1 edit
Korch, I think you're being too harsh on both Shirov and Topalov. Judging them based on some interviews is not necessarily representative of general intelligence. You have to consider that some may have phenomenal intelligence in some areas and normal to low intelligence in others. Overall, this may indicate high general intelligence but it makes judging from afar difficult. This is especially true for someone whose whole life has been focused on a very narrow pursuit - probably not leaving a well-rounded cultured person. Anyway, I've seen some of Shirov's DVDs and he seemed fairly articulate, especially for a non-native speaker and I think he's above average intelligence.
One thing we can both agree on hopefully is that at the highest levels of chess, there is at the very least a specific type of intelligence naturally superior and with practice much more developed than in the rest of the population. Although, I do think that there is usually a correlation with general intelligence too, but not necessarily sanity (being disconnected from reality may make someone seem dumb even though they're not). A 180 IQ like Fischer's makes him roughly 1 out of 3000000 yet few would vouch for his sanity right now. Hard work gets you only so far. Good natural ability is necessary too for IM level and higher.
1 edit
Originally posted by exigentskyAbout Shirov I have more info than " some interviews". As i did mentioned I have seen him in real life and he did not impressed me (to say nothing more). Compilation with other info I have gives me bad impression about his intelligence.
Korch, I think you're being too harsh on both Shirov and Topalov. Judging them based on some interviews is not necessarily representative of general intelligence. You have to consider that some may have phenomenal intelligence in some areas and normal to low intelligence in others. Overall, this may indicate high general intelligence but it makes judging work gets you only so far. Good natural ability is necessary too for IM level and higher.
And I tend to disagree that this specific intelligence has corelation with general intelligence. Fischer is really good example. Also before him there were strong chess players which out of chess was quite average persons.
1 edit
Originally posted by KorchIt is all in the definition of intelligence.
[b]About Shirov I have more info than " some interviews". As i did mentioned I have seen him in real life and he did not impressed me (to say nothing more). Compilation with other info I have gives me bad impression about his intelligence.b]
I think all good chessplayers got to have good calculation-skills and have to be at least somewhat analytical.
This should not be confused with intelligence wich in its own turn is a wide discussion-subject.
2 edits
Originally posted by MetBierOpMay be each one should give his own definition of intelligence.
It is all in the definition of intelligence.
I think all good chessplayers got to have good calculation-skills and have to be at least somewhat analytical.
This should not be confused with intelligence wich in its own turn is a wide discussion-subject.
Originally posted by zin23didnt Chess Life run an article on a VERY strong player (whose name escapes me at the moment) who was autistic? yes. they did. that in itself is enough evidence for me to believe that intelligence and chess skills are not very related at all... though even David Bronstein said that chess was a battle of brains...
First of all, intelligence is not a "skill", so yes it wont help you in chess if you don't have that much intelligence in the first place.
Second, it is true that a very weak chess player could be a very intelligent person , but that is because they are too lazy to play the game well, or they DON'T like the game or just don't play much.
A less intelligen ...[text shortened]... ke it or not there is also a genetic component to intelligence. But that is another story!
so maybe intel does have some impact, just not as much as everyone may think.
2 edits
Encarta definition:
1. ability to think and learn: the ability to learn facts and skills and apply them, especially when this ability is highly developed.
Another def: Ability for rational thought.
So it seems Intelligence is the capacity to learn new things and apply them creatively. It relates to the plasticity of the brain, making it broader in scope than talent. The higher the level at which this can be done, the higher the intelligence. So if a chess player is really strong at chess and nothing else, assuming that such a player took the opportunity to learn other things and failed, then his intelligence is limited.
I guess the examples of super intelligence are people like da vinci who can do many things at a high level.
1 edit
Originally posted by rubberjaw30Are you saying that autistic people are not intelligent? If you're talking about John Barrow, (Chess Life December 2007) he's obviously intelligent. He's shown it not just by being an expert in chess but by being a straight A student while taking tougher AP courses and getting straight As in college and getting a $20,000 scholarship too. It's remarkable that he was able to balance both and also shows good self-control. I know I've often made the mistake of looking at or playing chess when I should have been studying.
didnt Chess Life run an article on a VERY strong player (whose name escapes me at the moment) who was autistic? yes. they did. that in itself is enough evidence for me to believe that intelligence and chess skills are not very related at all... though even David Bronstein said that chess was a battle of brains...
so maybe intel does have some impact, just not as much as everyone may think.
