Main Date: 13 Oct 2006 20:46:49 From: Zero Subject: Does Kramnik have a high IQ ? Since Kramnik is the world chess champion, does that mean that he is a genius and have a high IQ? Could he be a member of Mensa ?   Date: 23 Nov 2006 22:13:27 From: Subject: Re: Does Kramnik have a high IQ ? David Richerby wrote: > alexmagnus <alexmagnus.2hoang@chessbanter.com> wrote: > > IMO people with high chess ratings tend to have high IQs but the > > reversal is wrong, i.e., high IQ doesn't automatically (in average) > > mean chess talent. > > That's a reasonable hypothesis. > I concur. Every great chess player is going to be several standard deviations above average with respect to many (but not all) other intellectual activities, but I bet many great mathematicians and thinkers would never become great at chess no matter how much they tried (and vice versa). In other words, the correlation is highly positive but far from being 100%.   Date: From: Martin Brown Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess     Date: 30 Oct 2006 19:30:15 From: Johannes Seppi Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess On 30 Oct 2006 00:27:12 -0800, "Martin Brown" <   Date: 26 Oct 2006 11:48:43 From: Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess Chess One wrote: > <vkarlamov@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:1161732027.534224.228020@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Chess One wrote: > >> <vkarlamov@yahoo.com> wrote in message > >> news:1161659083.688310.172170@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > >> > >> >> Okay, but I think this neds more definition. For example, even though > >> >> the > >> >> puzzle is intellectual, is it solved intellectually, or by rote > >> >> memory? > >> >> > >> > > >> > How many puzzles do you know that require large memory? I suspect the > >> > very dfinition of a "poser" or a "puzzle" is something that can be > >> > solved through thinking not memorization. > >> > >> It is a fair question. But what is the answer? :) > >> > > > > The answer is ttat I have never seen an IQ or any other puzzle that > > requires an unusual amount of memory. Have you? > > Unusual, no. But the questions are often of a pattern. If I take several > tests my scores get better, since I recognise the same patterns from > previous questions. This is a factor of memory. > No, it's not. It's a matter of you learning a new skill. > > A second point is that if my initial pattern recognition is something I > discovered for myself, or a memory of what someone else explained to me. I > think this has been the main difficulty with standard IQ testing, and other > similar tests. It is unclear what is memory and what is insight. > > The same is true on the chessboard, no? > Sure. That's how you improve in chess: by learning new patterns. > > Did you ever meet a player who > 'knows everything' - who knows more about every line of play than you do, > but when the clock is ticking and against a real opponent, can't play very > good chess? And sometimes can't even play the line they could remember when > it was jsut talking of chess? > Sure. He is a very learned player but not a very smart one. His IQ may also be lower than yours. Or maybe he is very absent-minded... > > >> Does the concert pianist use logical thinking and problem solving to > >> achieve > >> this virtuoso feat? > >> > > > > Somewhat, when it comes to preparing for his concert. > > > > No, while giving this concert. > > If we disagree, I suggest we find a concert pianist and ask how it really > is. The issue really is that while IQ tests can measure mathematical ability > mathematicians cannot remember a series of 10,000 numbers - yet musicians > can. > No, they can't. I have heard of only one musician who had a perfect photographic memory, and he wasn't really a musician but a music historian. Musicians don't memorize music as a sequence of unrelated numbers. Good music is not random. It has a lot of patterns, good classical music has a melody. > > My inquiry asks first to note that this actually occurs! And secondly, > that it is not explained by measuring IQ. > What occurs? That all professional musicians can memorize a random sequence of 10,000 numbers?! Look, sing to oyurself your favorite song. Can you?If so - you have just recalled a sequence of maybe 1,000 notes. But is it a random sequence? Does the fact that all of us can sing songs from memory prove that we all can memorize 10,000 random numbers? > > I think it is good you propose logic &c, and maybe it has some part in the > answer, but I do not feel this is enough to explain most of this phenomena. > Look, as I said, I ahve never seen an iQ test that measures all aspects of intelligence. And all standardized IQ tests have a porblem that by practixing them many timnes, I can improve my score. Yet, IQ scores do correlate significantly with one's abilities towards intellectual activities like chess, math, science, etc. > >> > >> If the answer is no, then how does IQ contribute to our > >> understanding of what he does? > >> > > > > Why should IQ contribute to our understanding of what he does? > > Quite! If what he does is 'intelligent' then we admit that the intlligenece > test does not measure it. > I have never heard of musicians being selected on the basis of IQ tests. > > >> Since it is also pattern recognition - but in music, a very different > >> sort > >> of pattern which also invokes memory. Is this musical pattern measured by > >> IQ? > >> > > > > Nothing, except the ability for taking IQ tests, is directly measured > > by IQ. However, the ability to take IQ tests does positively correlate > > with musical skills. > > Say more - is the correlation to do with memorization or with logical > sequencing? Both? How do we know this? > I have nothing insightful to add. > > >> correct! 90% was intended. 90% of chess players fall into what range of > >> IQ? > >> Is there an answer which is known? > >> > > > > Which 90%? Top? Bottom? Middle? > > At random for all chess players - is there significant deviation from normal > IQ among chess players to the average distribution of IQ. > But how do you define "a chess player"? Anybody who knows the moves? Anybody who spends at least 5 hours per week? Only professional chess players? > ---------- > > >> >> And he himself used a musical metaphor - the same I offer you above - > >> >> ie, > >> >> how does the concert pianist play all those notes in the right > >> >> sequence > >> >> and > >> >> at the 10,000th note know the exact pressure to exert on the key? > >> >> > >> > > >> > Because he can hear the music in his head. > >> > >> In his head? Yes! > >> But this is something that no mathematician could do - to sequence 10,000 > >> numbers. So it is not the same thing as trying to memorise numbers, yes? > >> It > >> is as if it were a different factor, in fact a different intelligence. > >> > > > > I still don't understand your point about the ability to memorize > > 10,000 randomly generated numbers. > > I didn't say random. The musical notes are not random, but to a > fixed-patterned. The mathematical ones can be as well! And it is not just > the quantity of datum memorized, they also have specific weight - as in the > example, where the 10,000th note may be required to be played very softly. > In addition, the musical pattern also varies in speed, and to reproduce the > music this also has to be accommodated. > > > None of the people - IQ test takers, > > mathematicians or pianists - need such ability. They need > > understanding, nor memorization of random sequences of numbers. > > ----------- > > >> >> The mind googles! But Adorjan by not agreeing to this visual metaphor > >> >> also > >> >> concludes with this Dutch researcher de Groot, that for 'master' play > >> >> there > >> >> is no visual dependency. > >> >> > >> > > >> > And there is fairly little visual dependency in most IQ tests. The last > >> > one I saw had 1 such question out of 48. > >> > >> What distributed dependencies are there? > >> > > > > What do you ,mean by distributed dependencies? > > How many images are presented in the whole set of questions? images :: > visuals > I don't remember. Does it matter? These are simple geometrical/color pictures with simple patterns in them. > >> > >> Of course, all are presented as > >> texts, plus some visuals, but aural sensibilities are entirely missing, > >> and > >> much other somatic experiences. > >> > > > > Do you need "aural sensibilities" to play chess? > > I already said Adorjan used this illustration as a metaphor - and to > contradict the usual metaphor of 'seeing'. > > So, these inquiries reveal two things - that chess at master level is not to > do with concrete visualisation, and it is more like the form of intelligence > of the concert pianist. What is measured in IQ is not the same activity as > that of a master painter or musician. > Of course not. But they are positively correlated. > > NOW. Here it is - de Groot said what chess players do is even stranger! The > master chess player has an intelligence of forces in motion, which are not > dependent of seeing the pieces, but sensation of such forces. It is not the > concrete visualisation such as of a great painter, but the another spatial > awareness, not dependent on any imaging. > This is called professional intuition and it plays a major role in math, music and science as well. > > This is so far from anything attempted in IQ [which as I say does not even > measure musical appreciation, nor any but perfunctory patterning] that to > correlate IQ with chess ability makes as much sense as to correlate liking > cheese with chess. The entire field of inquiry is so new that only recently > did we even give these 'intelligences' names. > As I said, I have never heard of musicians being selected on the basis of IQ tests or any other math or word puzzles. > >> > >> But I think there really tend to be more diagrammatic representation in > >> IQ > >> tests than the approximate 1% you cite. > >> > > > > So? > > > >> > >> Are there not more diagrams than > >> that? > >> > > > > The particular test - PARR? - that I saw was all about simple > > geometrical/diagram analogies. What's your point? > > That these represent concrete visual presentations on usually geometric > themes, and these are not anything to do with chess players activity. > The PARR test is geometric but the ones that I saw many years ago had almost no geometry at all. PARR didn't impress me. > > Anyway - I know we have different points of view, and we do not agree much - > and I am conscious in my own writing of not being able to make stronger > statements or refer to data sets, since the entire subject is understudied. > What I have tried to do is to say that some things do NOT contribute to > these intelligences, whereas previously it was thought they did. There may > or may not be correlation among strong players and IQ, but in the main I see > no evidence that most players have significant variation, and there does not > appear to be any causality. > My take is this: Not every brilliant person can become a great ches player. Most science or math geniuses will never become such, no matter how much they practice. And vice versa. However, to become great at chess, science, or