hence, it correlate with a broader measure of IQ.
"johnny has 3 red rubber bats compared to billy bob's 2 red rubber bats, so all other things being equal, I think we're going to give the position of Executive Chess Dictator to johnny."
29 Mar 07
Originally posted by wormwoodHow would say, the idiot savant, fit into your equation?
what if you defined red rubber bats as one limited index of intelligence....
"johnny has 3 red rubber bats compared to billy bob's 2 red rubber bats, so all other things being equal, I think we're going to give the position of Executive Chess Dictator to johnny."