03 Mar 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzIQ are a more accurate measure of a lack of intelligance than when used to measure intelligence. This is not surprising as that was why IQ tests were developed.
Yes, they are absolutely good indicators of that. However, people good at taking IQ tests are probably good at doing other logic related things.
Not necessarily chess though.... 😳
For IQ's above 110, memory is often a more important skill than the ability to make ADVANCED logical connections.
Our exam system is much more geared towards memory than advanced logic. One reason why this country has declined in its development of top level thinkers. There is very litle correlation between IQ and GCSE success in Britain for people when IQ's above 110 are considered.
- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
03 Mar 07
Originally posted by petrosianpupilFor IQ's above 110, memory is often a more important skill than the ability to make ADVANCED logical connections.
IQ are a more accurate measure of a lack of intelligance than when used to measure intelligence. This is not surprising as that was why IQ tests were developed.
For IQ's above 110, memory is often a more important skill than the ability to make ADVANCED logical connections.
Our exam system is much more geared towards memory than advanced logic. ...[text shortened]... relation between IQ and GCSE success in Britain for people when IQ's above 110 are considered.
- I think that if you want to think like this, then memory would be closely tied into your experiences of what has worked in the past, the ability to recognise pattens you've seen before.
Though increased logical connection ability would make it easier to develop those skills in the first place, memory consilidates it.
Our exam system is much more geared towards memory than advanced logic. One reason why this country has declined in its development of top level thinkers. There is very litle correlation between IQ and GCSE success in Britain for people when IQ's above 110 are considered.
- I can only speak through personal experience, but you are probably right: motivation, apathy, ability to deal with stress, and a load of other factors affect what results people actually get quite a lot.
If you are interested though, my I.Q. is 136, and I did very well in my GCSEs, I averaged an A 😏.
I thought that a good memory was definitely needed to remember the material for the test; but, the ability to make logical connections in understanding the concepts behind what I was taught itself was very important; you won't remember something unless you understand it.
When it comes to chess, I think memory is by far the most important, your experience, your knowledge of how to deal with the endgame, are all extremely important in chess.
03 Mar 07
Originally posted by Bad wolfYour IQ's 136 and you only averaged an A? That's disappointing. 😏
[b]For IQ's above 110, memory is often a more important skill than the ability to make ADVANCED logical connections.
- I think that if you want to think like this, then memory would be closely tied into your experiences of what has worked in the past, the ability to recognise pattens you've seen before.
Though increased logical connection ability woul ...[text shortened]... ience, your knowledge of how to deal with the endgame, are all extremely important in chess.[/b]
I would say logic is more important than memory in chess, outside of the opening that is.
- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
03 Mar 07
1 edit
Originally posted by wedgehead2Logical reasoning gets you nowhere when you're trying to checkmate a lone king with just a rook and you've never done it before.
Your IQ's 136 and you only averaged an A? That's disappointing. 😏
I would say logic is more important than memory in chess, outside of the opening that is.
Experience on the other hand will, even if you are an idiot.
03 Mar 07
Originally posted by Bad wolfAre you saying logical reasoning couldn't be used in endgame situations?
Logical reasoning gets you nowhere when you're trying to checkmate a lone king with just a rook and you've never done it before.
Experience on the other hand will, even if you are an idiot.
I would also assume that if you only had a king against king and rook you would do the decent thing and resign.
And when I get into endgame positions I consider each one differently- one of the great things about chess is that every game is different, hence lessening the value of memory.
What was the breakdown of your GCSEs? I've an IQ of 125 and got really stressed in my GCSEs, but still got 4A*, 7A and a B. That's why you only averaging an A surprised me.
- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
03 Mar 07
Originally posted by wedgehead2I would never resign against someone who has never played a King and Rook endgame before, I don't see the point, they have never proved that they could win the game, and as far I'm concerned they can't until they prove it: of course if they did win, I would resign in a similar position if it were to happen again.
Are you saying logical reasoning couldn't be used in endgame situations?
I would also assume that if you only had a king against king and rook you would do the decent thing and resign.
And when I get into endgame positions I consider each one differently- one of the great things about chess is that every game is different, hence lessening the value o ...[text shortened]... in my GCSEs, but still got 4A*, 7A and a B. That's why you only averaging an A surprised me.
I got 4A*s, 3.5As, and 3.5 Bs.
Keep in mind that two of my subjects were only worth half a GCSE.