math, you need to have a well-working mind.And this means that the average IQ (as measured on good tests and taken without pre-practice) of great chess players, mathematicians and scientists is probably above 140. However, a higher IQ doesn't necessarily mean a better talent for chess. > > I thank you for joining the subject and discussing it with me, even if we do > not agree or conclude very much together. > Mutually. > Cordially, Phil Innes     Date: 27 Oct 2006 10:02:52 From: alexmagnus Subject: Re: Does Kramnik have a high IQ ? For me, the question if chess talent and IQ are related is answered b my own results in both. My IQ is 131. I work very hard on my chess bu my rating never exceeded 1485. If chess and IQ were related, i wouldn't happen - either I would be a master in chess or a retard in I tests -- alexmagnus       Date: 31 Oct 2006 12:01:45 From: David Richerby Subject: Re: Does Kramnik have a high IQ ? alexmagnus <alexmagnus.2gc85h@chessbanter.com > wrote: > For me, the question if chess talent and IQ are related is answered > by my own results in both. My IQ is 131. I work very hard on my > chess but my rating never exceeded 1485. That proves nothing. Firstly, any statement that IQ and skill at chess are related is to be understood as being averaged over a large population. Even if, in general, high IQ goes with being good at chess, there can still be plenty of people who are good at chess but have low IQs and plenty of people who are bad at chess but have high IQs. Secondly, perhaps you're not working on chess in an effective way. To pick a silly example, if all your chess practice was devoted to making sure that you place the pieces exactly in the centre of the squares, it wouldn't be surprising that your rating isn't so high. Dave. -- David Richerby Dangerous Old-Fashioned Radio (TM): www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a radio but it's perfect for your grandparents and it could explode at any minute!         Date: 31 Oct 2006 15:00:40 From: Ed Seedhouse Subject: Re: Does Kramnik have a high IQ ? On 31 Oct 2006 12:01:45 +0000 (GMT), David Richerby <davidr@chiark.greenend.org.uk > wrote: >alexmagnus <alexmagnus.2gc85h@chessbanter.com> wrote: >> For me, the question if chess talent and IQ are related is answered >> by my own results in both. My IQ is 131. I work very hard on my >> chess but my rating never exceeded 1485. >That proves nothing. But it certainly is evidence. >Firstly, any statement that IQ and skill at chess are related is to be >understood as being averaged over a large population. Even if, in >general, high IQ goes with being good at chess, there can still be >plenty of people who are good at chess but have low IQs and plenty of >people who are bad at chess but have high IQs. But of course any claim so qualified amounts to a claim of nothing masquerading as a claim about IQ. >Secondly, perhaps you're not working on chess in an effective way. To >pick a silly example, if all your chess practice was devoted to making >sure that you place the pieces exactly in the centre of the squares, >it wouldn't be surprising that your rating isn't so high. But if the right kind of work can improve one's chess then chess skill is to that precise extent unrelated to IQ. The poster has shown no evidence (other than the mere claim) that there is such a relationship and then gone on to make claims that, if true, form in fact evidence to the contrary.           Date: 01 Nov 2006 10:15:22 From: David Richerby Subject: Re: Does Kramnik have a high IQ ? Ed Seedhouse <eseedhouse@shaw.ca > wrote: > David Richerby <davidr@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote: >> alexmagnus <alexmagnus.2gc85h@chessbanter.com> wrote: >>> For me, the question if chess talent and IQ are related is >>> answered by my own results in both. My IQ is 131. I work very hard >>> on my chess but my rating never exceeded 1485. >> >> That proves nothing. > > But it certainly is evidence. It's a single datapoint. It tells you nothing about the population as a whole because we don't know if Alex is typical of the population or if he's a freak. >> Firstly, any statement that IQ and skill at chess are related is to >> be understood as being averaged over a large population. Even if, >> in general, high IQ goes with being good at chess, there can still >> be plenty of people who are good at chess but have low IQs and >> plenty of people who are bad at chess but have high IQs. > > But of course any claim so qualified amounts to a claim of nothing > masquerading as a claim about IQ. Nonsense. A claim so qualified is exactly what it says it is: a claim that IQ and ability at chess are correlated. Indeed, by stating that a claim of correlation is a claim of nothing at all, you've just dismissed the entirety of statistics and experimental science in one sweeping sentence. Well done. > The poster has shown no evidence (other than the mere claim) that > there is such a relationship And I'm just pointing out that Alex's post doesn't give sufficient evidence to judge the claim one way or another. Dave. -- David Richerby Transparent Gerbil (TM): it's like a www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ children's pet but you can see right through it!             Date: 01 Nov 2006 15:55:39 From: alexmagnus Subject: Re: Does Kramnik have a high IQ ? David Richerby Wrote: > Ed Seedhouse eseedhouse@shaw.ca wrote:- > David Richerby davidr@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:- > alexmagnus alexmagnus.2gc85h@chessbanter.com wrote:- > For me, the question if chess talent and IQ are related is > answered by my own results in both. My IQ is 131. I work very hard > on my chess but my rating never exceeded 1485.- > > That proves nothing.- > > But it certainly is evidence.- > > It's a single datapoint. It tells you nothing about the population as > a whole because we don't know if Alex is typical of the population or > if he's a freak. A "freak"? What do you mean -- alexmagnus             Date: 01 Nov 2006 14:21:52 From: Ed Seedhouse Subject: Re: Does Kramnik have a high IQ ? On 01 2006 10:15:22 +0000 (GMT), David Richerby <davidr@chiark.greenend.org.uk > wrote: >Ed Seedhouse <eseedhouse@shaw.ca> wrote: >>> That proves nothing. >> But it certainly is evidence. >It's a single datapoint. Yes. And evidence about that single datapoint and very weak evidence, but nevertheless still evidence about the population as a whole, namely that it contains at least one member with the given characteristics. If you claim a given population is in general left handed and I provide a single instance of right-handidness in that population I am not providing evdence that refutes your claim, but nevertheless I am providing evidence that at least one member of the population is right-handed. >>> Firstly, any statement that IQ and skill at chess are related is to >>> be understood as being averaged over a large population. Even if, >>> in general, high IQ goes with being good at chess, there can still >>> be plenty of people who are good at chess but have low IQs and >>> plenty of people who are bad at chess but have high IQs. >> But of course any claim so qualified amounts to a claim of nothing >> masquerading as a claim about IQ. >Nonsense. A claim so qualified is exactly what it says it is: a claim >that IQ and ability at chess are correlated. It is not even a claim of that. Re-read it. >> The poster has shown no evidence (other than the mere claim) that >> there is such a relationship >And I'm just pointing out that Alex's post doesn't give sufficient >evidence to judge the claim one way or another. Why the need to point out the blindingly obvious? Alex didnt' claim it was such in the first place, if I recall correctly.               Date: 06 Nov 2006 11:42:42 From: David Richerby Subject: Re: Does Kramnik have a high IQ ? Ed Seedhouse <eseedhouse@shaw.ca > wrote: > David Richerby <davidr@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote: >> Ed Seedhouse <eseedhouse@shaw.ca> wrote: >>>> That proves nothing. >>> >>> But it certainly is evidence. >> >> It's a single datapoint. > > Yes. And evidence about that single datapoint and very weak > evidence, but nevertheless still evidence about the population as a > whole, namely that it contains at least one member with the given > characteristics. OK, yes. If that's all your claiming, fine. >>> The poster has shown no evidence (other than the mere claim) that >>> there is such a relationship >> >> And I'm just pointing out that Alex's post doesn't give sufficient >> evidence to judge the claim one way or another. > > Why the need to point out the blindingly obvious? Alex didnt' claim it > was such in the first place, if I recall correctly. Alex's entire post, in which he gave no context by quoting text was: ``For me, the question if chess talent and IQ are related is answered by my own results in both. My IQ is 131. I work very hard on my chess but my rating never exceeded 1485. If chess and IQ were related, it wouldn't happen - either I would be a master in chess or a retard in IQ tests.'' So, I'm pointing out the blindingly obvious because it doesn't seem to be all that obvious to the original poster. Dave. -- David Richerby Pointy-Haired T-Shirt (TM): it's like www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a fashion statement that's completely clueless!                 Date: 18 Nov 2006 01:43:33 From: alexmagnus Subject: Re: Does Kramnik have a high IQ ? David Richerby Wrote: > Ed Seedhouse eseedhouse@shaw.ca wrote:- > David Richerby davidr@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:- > Ed Seedhouse eseedhouse@shaw.ca wrote:- > That proves nothing. > > But it certainly is evidence.- > > It's a single datapoint. - > > Yes. And evidence about that single datapoint and very weak > evidence, but nevertheless still evidence about the population as a > whole, namely that it contains at least one member with the given > characteristics.- > > OK, yes. If that's all your claiming, fine. > > --- > The poster has shown no evidence (other than the mere claim) that > there is such a relationship- > > And I'm just pointing out that Alex's post doesn't give sufficient > evidence to judge the claim one way or another.- > > Why the need to point out the blindingly obvious? Alex didnt' clai > it > was such in the first place, if I recall correctly.