1 edit
Originally posted by KorchYes - because he has more talanted than some more intelligent persons. Talent and intelligence are not the same.
First of all, intelligence is not a "skill", so yes it wont help you in chess if you don't have that much intelligence in the first place.
Such formal nit-picking has nothing common with subject of the discussion.
Second, it is true that a very weak chess player could be a very intelligent person , but that is because they are too lazy to pl ation.
Also Topalov is not too intelligent judging by his interwievs.
Need more?
Yeah - he is more talented in chess - that is what I am saying.
Assumption which should be argued.
Are you going to argue that they are many good chess players who just don't have the discipline and time to be better? Because they are many otherwise intelligent people in in this situation. I doubt that a very intelligent person who applies his or herself cannot become a strong player.
For example Shirov is not too intelligent person. I have seen him few times and also I have read his posts in forum of kasparovchess.com (its in Russian) in which he (and also some other GMs posting in that forum) showins total lack of intelligence.
Your above statement shows a total lack of intelligence and makes me question your intelligence as well. But given the fact that even intelligent people can say stupid things and jump to conclusions quickly, I cannot be absolutely sure that you are stupid even though you appear so by actually calling these people who you dont know stupid.
So to summarize your point proves nothing and even I cannot conclude you are stupid even though you appear so *according to your own definition*.
Originally posted by KorchFischer was a genius.. And there is NOTHING particularly wrong with the way he conducts himself now - he is just being politically incorrect.
About Shirov I have more info than " some interviews". As i did mentioned I have seen him in real life and he did not impressed me (to say nothing more). Compilation with other info I have gives me bad impression about his intelligence.
And I tend to disagree that this specific intelligence has corelation with general intelligence. Fischer is really good ex ...[text shortened]... Also before him there were strong chess players which out of chess was quite average persons.
And yes being racist does not make you stupid either.
You seem to be very narrow minded in your judgment of others. What is wrong with you?
Originally posted by exigentskyno, the iq-believers say autistic people are not intelligent. they have 'measured' it.
Are you saying that autistic people are not intelligent? If you're talking about John Barrow, (Chess Life December 2007) he's obviously intelligent. He's shown it not just by being an expert in chess but by being a straight A student while taking tougher AP courses and getting straight As in college and getting a $20,000 scholarship too. It's remarkable t ...[text shortened]... 've often made the mistake of looking at or playing chess when I should have been studying.
Originally posted by zin23being an antisemitist with a jewish mother does make you incredibly stupid. other racist have at least the excuse of not knowing any better, or being raised up in a social context where it was acceptable or even encouraged.
And yes being racist does not make you stupid either.
Originally posted by zin23I doubt that a very intelligent person who applies his or herself cannot become a strong player.
[b]Yes - because he has more talanted than some more intelligent persons. Talent and intelligence are not the same.
Yeah - he is more talented in chess - that is what I am saying.
Assumption which should be argued.
Are you going to argue that they are many good chess players who just don't have the discipline and time to be better? Because the ...[text shortened]... I cannot conclude you are stupid even though you appear so *according to your own definition*.[/b]
Still assumption with no arguments.
Your above statement shows a total lack of intelligence and makes me question your intelligence as well.
Personal attacks to opponent.
But given the fact that even intelligent people can say stupid things and jump to conclusions quickly, I cannot be absolutely sure that you are stupid even though you appear so by actually calling these people who you dont know stupid.
"Not too inteligent" and "stupid" does not mean the same. I know more about Shirov than you, so maybe try to get some information to make some base for your unargued assumptions.
So to summarize your point proves nothing and even I cannot conclude you are stupid even though you appear so *according to your own definition*
So to summarize - like in our previous discussions ,you are showing lack of arguments and personal antipathies to me.