I decided to take my first IQ test ever

[John Cuthber]

My friend Carl plays chess at county level.

For a living, he copies details from paper forms into a computer database.

 

Good at chess <> high achiever <> high intelligence <>happy.

 

IQ tests tell you if you can do IQ tests or not; nothing else.

 

Incidentally, I'm really crap at chess. A competent 10 year old would probably beat me.

I might do that IQ test later .

Edited March 13, 2017 by John Cuthber

[Strange]

I was curious so I went to the site and took the test.

 

 

Me too.

 

Which convinces me that these tests are pretty bogus.

 

Amusingly, I had to guess most of the number series ones but it turns out I got them all right!

[Delta1212]

 

Me too.

 

Which convinces me that these tests are pretty bogus.

 

Amusingly, I had to guess most of the number series ones but it turns out I got them all right!

I took it a second time and also got 160+.

 

I must have had a growth spurt in my brain since lunch.

[CharonY]

You do not need to take the test to see that it is worthless. It has only 20 multiple-choice questions (and no time limit).

[Lord Antares]

 

Me too.

 

Which convinces me that these tests are pretty bogus.

 

Amusingly, I had to guess most of the number series ones but it turns out I got them all right!

 

 

I took it a second time and also got 160+.

 

I must have had a growth spurt in my brain since lunch.

 

You both must be chess grandmasters!!!!!!!111

[StringJunky]

 

 

 

You both must be chess grandmasters!!!!!!!111

Would you say if you had a prodigious memory you would be really good but because you would instant access to past games, regarding what might work in a particular situation during a game? I knew a really good chessplayer at school but he was in the lower groupings in terms of achievement and I'm wondering if having great memory was the decisive factor regarding his ability. This kid demolished his peers from other schools in 10 minutes, if that.

[Lord Antares]

Counterintuitively, good memory is not an absolute must in chess. Even the legend A. Alekhine said so.

While you need memory mostly to remember openings, the way you would go about solving that problem (having instant access to past games vs. not having it) is understanding it instead of memorizing it. Think of school. Sometimes you really understand the matter deeply and will remember it for the rest of your life. Sometimes you learn it just to pass the test and forget it a few days afterwards. If you learned it in the latter way, you would need good memory, but you actually need to learn it in the former way so that no memorization is required, only your built-on understanding. I hope that answers your question.

 

To further prove that this is the case, did you know that Garry Kasparov (one of the best players in history, if not the single best) remembers every serious game of chess he ever played? Not only him, but more or less every grandmaster can easilly recall any game in at least the recent months he was playing. Club players and below almost invariably can't. I can't even recall how the game went after a certain point after just having played it as is the case with most people. This skill is linear. The higher rated you are, the more you can recall about the game. I think this is adequate evidence that memory is not vital in chess.

 

Similarly, (probably?) every grandmaster can play blindfolded chess. That is, they can play without looking at the board at any point and having to remember where all their pieces are at every turn.

You would think that this requires a great memory, but nope. Every grandmaster can do it, it comes with deep understanding of the game.

 

So all in all, I don't think he was good because of his memory. He was either naturally talented at chess or he had spent more time on it than the others from school. Experience and time spent playing/studying is, on average, by far the most important factor which dictates how well a person plays.

Edited March 13, 2017 by Lord Antares

[StringJunky]

Counterintuitively, good memory is not an absolute must in chess. Even the legend A. Alekhine said so.

While you need memory mostly to remember openings, the way you would go about solving that problem (having instant access to past games vs. not having it) is understanding it instead of memorizing it. Think of school. Sometimes you really understand the matter deeply and will remember it for the rest of your life. Sometimes you learn it just to pass the test and forget it a few days afterwards. If you learned it in the latter way, you would need good memory, but you actually need to learn it in the former way so that no memorization is required, only your built-on understanding. I hope that answers your question.

 

To further prove that this is the case, did you know that Garry Kasparov (one of the best players in history, if not the single best) remembers every serious game of chess he ever played? Not only him, but more or less every grandmaster can easilly recall any game in at least the recent months he was playing. Club players and below almost invariably can't. I can't even recall how the game went after a certain point after just having played it as is the case with most people. This skill is linear. The higher rated you are, the more you can recall about the game. I think this is adequate evidence that memory is not vital in chess.