- > > Alex's entire post, in which he gave no context by quoting text was: > ``For me, the question if chess talent and IQ are related is answered > by my own results in both. My IQ is 131. I work very hard on my chess > but my rating never exceeded 1485. If chess and IQ were related, it > wouldn't happen - either I would be a master in chess or a retard in > IQ tests.'' > > So, I'm pointing out the blindingly obvious because it doesn't seem to > be all that obvious to the original poster. > > > Dave. > > -- > David Richerby Pointy-Haired T-Shirt (TM) > it's like > www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a fashion statement that' > completely > clueless! If you mean myself as the original poster than I have to explai something. I know that there may be excpetions. But there must be som border of deviation between an average person and someone at the edge Anyway, even in an exceptional case it can't be that a completel opposite thing happens -- alexmagnus                   Date: 20 Nov 2006 09:38:52 From: David Richerby Subject: Re: Does Kramnik have a high IQ ? alexmagnus <alexmagnus.2hgfbl@chessbanter.com > wrote: > David Richerby Wrote: >> So, I'm pointing out the blindingly obvious because it doesn't seem >> to be all that obvious to the original poster. > > If you mean myself as the original poster I did, yes. > than I have to explain something. I know that there may be > excpetions. But there must be some border of deviation between an > average person and someone at the edge. Not true. There is no limit to how far out the outliers can be; it just gets increasingly improbable that there will be people further and further from the expected value. > Anyway, even in an exceptional case it can't be that a completely > opposite thing happens. Not true. And, furthermore, your phrasing suggests to me that you really don't understand the difference between a single datapoint and a correlation. The `thing' that we're talking about is a suggestion that `people with high IQs tend to be have high chess ratings'. The `opposite thing', then, is `people with high IQs tend to have low chess ratings'. Or, perhaps, `there is no link between IQ and chess ratings'. But certainly not, `there is at least one person who has a high IQ and a not-so-high chess rating', which is all that you have demonstrated. Dave. -- David Richerby Psychotic Book (TM): it's like www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a romantic el but it wants to kill you!                     Date: 22 Nov 2006 12:00:02 From: alexmagnus Subject: Re: Does Kramnik have a high IQ ? David Richerby Wrote: > alexmagnus alexmagnus.2hgfbl@chessbanter.com wrote:- > David Richerby Wrote: - > So, I'm pointing out the blindingly obvious because it doesn't seem > to be all that obvious to the original poster.- > > If you mean myself as the original poster- > > I did, yes. > > - > than I have to explain something. I know that there may be > excpetions. But there must be some border of deviation between an > average person and someone at the edge.- > > Not true. There is no limit to how far out the outliers can be; it > just gets increasingly improbable that there will be people further > and further from the expected value. > > - > Anyway, even in an exceptional case it can't be that a completely > opposite thing happens.- > > Not true. And, furthermore, your phrasing suggests to me that you > really don't understand the difference between a single datapoint and > a correlation. The `thing' that we're talking about is a suggestion > that `people with high IQs tend to be have high chess ratings'. The > `opposite thing', then, is `people with high IQs tend to have low > chess ratings'. Or, perhaps, `there is no link between IQ and chess > ratings'. But certainly not, `there is at least one person who has a > high IQ and a not-so-high chess rating', which is all that you have > demonstrated. > > > Dave. > > -- > David Richerby Psychotic Book (TM): it' > like > www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a romantic el but i > wants to > kill you! IMO people with high chess ratings tend to have high IQs but th reversal is wrong, i.e., high IQ doesn't automatically (in average mean chess talent -- alexmagnus                       Date: 22 Nov 2006 12:28:26 From: David Richerby Subject: Re: Does Kramnik have a high IQ ? alexmagnus <alexmagnus.2hoang@chessbanter.com > wrote: > IMO people with high chess ratings tend to have high IQs but the > reversal is wrong, i.e., high IQ doesn't automatically (in average) > mean chess talent. That's a reasonable hypothesis. Dave. -- David Richerby Hilarious T-Shirt (TM): it's like a www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ fashion statement but it's a bundle of laughs!                         Date: 22 Nov 2006 13:41:43 From: Ed Seedhouse Subject: Re: Does Kramnik have a high IQ ? On 22 2006 12:28:26 +0000 (GMT), David Richerby <davidr@chiark.greenend.org.uk > wrote: >alexmagnus <alexmagnus.2hoang@chessbanter.com> wrote: >> IMO people with high chess ratings tend to have high IQs but the >> reversal is wrong, i.e., high IQ doesn't automatically (in average) >> mean chess talent. > >That's a reasonable hypothesis. For which there is no evidence.   Date: 25 Oct 2006 20:50:38 From: help bot Subject: Re: Does Kramnik have a high IQ ? markgravitygood@gmail.com wrote: > I have a 147 I.Q. and a rating of 1821. What does it all mean, Basil? Perhaps it shows that you lack the killer instinct. When you sit down to play, do you desire to rip your opponent's eyes out, make his blood boil, and watch him squirm? If not, your 147 IQ is not getting translated fully into positive results OTB. "Basil", as in Rathbone -- an actor who portrayed detective Sherlock Holmes. Also good sprinkled on Italian foods. -- help bot   Date: 25 Oct 2006 03:52:05 From: markgravitygood@gmail.com Subject: Re: Does Kramnik have a high IQ ? help bot wrote: > RSHaas@aol.com wrote: > > vkarlamov@yahoo.com wrote: > > "The Levitt > > > Equation". This formula calculates an Elo rating which expresses > > > one's potential chess strength (talent) as being equal to ten times > > > one's IQ, plus 1000 points. Thus, he claims that Bobby Fischer > > > once scored 187 on an IQ test so, applying The Levitt Equation, > > > Bobby's potential chess strength would be equal to a rating of > > > about 2870 if he reached his peak talent. (187 x 10 = 1870 + 1000 > > > = 2870)" > > ====================== > > Umm... I took my rating of 1954 and solved it for IQ. It came out to > > 94.5. > > Would Levitt claim all 1900 level players are slightly below average in > > IQ? > > > > Old Haasie > > > Looks like your math skills are little better than mine. > > Your rating (1954) minus 1000 = 954. Divide that by 10 > and I get *95.4*, which means somebody screwed up the > equation. Obviously, since few players make it to 1954, > you ought to have ended up among those with a high > chess-IQ score, certainly not below 100. > > Also note that when Fischer allegedly scored 187 on > an IQ test, he was just a kid, still in school. He's gotten > a "lot more dumber" since then. :>D > > -- help bot I have a 147 I.Q. and a rating of 1821. What does it all mean, Basil? http://chess-training.blogspot.com     Date: 25 Oct 2006 14:56:16 From: Kenneth Sloan Subject: Re: Does Kramnik have a high IQ ? markgravitygood@gmail.com wrote: > help bot wrote: >> RSHaas@aol.com wrote: >>> vkarlamov@yahoo.com wrote: >>> "The Levitt >>>> Equation". This formula calculates an Elo rating which expresses >>>> one's potential chess strength (talent) as being equal to ten times >>>> one's IQ, plus 1000 points. Thus, he claims that Bobby Fischer >>>> once scored 187 on an IQ test so, applying The Levitt Equation, >>>> Bobby's potential chess strength would be equal to a rating of >>>> about 2870 if he reached his peak talent. (187 x 10 = 1870 + 1000 >>>> = 2870)" >>> ====================== >>> Umm... I took my rating of 1954 and solved it for IQ. It came out to >>> 94.5. >>> Would Levitt claim all 1900 level players are slightly below average in >>> IQ? >>> >>> Old Haasie >> >> Looks like your math skills are little better than mine. >> >> Your rating (1954) minus 1000 = 954. Divide that by 10 >> and I get *95.4*, which means somebody screwed up the >> equation. Obviously, since few players make it to 1954, >> you ought to have ended up among those with a high >> chess-IQ score, certainly not below 100. >> >> Also note that when Fischer allegedly scored 187 on >> an IQ test, he was just a kid, still in school. He's gotten >> a "lot more dumber" since then. :>D >> >> -- help bot > > I have a 147 I.Q. and a rating of 1821. What does it all mean, Basil? > > http://chess-training.blogspot.com > Perhaps it means you have not reached your full chess *potential*? -- Kenneth Sloan KennethRSloan@gmail.com Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213 University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473 Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/       Date: 25 Oct 2006 08:09:12 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: Does Kramnik have a high IQ ? On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:56:16 GMT, Kenneth Sloan <KennethRSloan@gmail.com > wrote: >markgravitygood@gmail.com wrote: >> I have a 147 I.Q. and a rating of 1821. What does it all mean, Basil? >> http://chess-training.blogspot.com >Perhaps it means you have not reached your full chess *potential*? Time for a dose of Ginko and Fritz.   Date: 24 Oct 2006 19:30:11 From: Nick Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess Martin Brown wrote: > Nick wrote: > > Martin Brown wrote: > > > I don't see much point in using the original combined IQ test now. > > > But there is a point in considering scores in the separated tests that > > > cover mathermatical, linguistic, visuo-spatial reasoning etc. If people > > > know what their strengths are they can make better use of them. > > > > > > I have yet to meet any strong chess player that didn't have > > > powerful innate pattern matching and abstract reasoning ability. I suspect that there's a high correlation between chess strength and visuo-spatial pattern recognition but much less of a correlation between chess strength and abstract reasoning ability in general. > > I doubt that a strong chess player necessarily has > > 'powerful' 'abstract reasoning ability' in every field. > > I agree entirely. But I suspect that you could still concoct a test > that would detect some of the required innate skills. One simple > candidate test that I think might just work is that strong chess > players can often read a newspaper up side down. Try it and see... Should it be equally difficult to read a Chinese newspaper upside down as to read an English newspaper upside down? :-) > The papers that purport to show no correlation of visuospatial > memory and chess appear to me to have asked the wrong question. > Memory is the part we all have to work at. > > It is the pattern matching to see the whole board as a subset > of motifs and their long range possibilities that is the key. Sometimes when teaching chess to ice players, I have forgotten that they tend to perceive the chessboard in terms of 32 (or fewer) individual pieces scattered around 64 squares, while I perceive the chessboard in conceptual 'chunks' (e.g. 