Originally posted by tomtom232Fischer is a lot of things, but being autistic isn't one of them, and people with autism can barely function anyway, they certainly don't do well on IQ tests. There is a mild form of high-functioning autism called Aspberger's Syndrome, some of them can be quite brilliant, they can also be quite stupid. But real autism is a sad affliction, give them an IQ test and they'll just stick the pencil in their nose and drool on the paper.
IQ tests are a load of crap they don't really test your intelligence...fischer was autistic that is why he did good on those bs tests
Originally posted by Sam The ShamThey can do, sometimes they are incredibly good at pattern recognition because they dont concern themselves with the everyday elements of life so their brains can focus exclusively on a certain (often useless) feature of their surroundings.
Fischer is a lot of things, but being autistic isn't one of them, and people with autism can barely function anyway, they certainly don't do well on IQ tests.
Although, the real specialists are called savants.
Originally posted by TyrannosauruschexMost autistics can't even write their name, they're certainly not going to ace an IQ test because they can recognize patterns. The ones I've worked with can barely differentiate simple colors or single digit numbers, for that matter. They mostly just drool on themselves and throw things. Do well on IQ tests because of their autism? Come on.
They can do, sometimes they are incredibly good at pattern recognition because they dont concern themselves with the everyday elements of life so their brains can focus exclusively on a certain (often useless) feature of their surroundings.
Although, the real specialists are called savants.
Originally posted by KorchI don't. I understand now it's because most of them are arrogant.
As I`m "the usual internet troll" I`ts my last post in RHP public forums. If someone will need some opinion/advice about chess/chess players you may ask zin23.
P.S. Does anyone still have questions why only few strong RHP players are posting in these forums?
If you mean general intelligence, I partially agree, since chess
skills are mostly spatial relations; a study was done many years
ago on a number of masters and average IQ was 130, good but
not exceptional compared to their special chessic abilities. Studies
by de Groot and others show two main skills are pattern recognition
and figure manipulation, along with spatial relations memory. Some
masters have freakish recall in chess, e.g., Fischer,Morphy, Koltanowski, Nadjorf, etc., most masters can play at least a few
simultaneous blindfold games. Fischer and Morphy in particular
exhibited super memory and concentration, almost to point of
autism. Conversely, Mieses, a good blindfold player, could not
remember his own games later on!
IMO, intelligence in most general sense is adaptive awareness. Science generally believes awareness springs from biological 'level';
some quantumists believe that awareness arises from subatomic
'level'. Intelligence in these latter interpretations, is ubiquitously
superluminal, hologramic and has no specific loci! Pantheism, in
this context, is interpretated as isohologramic. Psychometrics
via IQ assessments will always be limited in these quantum
interpretations.
This may have already been mentioned, but I thought I'd throw in my two bits.
"Intelligence" exists in several different forms, in my opinion. For example, I personally consider myself academically intelligent (mathematics, English, etc.), but I almost always consider my physical intelligence (intelligence at sports/physical activities) pretty far below standard, seeing as I have trouble making a lay-up. In contrast, someone with a mental disease, for instance, may be socially and academically stupid, but they may have an amazing intelligence in some field of art (music, painting, etc.).
Originally posted by KorchOf cousre zin23 must not be familiar with your posts or is off his medications. You provide a lot of insight on these forums and I've found your posts very helpful. It was great when you annotated that Grob game against Dragon Fire. The e5... h5 idea is very strong and not often played. Moreover, you tend to be pretty objective and don't resort to personal attacks.
As I`m "the usual internet troll" I`ts my last post in RHP public forums. If someone will need some opinion/advice about chess/chess players you may ask zin23.
P.S. Does anyone still have questions why only few strong RHP players are posting in these forums?
Originally posted by Iron MonkeyI think the main thing is calculation ability (and tactics). I find it to be most significant difference of players of different strengths at all levels, not just between a 1500 player and a 1800 player.
this is all very interesting, but i'm afraid it's not getting us very far in the quest to identify the core chess skills. as someone pointed out, intelligence isn't a skill. what are the chess skills we can improve through diligent practice and analysis?
1900s can calculate more accurately and quickly than 1800s, and so do GMs than IMs.
I don't know if I'm being arrogant here, but I find myself to know chess principles fairly well, you know, what to do in certain types of positions, or I can evaluate a "positional position" (where it's not about tactics) pretty good.
and I notice so many weak players (like me, around my level) know a lot about chess too, so that leaves us mostly with being able to apply what you know and convert your knowledge to concrete variations, and that's where calculation ability is decisive.
of course, after 1800 or 2000s, opening knowledge and endgame technique also gets a lot important. but the significance of calculating accurately never fades away.
Originally posted by Dragon FireIt's all about semantics and our personal understanding. Every person interpretes single word, syntagm, sentence slightly bit different than the other. It is like message coding, be aware that it could be decoded inaccurately, and cause disagreements and verbal fights born out of lack of understanding.
There is a thin dividing line between genius and insanity. in fact most geniuses are insane.
What is genious? What is insane? Who made the border?
Insane is often nothing more than "not common".
I think a high intelligence is useful but not neccessary to be a great chessplayer. I think one of the biggest tools for becoming a great chessplayers is the memory. If you can remember positions/reasons why you lost earlier/ and patterns: this will take you a long way. Just my thoughts.
Let's not allow personalities to get in the way of the facts. Korch has made some very good points, and he is not at all an "Internet troll" -- he is a regular contributor here, and a serious one, and though we may not always agree with his opinions on every issue, he should not be slandered as a "troll".
What Korch has said is so obvious and so sensible, it is difficult to see how it could be argued with. All he has said is that, first, a high degree of "chess intelligence" doesn't necessarily carry over into other activities; and second, there is a difference between intelligence and wisdom. Those are facts.
To those facts he has added his opinion that, based on statements made during interviews, certain GMs aren't so smart about everything. There can be no argument about this either, since nobody here knows which interviews or what was said, except Korch, and he has the right to his opinion without being called a "troll".
It is also clear that individuals with high IQs can sometimes be egotistical, so nobody should be surprised that some GMs with high IQs have expressed strong opinions about matters that they actually know little about. They are chess stars, they have big egos, and if they are not careful they delude themselves into thinking they understand things well beyond their personal sphere of expertise. In this, they are really no different from many ordinary individuals -- all of whom like to think that they understand politics and how the world works -- but they are encouraged because people actually listen to their opinions (because they are chess stars).
Finally, Korch has said that zin23 idolizes certain GMs. I think there is some truth to this since zin23's response was so vehement. zin23, don't get too upset. Korch has his own biases -- usually political -- and these are apt to show up in some of his posts about the intelligence (wisdom) of professional chess players. Remember that and weigh his words accordingly. It is a small price to pay to have a 2300 rated player participating in our online community.
Korch, you are welcome here, and admired.
"There is a thin line tween genius and insanity, in fact, most geniuses
are insane". We are all both sane and insane. Most hide their
insanity well enough to function according to social norms and
expectations. Hiding relates to conformity. A study was done that
suggests many geniuses in various fields suffer cyclothymia, which
may blossom into full-blown bipolar disorder later in their lives
after they've peaked out on creativity.
"What is genious? What is insane? Who made the border?"
Indeed, who decides?