 

Similarly, (probably?) every grandmaster can play blindfolded chess. That is, they can play without looking at the board at any point and having to remember where all their pieces are at every turn.

You would think that this requires a great memory, but nope. Every grandmaster can do it, it comes with deep understanding of the game.

 

So all in all, I don't think he was good because of his memory. He was either naturally talented at chess or he had spent more time on it than the others from school. Experience and time spent playing/studying is, on average, by far the most important factor which dictates how well a person plays.

Thanks but you seem to be contradicting yourself. You can't remember every game without having a great memory. How do you know it didn't come from that? I agree understanding facillitates memory in terms of what you are capable of but to rote remember is a different quality.

[Lord Antares]

No. It's different. There is no contradiction. First I will give you evidence, then I'll explain why so you will be more attentive

The evidence is that all those strong players did not remember the games well until they became masters. I myself couldn't remember a single move when I started out, now I can remember about half the game. It is like this for everyone I've talked to. So it's clear that their playing strength isn't due to memory.

 

Maybe this isn't prevalent in other areas of life, but it is very pronounced in chess. The stronger you are, the more the moves make sense to you. The more you start to understand the deep ideas and strategies, the less effort it takes to remember the moves. You get involved in the game at a higher level and you start anticipating the opponent's moves several moves ahead, so you think more about the game. This is akin to my example about learning in school or in general.

 

Think of one time you studied something and understood it really, really well and it was very interesting to you. You will note that you still remember it to some degree today. That's about the best way I could explain it to you. It's a bit different from that in chess, but the important thing is that you get the point

 

EDIT: Also,amateur players can rarely play blindfolded chess, which they can do after they get really good, so that is more evidence. World champions can easily play multiple simultaneous blindfolded games, something I couldn't dream of. That is because of their skill, not memory.

Edited March 13, 2017 by Lord Antares

[John Cuthber]

It doesn't seem to matter how often I do that "test" my "IQ" seems to stick at 160.

I don't really trust it for precision and / or accuracy.

[Daecon]

I could play chess against two grandmasters - at the same time - and I'd be guaranteed to either win one of them, or stalemate both.

Edited March 13, 2017 by Daecon

[StringJunky]

No. It's different. There is no contradiction. First I will give you evidence, then I'll explain why so you will be more attentive

The evidence is that all those strong players did not remember the games well until they became masters. I myself couldn't remember a single move when I started out, now I can remember about half the game. It is like this for everyone I've talked to. So it's clear that their playing strength isn't due to memory.

 

Maybe this isn't prevalent in other areas of life, but it is very pronounced in chess. The stronger you are, the more the moves make sense to you. The more you start to understand the deep ideas and strategies, the less effort it takes to remember the moves. You get involved in the game at a higher level and you start anticipating the opponent's moves several moves ahead, so you think more about the game. This is akin to my example about learning in school or in general.

 

Think of one time you studied something and understood it really, really well and it was very interesting to you. You will note that you still remember it to some degree today. That's about the best way I could explain it to you. It's a bit different from that in chess, but the important thing is that you get the point

 

EDIT: Also,amateur players can rarely play blindfolded chess, which they can do after they get really good, so that is more evidence. World champions can easily play multiple simultaneous blindfolded games, something I couldn't dream of. That is because of their skill, not memory.

They've become neuroplastically-enabled to play automatically, or intuitively, through long experience..

Edited March 13, 2017 by StringJunky

[Tom O'Neil]

 

This is utterly hilarious. First of all, I could beat you at chess.

 

Secondly, a 1700 rating in chess is not impressive at all. It's a typical, average chess club player's rating. Magnus Carlsen is currently rated 2840 IIRC. By your logic, how much more intelligent than you is he? You're not exactly doing yourself a favor by claiming high intelligence with a 1700 rating.

 

Thirdly and most importantly, higher rating in chess does not equal higher intelligence. Not by a longshot. While it is true that with a higher IQ, you definitely have a better predisposition to play good chess (Kasparov and Fischer were said to have a 190 and 180 IQs respectively, and them two are usually considered the best players in history), practise, experience and studying are considerably more important. A stupid person with more experience could easily beat you.