'Black has a slightly weakened fianchettoed kingside'). > Combine that with some decent tactical skill... I was surprised to read comments by some writers here (not in this thread) to the effect that they needed many months or even years of experience playing chess before they could stop often leaving their pieces en prise. Even as a beginning player who never had read a chess book, I experienced no problem with leaving my pieces en prise. > > Kasparov apparently has spent considerable time thinking > > about history, and he has come to some absurd conclusions > > with regard to his support of the 'New Chronology'. > > As for Bobby Fischer's 'abstract reasoning ability', well... > > Worth noting here that mental illness seems to afflict top > mathematicians and chess players to a greater extent than > in the general population. I doubt that Kasparov's absurd conclusions about history could be explained by an incipient mental illness (and I am not saying that's what Martin Brown was saying). > > > And anecdotally mathematicians are often also strong chess players > > > > I know some mathematicians who say they are weak chess players. > > For whatever it's worth, most of these mathematicians are women. > > Perhaps they understate their skill level for social reasons. I doubt that's true among my women mathematician acquaintances. I suppose that a female chess player could understate her strength if she's romantically interested in a male chess player and hopes that he will become romantically interested in her (he may be too insecure to ask her out if he knows that she's a stronger player), but I don't know how common that would be. > My comment was based on the fact that I met a lot of my school > chess team opposite numbers later at university and most of them > were reading mathematics. There were a few notable exceptions. >From what I have observed, some introverted people tend to be attracted toward pursuits like chess and mathematics because those pursuits usually involve less direct social interaction, which tends to make them uncomfortable. --Nick   Date: 24 Oct 2006 16:20:27 From: Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess Chess One wrote: > <vkarlamov@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:1161659083.688310.172170@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > >> Okay, but I think this neds more definition. For example, even though the > >> puzzle is intellectual, is it solved intellectually, or by rote memory? > >> > > > > How many puzzles do you know that require large memory? I suspect the > > very dfinition of a "poser" or a "puzzle" is something that can be > > solved through thinking not memorization. > > It is a fair question. But what is the answer? :) > The answer is ttat I have never seen an IQ or any other puzzle that requires an unusual amount of memory. Have you? > --------- > >> Yes. This is a sociology. Its also true that people who go to college > >> have > >> typically higher IQ range than those who do not. But please consider the > >> concert piano player again - the question is how much pressure to apply > >> to > >> the 10,000th note with the little finger of the left hand, and this is > >> resolved not by 'logical thinking and problem solving'. > >> > > > > What do you want to discuss about him? > > Does the concert pianist use logical thinking and problem solving to achieve > this virtuoso feat? > Somewhat, when it comes to preparing for his concert. No, while giving this concert. > > If the answer is no, then how does IQ contribute to our > understanding of what he does? > Why should IQ contribute to our understanding of what he does? > >> How many mathematicians could cite a string of 10,000 numbers? :0 > >> > > > > What for? > > Since it is also pattern recognition - but in music, a very different sort > of pattern which also invokes memory. Is this musical pattern measured by > IQ? > Nothing, except the ability for taking IQ tests, is directly measured by IQ. However, the ability to take IQ tests does positively correlate with musical skills. > > > How amny IQ puzzles do you know that require you to recite a string of > > 10,000 numbers? > > None. Not even by calculation, which is possible, as if calculting pi to > 3.142 etc. > My point is that IQ measures some pattern recognition, not all. > Correct. IQ doesn't measure musical abilities. But it positively correlates with them. > >> > >> But this is only to address part of the question - the other part is the > >> /level/ at which people play chess, and if there is any correlation with > >> IQ. > >> > > > > Well, if you admit that there is a positive correlation between > > different intelectual activities - then why not? > > Because by rote learning perhaps everyone can attain 1300 ratings. Beyond > that, memorisation is joined by other factors. It is not implicated that > anything taught or memorised can make you a master player. Therefore the > quality or extent of skill achieved is also a factor. > > Maybe all high IQ people try chess - but how many are good at chess, and how > do we address the those who cannot progress beyond 1300? > ------ > > >> Okay! Its interesting to specualte on the range of IQs among chess > >> players. > >> Here is another speculation [guess]: that very strong players will have > >> higher IQs, but most chess players [say 90 of them] > >> > > > > What does that mean? Why 90 and not 10,000? And how did you select > > them? > > correct! 90% was intended. 90% of chess players fall into what range of IQ? > Is there an answer which is known? > Which 90%? Top? Bottom? Middle? How do you define the sample space of chess players? Am I one of them? > > >> will not vary > >> significantly from their social group, and those who do not play chess. > >> > > > > You have to define the sampling porcedure more precisely. > > yes, to prove my point you are correct, but also to challenge variance to my > point, I could say the same, unproved. > > ------- > > >> I was interviewing Adorjan, and [I think I made this a formal question to > >> him, anyway, we wrote thousands of words to each other on the subject], > >> and > >> to provoke a response on this 'high dimensional intelligence', to use > >> your > >> phrase, I asked him something like if seeing ahead in the position was > >> like > >> having a movie camera in you mind, on fast-forward? > >> > > > > To clarify: by high dimensions of intelligence I meant that > > intelligence has lots of facets, not that it involves seeing > > multi-dimensional pictures in one's mind. > > Adorjan says there are no 'pictures'. It is not a visula phenomena, and any > talk of 'pictures' is a false metaphor. > > And yes, though intelligence has many facets, there is no implication that > to achieve one, is to achieve another! > > >> > >> He replied mysteriously, and said, "I do not see the baord, I do nto see > >> the > >> pieces." :)) > >> > >> And he himself used a musical metaphor - the same I offer you above - ie, > >> how does the concert pianist play all those notes in the right sequence > >> and > >> at the 10,000th note know the exact pressure to exert on the key? > >> > > > > Because he can hear the music in his head. > > In his head? Yes! > But this is something that no mathematician could do - to sequence 10,000 > numbers. So it is not the same thing as trying to memorise numbers, yes? It > is as if it were a different factor, in fact a different intelligence. > I still don't understand your point about the ability to memorize 10,000 randomly generated numbers. None of the people - IQ test takers, mathematicians or pianists - need such ability. They need understanding, nor memorization of random sequences o fnumbers. > >> This of course is consciously a counter metaphor from him, and not really > >> a > >> suggestion that high level chess is like playing music, as much as to say > >> that it is NOT like 'seeing ahead', or some description of what is > >> concretely visual. > >> > >> The mind googles! But Adorjan by not agreeing to this visual metaphor > >> also > >> concludes with this Dutch researcher de Groot, that for 'master' play > >> there > >> is no visual dependency. > >> > > > > And there is fairly little visual dependency in most IQ tests. The last > > one I saw had 1 such question out of 48. > > What distributed dependencies are there? > What do you ,mean by distributed dependencies? > > Of course, all are presented as > texts, plus some visuals, but aural sensibilities are entirely missing, and > much other somatic experiences. > Do you need "aural sensibilities" to play chess? > > But I think there really tend to be more diagrammatic representation in IQ > tests than the approximate 1% you cite. > So? > > Are there not more diagrams than > that? > The particular test - PARR? - that I saw was all about simple geometrical/diagram analogies. What's your point?     Date: 26 Oct 2006 13:31:06 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess <vkarlamov@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1161732027.534224.228020@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Chess One wrote: >> <vkarlamov@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:1161659083.688310.172170@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> Okay, but I think this neds more definition. For example, even though >> >> the >> >> puzzle is intellectual, is it solved intellectually, or by rote >> >> memory? >> >> >> > >> > How many puzzles do you know that require large memory? I suspect the >> > very dfinition of a "poser" or a "puzzle" is something that can be >> > solved through thinking not memorization. >> >> It is a fair question. But what is the answer? :) >> > > The answer is ttat I have never seen an IQ or any other puzzle that > requires an unusual amount of memory. Have you? Unusual, no. But the questions are often of a pattern. If I take several tests my scores get better, since I recognise the same patterns from previous questions. This is a factor of memory. A second point is that if my initial pattern recognition is something I discovered for myself, or a memory of what someone else explained to me. I think this has been the main difficulty with standard IQ testing, and other similar tests. It is unclear what is memory and what is insight. The same is true on the chessboard, no? Did you ever meet a player who 'knows everything' - who knows more about every line of play than you do, but when the clock is ticking and against a real opponent, can't play very good chess? And sometimes can't even play the line they could remember when it was jsut talking of chess? >> --------- >> Does the concert pianist use logical thinking and problem solving to >> achieve >> this virtuoso feat? >> > > Somewhat, when it comes to preparing for his concert. > > No, while giving this concert. If we disagree, I suggest we find a concert pianist and ask how it really is. The issue really is that while IQ tests can measure mathematical ability mathematicians cannot remember a series of 10,000 numbers - yet musicians can. My inquiry asks first to note that this actually occurs! And secondly, that it is not explained by measuring IQ. I think it is good you propose logic &c, and maybe it has some part in the answer, but I do not feel this is enough to explain most of this phenomena. >> >> If the answer is no, then how does IQ contribute to our >> understanding of what he does? >> > > Why should IQ contribute to our understanding of what he does? Quite! If what he does is 'intelligent' then we admit that the intlligenece test does not measure it. ---- >> Since it is also pattern recognition - but in music, a very different >> sort >> of pattern which also invokes memory. Is this musical pattern measured by >> IQ? >> > > Nothing, except the ability for taking IQ tests, is directly measured > by IQ. However, the ability to take IQ tests does positively correlate > with musical skills. Say more - is the correlation to do with memorization or with logical sequencing? Both? How do we know this? >> correct! 90% was intended. 90% of chess players fall into what range of >> IQ? >> Is there an answer which is known? >> > > Which 90%? Top? Bottom? Middle? At random for all chess players - is there significant deviation from normal IQ among chess players to the average distribution of IQ. ---------- >> >> And he himself used a musical metaphor - the same I offer you above - >> >> ie, >> >> how does the concert pianist play all those notes in the right >> >> sequence >> >> and >> >> at the 10,000th note know the exact pressure to exert on the key? >> >> >> > >> > Because he can hear the music in his head. >> >> In his head? Yes! >> But this is something that no mathematician could do - to sequence 10,000 >> numbers. So it is not the same thing as trying to memorise numbers, yes? >> It >> is as if it were a different factor, in fact a different intelligence. >> > > I still don't understand your point about the ability to memorize > 10,000 randomly generated numbers. I didn't say random. The musical notes are not random, but to a fixed-patterned. The mathematical ones can be as well! And it is not just the quantity of datum memorized, they also have specific weight - as in the example, where the 10,000th note may be required to be played very softly. In addition, the musical pattern also varies in speed, and to reproduce the music this also has to be accommodated. > None of the people - IQ test takers, > mathematicians or pianists - need such ability. They need > understanding, nor memorization of random sequences o fnumbers. ----------- >> >> The mind googles! But Adorjan by not agreeing to this visual metaphor >> >> also >> >> concludes with this Dutch researcher de Groot, that for 'master' play >> >> there >> >> is no visual dependency. >> >> >> > >> > And there is fairly little visual dependency in most IQ tests. The last >> > one I saw had 1 such question out of 48. >> >> What distributed dependencies are there? >> > > What do you ,mean by distributed dependencies? How many images are presented in the whole set of questions? images :: visuals >> >> Of course, all are presented as >> texts, plus some visuals, but aural sensibilities are entirely missing, >> and >> much other somatic experiences. >> > > Do you need "aural sensibilities" to play chess? I already said Adorjan used this illustration as a metaphor - and to contradict the usual metaphor of 'seeing'. So, these inquiries reveal two things - that chess at master level is not to do with concrete visualisation, and it is more like the form of intelligence of the concert pianist. What is measured in IQ is not the same activity as that of a master painter or musician. NOW. Here it is - de Groot said what chess players do is even stranger! The master chess player has an intelligence of forces in motion, which are not dependent of seeing the pieces, but sensation of such forces. It is not the concrete visualisation such as of a great painter, but the another spatial awareness, not dependent on any imaging. This is so far from anything attempted in IQ [which as I say does not even measure musical appreciation, nor any but perfunctory patterning] that to correlate IQ with chess ability makes as much sense as to correlate liking cheese with chess. The entire field of inquiry is so new that only recently did we even give these 'intelligences' names. >> >> But I think there really tend to be more diagrammatic representation in >> IQ >> tests than the approximate 1% you cite. >> > > So? > >> >> Are there not more diagrams than >> that? >> > > The particular test - PARR? - that I saw was all about simple > geometrical/diagram analogies. What's your point? That these represent concrete visual presentations on usually geometric themes, and these are not anything to do with chess players activity. Anyway - I know we have different points of view, and we do not agree much - and I am conscious in my own writing of not being able to make stronger statements or refer to data sets, since the entire subject is understudied. What I have tried to do is to say that some things do NOT contribute to these intelligences, whereas previously it was thought they did. There may or may not be correlation among strong players and IQ, but in the main I see no evidence that most players have significant variation, and there does not appear to be any causality. I thank you for joining the subject and discussing it with me, even if we do not agree or conclude very much together. Cordially, Phil Innes       Date: 26 Oct 2006 15:35:00 From: Dr A. N. Walker Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess In article <uM20h.7859$PA3.445@trndny04 >, Chess One <innes8@verizon.net> wrote: > [...] The issue really is that while IQ tests can measure mathematical ability >mathematicians cannot remember a series of 10,000 numbers - yet musicians >can. Part of the reason why a concert pianist can remember all [or at least a very high proportion!] of the notes in a long piece/recital is surely the same reason that a strong chess player can remember chess positions [but not random piece placements]. The human brain is very good at spotting groupings. The GM spots very quickly the fianchettoed bishop, the blocked pawns, the well-placed knight, and assembles these into a logical structure that is much easier to remember than "Bg2, Pf2, Pg3, Ph2, ...". Similarly, the puzzler solving a Rubik's Cube or [Peg] Solitaire problem can usually do so much more easily by assembling the "block" moves that "chunk up" a solution than by looking at individual moves. And a pianist assembles notes into chords, bars, themes and variations that make much more sense than the individual notes. I wonder whether concert pianists, mathematicians, chess GMs and/or Cubers are any better than others [of comparable intelligence, measured however you like] at "Simon Says"? Few mathematicians know the first 10000 digits of pi, or e or sqrt_2. But many of us could memorise the first 10000 terms in the continued-fraction expansion of e, or in the decimal expansion of [say] 1/81, as these have patterns that make sense. But it's not *just* patterns; structure is a good substitute when it come to remembering things. The "periodic table" is not really a pattern of the chemical elements; but it has sufficient structure that it is easy to remember the "shape" of the table, and why some elements are in particular columns, enabling people to fill in enough to make it possible to interpolate the others. It certainly makes it much easier to remember the elements than if all we had was a list. -- Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK. anw@maths.nott.ac.uk         Date: 27 Oct 2006 12:36:12 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess "Dr A. N. Walker" <anw@maths.nott.ac.uk > wrote in message news:ehqkj4$560$1@oyez.ccc.nottingham.ac.uk... > In article <uM20h.7859$PA3.445@trndny04>, Chess One <innes8@verizon.net> > wrote: >> [...] The issue really is that while IQ tests can measure mathematical >> ability >>mathematicians cannot remember a series of 10,000 numbers - yet musicians >>can. > > Part of the reason why a concert pianist can remember all [or at > least a very high proportion!] of the notes in a long piece/recital is > surely the same reason that a strong chess player can remember chess > positions [but not random piece placements]. quite so - the pattern has to be systemically meaningful for memory to operate beyond any normative measure [is this similar to relating the part to the whole?] > The human brain is very > good at spotting groupings. The GM spots very quickly the fianchettoed > bishop, the blocked pawns, the well-placed knight, and assembles these > into a logical structure that is much easier to remember than "Bg2, Pf2, > Pg3, Ph2, ...". Similarly, the puzzler solving a Rubik's Cube or [Peg] > Solitaire problem can usually do so much more easily by assembling the > "block" moves that "chunk up" a solution than by looking at individual > moves. And a pianist assembles notes into chords, bars, themes and > variations that make much more sense than the individual notes. yes, as analogy, this seems to be on the right track according to all reports > I wonder whether concert pianists, mathematicians, chess GMs > and/or Cubers are any better than others [of comparable intelligence, > measured however you like] at "Simon Says"? unfortunately i do not have gm taima's permit to address that perspective from his p.o.v., but in him there is a combination of virtuoso musician and gm i think what might be avoided in these conversations is an assumtion of generality of them, since there is often an implication that whatever skill there is is transferrable, whereas i don't know that this is truly substantiated - that is, a particular skill seems not to be transferable to another and differing activity, although from a philosophical level, some people [older!] are able to understand very well great expertise from another field of creativity or intelligence, by the process of abstraction :: transference i think it follows from what we know that whatever pattern there is must be within something meaningful in the normal course of the game, and a difference at a certain level of skill is that there is also a considerable increment in memorization to understand this factor what de groot said - and which seems little appreciated - is that the pattern recognition of chess players is achieved //unconsciously//, or to use more general language, without effort or volition. it is something which happens of its own by expending effort playing chess, and in fact he cited 75,000 patterns acquired by the 'master player' [nb: patterns not positons] i further suppose that this statistic is one not much cited by chess authors and publishers, since it may in fact be much more important to ones chess than anything consciously acquired from a book, or acquired vicariously, so to speak. the exceptions in chess books are those which emulate pattern recognition - such as the stalwart titles of the Russian school, like Combinative Motifs, /M. Blokh > Few mathematicians know the first 10000 digits of pi, or e or > sqrt_2. But many of us could memorise the first 10000 terms in the > continued-fraction expansion of e, or in the decimal expansion of > [say] 1/81, as these have patterns that make sense. That's an interesting claim. I think there are world records for such things - but I wonder if its true that 10,000 correctly sequenced iterations of pi can be remembered, rather than calculated? I suppose another differentiation is the relative speed of the calculating mathematician and the piano player - can the mathematico be pizzicato? > But it's not > *just* patterns; structure is a good substitute when it come to > remembering things. The "periodic table" is not really a pattern > of the chemical elements; but it has sufficient structure that it > is easy to remember the "shape" of the table, and why some elements > are in particular columns, enabling people to fill in enough to make > it possible to interpolate the others. It certainly makes it much > easier to remember the elements than if all we had was a list. very good - though it is evident that the chess player must consult a sort of inner periodic table, and one that is in motion, since it is not just patterning that is invoked here, but dynamic patterning, where the pieces themselves chabge