This is true of any game and a vast number of jobs in life. People with higher IQs have a better predisposition to be good at those jobs, but it's far from certain they will be any good.

 

You cannot challenge someone who doesn't play chess and beat him to prove that you have a higher IQ. This logic of yours would, if anything, indicate the opposite of what you're claiming to be. I personally know a GM and his FM wife. They must be geniuses compared to you then, right?

Lord Antares this is my handle or pseudonym at chess.com! Pick a time or challenge me online when see me. What's you handle incidentally?

Holyghost3

[Lord Antares]

I don't play on chess.com. I play on Lichess.

 

I can play later during the day (it's 2 A.M. here right now). State your time control preferences.

 

Was the sole purpose of opening this thread to challenge someone to a chess game? We already have a thread for that:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/102312-the-chess-thread/

They've become neuroplastically-enabled to play automatically, or intuitively, through long experience..

 

But the bit about memory and it being improved the better you get at chess is the point.

I could play chess against two grandmasters - at the same time - and I'd be guaranteed to either win one of them, or stalemate both.

 

Win or draw*, not stalemate, but you know full well that is not a legitimate chess match, as they would esentially be playing amongst themselves

Edited March 14, 2017 by Lord Antares

[StringJunky]

 

 

But the bit about memory and it being improved the better you get at chess is the point.

I see what you mean: chess reinforces memory

[Lord Antares]

But only chess-related memory.

That's how you can conclude that memory doesn't play a substantial role in chess.

[John Cuthber]

I could play chess against two grandmasters - at the same time - and I'd be guaranteed to either win one of them, or stalemate both.

I suspect I could only do that if the grandmasters were computer programs.

 

I also think that the fact that Tom thought an on-line 20 question test was a reasonable measure of IQ tells you more about his intelligence than his score.

[DrKrettin]

I could play chess against two grandmasters - at the same time - and I'd be guaranteed to either win one of them, or stalemate both.

 

Even if they were both playing white and chose different openings?

[Daecon]

Even if they were both playing white and chose different openings?

Of course not, because then I couldn't cheat -- uh, I mean... use my super awesome chessplaying tactics. Now, which way does the horsey move again?

[DrP]

QUOTE:"I have decoded the Voynich to Middle English"

 

- Awesome! Did you have some breakthrough then? As you had gotten nowhere with it before-- post the key up for us so we can have a look and decode the rest of it for ourselves with the key.

[Juno]

I took a Mensa test once and it scored me at 145. This was my second attempt, my first attempt being scuppered by me turning up on the wrong day, which I consider to be a nice illustration of IQ not being correlated with general competence... I think as much as anything IQ is an indicator of how well one performs in a pressured examination situation.

 

I'm also appalling at chess, despite knowing the rules well. Likewise with RTS games or any other game that requires me to be able to deal with more than one "piece" at a time - I have very little ability to be able to analyse the overall picture. I also blame that for my total failures at Monopoly, although I think in truth that is down to it being REALLY BORING.

[Lord Antares]

I suspect I could only do that if the grandmasters were computer programs.

 

Not sure what you mean by this, but everyone can technically do it.

Even someone who doesn't know the rules of chess.

 

 

I'm also appalling at chess, despite knowing the rules well.

 

Everyone is appalling at chess if they don't study it. This is not unique to you or John Cuthber.

[DrP]

Derren Brown done the GM thing with 9 pro chess players (about 4 of them were GMs)... Was a good trick - he was quite convincing and they did not cotton onto what he was doing because he had them all in a circle and done it so that it wasn't blatant... it was right in front of their noses. Then there was the 'odd' game that he managed to 'win'.. I'm sure he had some other trick up his sleeve with that one.

[Lord Antares]

No, if I remember correctly, he lost that odd game miserably. I believe the rest of the players were GMs while the guy he was playing on his own was an IM. I am reasonaly certain of this, even though I watched it years ago. He said that he was a terrible chess player. That is understandable, as he was just relaying the GMs' moves, so no knowledge was required at all.

 

You can find the video again and see if he lost to the IM miserably, as I'm quite sure he did, but I'm curious now.

[DrP]

Nah - I'm sure he won the odd game.... may be he was just using some of the same openings he used in the GM games... I'll look it up tonight after work - I thought he won it. Good trick though.