in value, in force or in potency, and also operate as constellations interesting post! cordially, phil innes > -- > Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK. > anw@maths.nott.ac.uk           Date: 27 Oct 2006 15:25:18 From: Dr A. N. Walker Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess In article <03n0h.10597$gZ2.8423@trndny07 >, Chess One <innes8@verizon.net > wrote: > [...] I think there are world records for such >things - but I wonder if its true that 10,000 correctly sequenced iterations >of pi can be remembered, rather than calculated? "http://pi-world-ranking-list.com/lists/memo" records 13 people who have recited pi from memory to at least 10000 places; and there is a recent report that Akira Haraguchi set a world record of 100000 just over three weeks ago. I wonder what the longest ever [in terms of number of notes rather than mere time!] correct piano recital has been? 100000 notes would be at any rate several hours, even of quite complex concertos or sonatas, unless you just played "Islamey" over and over. -- Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK. anw@maths.nott.ac.uk             Date: 27 Oct 2006 16:38:18 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess "Dr A. N. Walker" <anw@maths.nott.ac.uk > wrote in message news:eht8cu$m5g$1@oyez.ccc.nottingham.ac.uk... > In article <03n0h.10597$gZ2.8423@trndny07>, > Chess One <innes8@verizon.net> wrote: >> [...] I think there are world records for such >>things - but I wonder if its true that 10,000 correctly sequenced >>iterations >>of pi can be remembered, rather than calculated? > > "http://pi-world-ranking-list.com/lists/memo" records 13 people > who have recited pi from memory to at least 10000 places; and there is > a recent report that Akira Haraguchi set a world record of 100000 just > over three weeks ago. I wonder what the longest ever [in terms of > number of notes rather than mere time!] remarkable! my wild guess might be something from Rachmaninoff > correct piano recital has been? > 100000 notes would be at any rate several hours, even of quite complex > concertos or sonatas, unless you just played "Islamey" over and over. although we should continue to note [!] that the pianist has more to do than recite a linear sequence, since each and every note is of certain and specific duration, weight, and speed, etc. but not to finish on that note - it is extraordinary to me that 100k sequenced datum, which are non-musical could be undertaken - I must suppose that he calculated the next in sequence [rather than any feat of memory] and wonder how long it took him to do this overall as well as the typical interval from one digit to the next? phil > -- > Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK. > anw@maths.nott.ac.uk               Date: 27 Oct 2006 17:00:51 From: Dr A. N. Walker Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess In article <_Bq0h.22$gf5.1@trndny01 >, Chess One <innes8@verizon.net> wrote: > [...] - it is extraordinary to me that 100k >sequenced datum, which are non-musical could be undertaken - I must suppose >that he calculated the next in sequence [rather than any feat of memory] and >wonder how long it took him to do this overall as well as the typical >interval from one digit to the next? No, not a chance. There are humanly-computable ways of finding specific digits in a hexadecimal expansion [and so in binary or octal] of pi, so you could plausibly ask a skilled mathematician to tell you [eg] the 1234567th such digit; but no known way of doing it in decimal. If there were, I'd guess it would take hours, even with a calculator, to get each digit. Calculating pi to even a few hundred places of decimals without computer assistance is years of work. We can safely assume that Akira Haraguchi simply has a somewhat unusual memory. -- Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK. anw@maths.nott.ac.uk                 Date: 27 Oct 2006 19:37:25 From: Johannes Seppi Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess On 27 Oct 2006 17:00:51 GMT, anw@maths.nott.ac.uk (Dr A. N. Walker) wrote: >In article <_Bq0h.22$gf5.1@trndny01>, Chess One <innes8@verizon.net> wrote: >> [...] - it is extraordinary to me that 100k >>sequenced datum, which are non-musical could be undertaken - I must suppose >>that he calculated the next in sequence [rather than any feat of memory] and >>wonder how long it took him to do this overall as well as the typical >>interval from one digit to the next? > > No, not a chance. There are humanly-computable ways of finding >specific digits in a hexadecimal expansion [and so in binary or octal] >of pi, so you could plausibly ask a skilled mathematician to tell you [eg] >the 1234567th such digit; but no known way of doing it in decimal. If >there were, I'd guess it would take hours, even with a calculator, to >get each digit. Calculating pi to even a few hundred places of decimals >without computer assistance is years of work. > There is no easy way of computing the n-th place of pi in any base, be it binary, hexadecimal or decimal. There is also no repeating pattern in this number, regardless od base. > We can safely assume that Akira Haraguchi simply has a somewhat >unusual memory. Yes, that we can. Johannes                   Date: 28 Oct 2006 11:50:24 From: alexmagnus Subject: Re: Does Kramnik have a high IQ ? Well, there are some methodics to remember relatively big numbers (th biggest I ever could remember had 257 digits, but there are surel better methods). How I do it: to every number I have a letter: 1: t,d(t contains 1 vertical line, d sounds similarly) 2:n (2 vertical lines) 3:m (3 vertical lines) 4:r (as fouR) 5:l (L ist Roman number 50) 6:j,soft ch,dg,soft g (mirrored 6) 7:k,hard g,ng,qu,hard ch (the K looks like two 7's) 8:f,v (f written by hand looks loke 8) 9:b,p (mirrored 9) 0:z,s,soft c (as Zero) Now you can just compose words from these letters (e.g. 465=Rachel). It's surely much easier to remember a word or a long phrase than a exact number (because by remembering the word you don't have t remember each letter of it, just how it sounds). If you imagnine word like pictures, it gets even easier. Of course, this method is bad fo remembering 10000 digits but probably there are some more perfec methods -- alexmagnus   Date: From: Martin Brown Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess   Date: 23 Oct 2006 20:17:50 From: Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess Martin Brown wrote: > Chess One wrote: > > "Sanny" <softtanks@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1161158399.410400.305210@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > When I gave IQ Test when I was in School I got an IQ of "125". In that > > > I was asked What is capital of Australia. Where is Effile Tower > > > Situated, Where is Panama Canal etc. > > > > Is true! For example I would have to guess Panama Canal was in Panama, if I > > never went there to know by personal experience or never read geography. But > > the question is not completely crazy, since what is being tested? > > > > It could be logic, ie, Panama canal is named for the place, Panama. > > It could be memory, if you remember where canal is. > > But if you didn't read geography then its not always possible to answer this > > type of question - ie, where is Lake Champlain? Because the Lake is named > > for a person, not a place. > > > > Therefore, is this part of IQ test a measure of geographical knowledge > > remembered? > > I don't see much point in using the original combined IQ test now. But > there is a point in considering scores in the separated tests that > cover mathermatical, linguistic, visuo-spatial reasoning etc. If people > know what their strengths are they can make better use of them. > > I have yet to meet any strong chess player that didn't have powerful > innate pattern matching and abstract reasoning ability. And anecdotally > mathematicians are often also strong chess players > It's not just anecdotal. In the Soviet national chess championships between schools (for age 13 and under), all top places always went to math schools. My own math school won 10 national championships in a row. My own class produced a grandmaster (Akhsharumova) and several international masters. And Gulko was only a couple of years ahead of us. Imagine how it felt for other teams of 13-year-olds to see such power facing them across the board. On the other hand, on average, the best chess players in our school tended to be just barely above average among us in mathematics and physics, and average in all other subjects. > > (although aptitude > for mathematics in other strong chess players may not have been > translated into academic acheivement for a host of other reasons). eg > > http://web.usna.navy.mil/~wdj/math_chess.htm > > > Other questions are self-inferential, either singly or as a group, > > > > When was the War of 1812? > > Who wrote Beethoven's 5th symphony. > > > If the "I" in IQ is taken to mean [is generally understood to mean] > > 'logical' intelligence [a left-brain process] then what you describe is not > > a measure of that, but of memory alone [and which hemisphere is that?]. How > > much of IQ testing is a measure of memory alone? > > A good intelligence test should not depend signifacntly on memory. > Although it does have to rely on some basic foundations (like knowing > the alphabet, language, upto 4 letter words, logic and numbers and > numerical sequences). > > The purest intelligence tests are the visuo-spatial symbol and pattern > matching tests. > Which one of these is the same but rotated ? etc. They are truly > language independent. Sudoku is another pure reasoning test. > > But still there is a problem. In cultures that live in very harsh > environments (arctic or deserts) you can die if you make a mistake. > This can mean that someone stops at the first question where they > cannot see the answer - leading to massive cultural bias. > > A corollary is that teaching students the exam technique of never to > spending more than a certain time on any question (and then go back to > tricky ones later) boosts scores. > > > For example, on IQ tests only one answer was permitted for the following:- > > > > Complete the series: 2, 4, 8, .... > > > > How many correct answers are there? Of all correct answers justify which one > > you would choose to complete the series. > > This is a classic. Anyone with common sense would choose what the > testers were obviously looking for, but common sense and IQ tend to be > anti-correlated. And in this case the sequence is far too short so that > there are multiple ambiguous answers all equally likely. > > 16 = 2^n and 14 = 2+n(n+1) are both very plausible testers answers. > Question is flawed. > > Same with make two new 4 letter words from S( _ _ _ )L by putting a 3 > letter word in the gap. > > One problem for IQ tests is that they are only valid for a range of IQs > and if the test is used on someone with an IQ beyond anything the > testers expect (and no common sense) it gives a totally anomolous > score. I knew someone at university who was extremely dyslexic in > language but had a mathematical and logical reasoning IQ around the 260 > mark. He also had a framed certificate showing that his IQ was 60 > (since he always chose the non-obvious unintended phantom answers in > such tests). > > Another favourite "obvious" series being > > 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, [31] > > The encylopedia of series will give you a nice selection of other > alternatives to the "obvious" 32 that the test setter had almost > certainly intended. The solution would probably be unique if a term > beyond the unknown one was also provided. (2,4,8 gives far too many > alternatives) > > http://www.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/?q=1%2C2%2C4%2C8%2C16 > > I think spatial and math IQ probably does set an upper limit on chess > performance, and I strongly suspect that the age at which you first > start playing chess is also an important factor. > > Regards, > Martin Brown   Date: 23 Oct 2006 20:04:43 From: Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess Chess One wrote: > <vkarlamov@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:1161461596.950868.13120@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > > <..> > > >> Would you like to say more about your idea? Did you mean a correlation > >> that > >> average IQ produces average chess players? Does average IQ produce > >> average > >> piano-players? Or does IQ not measure piano playing? How does IQ measure > >> the > >> abstract spatial sense that master chess players have - and which I > >> defined > >> [citing de Groot] previously? > >> > > > > OK. Let me elaborate. > > > > Intelligence is a high-dimensional phenomenon. If you take people with > > high ability for differential toplogy, you will find that their average > > ability to write poems is higher than overall average. But many > > individual topologists may have no poetic abilites whatsoever. > > Understood. > > > IQ tests are nothing more than a bunch of puzzles, chosen from a very > > small set of patterns. Because they are intellevtual puzzles, the > > ability to solve them is going to be significantly positively > > correlated with other intellectual abilities. > > Okay, but I think this neds more definition. For example, even though the > puzzle is intellectual, is it solved intellectually, or by rote memory? > How many puzzles do you know that require large memory? I suspect the very dfinition of a "poser" or a "puzzle" is something that can be solved through thinking not memorization. > > > But there is no magic nor > > much science to these IQ tests, and the ability to do well on them is > > certainly not the "cause" of intelligence. > > Agree. It correlates ONE aspect of what is generally termed intelligence, > with some [small] patterning knowledge, or pattern awareness. > > > So, returning to chess and IQ, the abilities towards them are also > > positively correlated. Especially since a lot of chess involves logical > > thinking and problem solving. > > Yes. This is a sociology. Its also true that people who go to college have > typically higher IQ range than those who do not. But please consider the > concert piano player again - the question is how much pressure to apply to > the 10,000th note with the little finger of the left hand, and this is > resolved not by 'logical thinking and problem solving'. > What do you want to discuss about him? > > How many mathematicians could cite a string of 10,000 numbers? :0 > What for? How amny IQ puzzles do you know that require you to recite a string of 10,000 numbers? > > But this is only to address part of the question - the other part is the > /level/ at which people play chess, and if there is any correlation with IQ. > Well, if you admit that there is a positive correlation between different intelectual activities - then why not? > > I would say there is, but again for sociological reasons or even > physiological ones! Isn't the chess player the same sort of person who stays > indoors and solves intellectual puzzles and reads for his college degree? > Rather than go mountain climbing, for example. Or perhaps rehearses a > sport - since that also requires study to develop a physiological > 'intelligence'. > > What this man Gardner has done is to state that there are all sorts of > intelligences, and lists 9 specific ones - which include linear processing & > math skill as a discrete intelligence. I think IQ is the best measure of > this particular intelligence, but others include the Kinesthetic [you use > Greek word for body, soma?], and also there is a musical intelligence which > is a very deeply patterned activity, quite beyond any calculus or > rationcination [Greek again, ratio = measure, or beyond normal 'thinking']. > > This is a bit boring, so I'll tell you in a minute what I insist a bit on > this music parallel. > > > That is, if you take a sample of great chess players and have them take > > an IQ test in their language (yes, there are IQ tests in Russian), > > I have Russian friend in Petersburg, also Moscow, and a local chess player > is for Baku. Anyway, I have much correspondance with Russians. > > > the > > average of their scores will be probably higher than 100 and even than, > > say, 130. But there will be some who will score as low as 105 and as > > high as 200 (these are just my guesses). This is purely a 2-dimensional > > probaility distribution whose components are positively but not > > perfectly correlated. > > Okay! Its interesting to specualte on the range of IQs among chess players. > Here is another speculation [guess]: that very strong players will have > higher IQs, but most chess players [say 90 of them] > What does that mean? Why 90 and not 10,000? And how did you select them? > > will not vary > significantly from their social group, and those who do not play chess. > You have to define the sampling porcedure more precisely. > > > To return to the question that started this thread: judging from the > > way Kramnik plays chess and the way he talks and the way he carries > > himself, I would estimate that his IQ score would be at least 170, if > > he ever took such a test. Probably, higher than 190. Ditto for Kasparov > > and probably Anand. Topalov? Probably somewhat lower: he seems to be of > > a single-track (chess) mind, as exemplified by his stupid following of > > his manager Danailov's advice. But still above 130. > > Oddly, I might agree with you that Topalov would score less on IQ than for > example Kramnik. But that is because I do not attribute IQ as a good measure > of creativity - which you see - is the other essential factor here. Kramnik > may have phenomenal logical processing skills, and I am sure he has, but how > do these massively complex positions which Topalov achieves come to him? I > don't think he has the same process. > Toplaiv is a very intense individual, more introvert than Kramnik. Kramnik has a more general intellect. > > Anyway - there's lots of guessing in what I wrote. But I wanted to share > something from another top player > --- > > I was interviewing Adorjan, and [I think I made this a formal question to > him, anyway, we wrote thousands of words to each other on the subject], and > to provoke a response on this 'high dimensional intelligence', to use your > phrase, I asked him something like if seeing ahead in the position was like > having a movie camera in you mind, on fast-forward? > To clarify: by high dimensions of intelligence I meant that intelligence has lots of facets, not that it involves seeing multi-dimensional pictures in one's mind. > > He replied mysteriously, and said, "I do not see the baord, I do nto see the > pieces." :)) > > And he himself used a musical metaphor - the same I offer you above - ie, > how does the concert pianist play all those notes in the right sequence and > at the 10,000th note know the exact pressure to exert on the key? > Because he can hear the music in his head. > > This of course is consciously a counter metaphor from him, and not really a > suggestion that high level chess is like playing music, as much as to say > that it is NOT like 'seeing ahead', or some description of what is > concretely visual. > > The mind googles! But Adorjan by not agreeing to this visual metaphor also > concludes with this Dutch researcher de Groot, that for 'master' play there > is no visual dependency. > And there is fairly little visual dependency in most IQ tests. The last one I saw had 1 such question out of 48. > > Cordially, Phil Innes     Date: 24 Oct 2006 20:23:53 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess <vkarlamov@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1161659083.688310.172170@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... >> Okay, but I think this neds more definition. For example, even though the >> puzzle is intellectual, is it solved intellectually, or by rote memory? >> > > How many puzzles do you know that require large memory? I suspect the > very dfinition of a "poser" or a "puzzle" is something that can be > solved through thinking not memorization. It is a fair question. But what is the answer? :) --------- >> Yes. This is a sociology. Its also true that people who go to college >> have >> typically higher IQ range than those who do not. But please consider the >> concert piano player again - the question is how much pressure to apply >> to >> the 10,000th note with the little finger of the left hand, and this is >> resolved not by 'logical thinking and problem solving'. >> > > What do you want to discuss about him? Does the concert pianist use logical thinking and problem solving to achieve this virtuoso feat? If the answer is no, then how does IQ contribute to our understanding of what he does? >> How many mathematicians could cite a string of 10,000 numbers? :0 >> > > What for? Since it is also pattern recognition - but in music, a very different sort of pattern which also invokes memory. Is this musical pattern measured by IQ? > How amny IQ puzzles do you know that require you to recite a string of > 10,000 numbers? None. Not even by calculation, which is possible, as if calculting pi to 3.142 etc. My point is that IQ measures some pattern recognition, not all. And how extensive of patterns is it? >> >> But this is only to address part of the question - the other part is the >> /level/ at which people play chess, and if there is any correlation with >> IQ. >> > > Well, if you admit that there is a positive correlation between > different intelectual activities - then why not? Because by rote learning perhaps everyone can attain 1300 ratings. Beyond that, memorisation is joined by other factors. It is not implicated that anything taught or memorised can make you a master player. Therefore the quality or extent of skill achieved is also a factor. Maybe all high IQ people try chess - but how many are good at chess, and how do we address the those who cannot progress beyond 1300? ------ >> Okay! Its interesting to specualte on the range of IQs among chess >> players. >> Here is another speculation [guess]: that very strong players will have >> higher IQs, but most chess players [say 90 of them] >> > > What does that mean? Why 90 and not 10,000? And how did you select > them? correct! 90% was intended. 90% of chess players fall into what range of IQ? Is there an answer which is known? >> will not vary >> significantly from their social group, and those who do not play chess. >> > > You have to define the sampling porcedure more precisely. yes, to prove my point you are correct, but also to challenge variance to my point, I could say the same, unproved. ------- >> I was interviewing Adorjan, and [I think I made this a formal question to >> him, anyway, we wrote thousands of words to each other on the subject], >> and >> to provoke a response on this 'high dimensional intelligence', to use >> your >> phrase, I asked him something like if seeing ahead in the position was >> like >> having a movie camera in you mind, on fast-forward? >> > > To clarify: by high dimensions of intelligence I meant that > intelligence has lots of facets, not that it involves seeing > multi-dimensional pictures in one's mind. Adorjan says there are no 'pictures'. It is not a visula phenomena, and any talk of 'pictures' is a false metaphor. And yes, though intelligence has many facets, there is no implication that to achieve one, is to achieve another! >> >> He replied mysteriously, and said, "I do not see the baord, I do nto see >> the >> pieces." :)) >> >> And he himself used a musical metaphor - the same I offer you above - ie, >> how does the concert pianist play all those notes in the right sequence >> and >> at the 10,000th note know the exact pressure to exert on the key? >> > > Because he can hear the music in his head. In his head? Yes! But this is something that no mathematician could do - to sequence 10,000 numbers. So it is not the same thing as trying to memorise numbers, yes? It is as if it were a different factor, in fact a different intelligence. >> This of course is consciously a counter metaphor from him, and not really >> a >> suggestion that high level chess is like playing music, as much as to say >> that it is NOT like 'seeing ahead', or some description of what is >> concretely visual. >> >> The mind googles! But Adorjan by not agreeing to this visual metaphor >> also >> concludes with this Dutch researcher de Groot, that for 'master' play >> there >> is no visual dependency. >> > > And there is fairly little visual dependency in most IQ tests. The last > one I saw had 1 such question out of 48. What distributed dependencies are there? Of course, all are presented as texts, plus some visuals, but aural sensibilities are entirely missing, and much other somatic experiences. But I think there really tend to be more diagrammatic representation in IQ tests than the approximate 1% you cite. Are there not more diagrams than that? Cordially, Phil   Date: 24 Oct 2006 11:09:24 From: michael adams Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess Martin Brown wrote: .. > That is perhaps one of the key points here. Chess players (and also Go, > Draughts) are self selected in that one reason they play the game is > that they enjoy the challenge. So there is definitely more to it than > just the pattern matching, memory and reasoning skills. Unless you > enjoy the competitive aspects of chess as well you will not get very > far. > > And the same goes for F1-racing, marathon running, basketball and > soccer. Some individuals are intrinsically better at hand-eye > coordination or stamina (or both). And no amount of diligent training > or hard work would ever turn me into a footballer like David Beckham or > a racing driver like Schumacker. ---Oh puleese! - what sort of Brit are ye Martin, from the home counties, eh? or more close flung environs - hehe, 'ees a farflung Yorkshire dwarf! geek,geek, geeeeeeek!.. ps - Schumacher gotta a puncture in Brazil - poor baron de red, sob. .. pst. headers trimmed up somewhat..   Date: 23 Oct 2006 16:32:26 From: Nick Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess Martin Brown wrote: > Chess One wrote: > > "Sanny" <softtanks@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1161158399.410400.305210@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > > When I gave IQ Test when I was in School I got an IQ of "125". > > > In that I was asked What is capital of Australia. > > > Where is Effile Tower Situated, Where is Panama Canal etc. > > > > Is true! For example I would have to guess Panama Canal was in Panama, > > if I never went there to know by personal experience or never read geography. > > But the question is not completely crazy, since what is being tested? > > > > It could be logic, ie, Panama canal is named for the place, Panama. > > It could be memory, if you remember where canal is. > > But if you didn't read geography then its not always possible to answer this > > type of question - ie, where is Lake Champlain? Because the Lake is named > > for a person, not a place. > > > > Therefore, is this part of IQ test a measure of geographical knowledge > > remembered? > > I don't see much point in using the original combined IQ test now. > But there is a point in considering scores in the separated tests that > cover mathermatical, linguistic, visuo-spatial reasoning etc. If people > know what their strengths are they can make better use of them. > > I have yet to meet any strong chess player that didn't have > powerful innate pattern matching and abstract reasoning ability. I doubt that a strong chess player necessarily has 'powerful' 'abstract reasoning ability' in every field. For instance, Kasparov apparently has spent considerable time thinking about history, and he has come to some absurd conclusions with regard to his support of the 'New Chronology'. As for Bobby Fischer's 'abstract reasoning ability', well... > And anecdotally mathematicians are often also strong chess players I know some mathematicians who say they are weak chess players. For whatever it's worth, most of these mathematicians are women. Given that women are not usually expected to be strong chess players, I suspect that makes it easier for women to say openly that they are weak chess players. --Nick > (although aptitude for mathematics in other strong chess players > may not have been translated into academic acheivement for a > host of other reasons). eg > > http://web.usna.navy.mil/~wdj/math_chess.htm > > > Other questions are self-inferential, either singly or as a group, > > > > When was the War of 1812? > > Who wrote Beethoven's 5th symphony. > > > If the "I" in IQ is taken to mean [is generally understood to mean] > > 'logical' intelligence [a left-brain process] then what you describe is not > > a measure of that, but of memory alone [and which hemisphere is that?]. How > > much of IQ testing is a measure of memory alone? > > A good intelligence test should not depend signifacntly on memory. > Although it does have to rely on some basic foundations (like knowing > the alphabet, language, upto 4 letter words, logic and numbers and > numerical sequences). > > The purest intelligence tests are the visuo-spatial symbol and pattern > matching tests. Which one of these is the same but rotated ? etc. > They are truly language independent. Sudoku is another pure > reasoning test. > > But still there is a problem. In cultures that live in very harsh > environments (arctic or deserts) you can die if you make a mistake. > This can mean that someone stops at the first question where they > cannot see the answer - leading to massive cultural bias. > > A corollary is that teaching students the exam technique of never to > spending more than a certain time on any question (and then go back to > tricky ones later) boosts scores. > > > For example, on IQ tests only one answer was permitted for the following:- > > > > Complete the series: 2, 4, 8, .... > > > > How many correct answers are there? Of all correct answers justify which one > > you would choose to complete the series. > > This is a classic. Anyone with common sense would choose what the > testers were obviously looking for, but common sense and IQ tend to be > anti-correlated. And in this case the sequence is far too short so that > there are multiple ambiguous answers all equally likely. > > 16 = 2^n and 14 = 2+n(n+1) are both very plausible testers answers. > Question is flawed. > > Same with make two new 4 letter words from S( _ _ _ )L by putting a 3 > letter word in the gap. > > One problem for IQ tests is that they are only valid for a range of IQs > and if the test is used on someone with an IQ beyond anything the > testers expect (and no common sense) it gives a totally anomolous > score. I knew someone at university who was extremely dyslexic in > language but had a mathematical and logical reasoning IQ around the 260 > mark. He also had a framed certificate showing that his IQ was 60 > (since he always chose the non-obvious unintended phantom answers in > such tests). > > Another favourite "obvious" series being > > 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, [31] > > The encylopedia of series will give you a nice selection of other > alternatives to the "obvious" 32 that the test setter had almost > certainly intended. The solution would probably be unique if a term > beyond the unknown one was also provided. (2,4,8 gives far too many > alternatives) > > http://www.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/?q=1%2C2%2C4%2C8%2C16 > > I think spatial and math IQ probably does set an upper limit on chess > performance, and I strongly suspect that the age at which you first > start playing chess is also an important factor. > > Regards, > Martin Brown   Date: From: Martin Brown Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess   Date: From: Martin Brown Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess   Date: 22 Oct 2006 01:13:09 From: Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess Nick wrote: > vkarlamov@yahoo.com wrote: > > I know that I promised never to read your posts on the subject of IQs, > > but I did skim over your last post and want to set some points straight. > > So after he just called me a 'moron' and an 'idiot' and dismissed > everything that I write as 'drivel' that's obviously not worth reading, > VKarlamov feels that he has to respond. > > Is that because VKarlamov's not convinced that everyone else will > regard what I write as 'drivel' that's obviously not worth reading? > > Even Ed Seedhouse now has admitted that he attacked me > because he wrongly believed that I had written what VKarlamov > has written about 'The Bell Curve'. > Which of the numerous "attacks" on you by Ed are you talking about? The one when he wrote: > > However, the article actually presents evidence, which is what really has Nick > in a knot since he has none to offer for his own case. > Or the one when he wrote: > > You see that's how folks like Nick typically work. They make outrageous > claims and when someone rational points out they have provided no > evidence for their claims they attack that person for not providing > evidence that they haven't provided evidence. And so it goes. > > I think I'll just slap "Nick" in the old ignore file. He has nothing > interesting to say on the evidence of what he has said so far. > Are you accusng Ed of being a very confused individual? > > > Sorry that Nick is dragging me further and further away from chess. > > Given what VKarlamov has written in this thread (please read the > complete evidence) I regard VKarlamov with absolute disdain. > Thank god. "Tell me who your enemies are - and I'll tell you who you are". > > Nick wrote: > > > vkarlamov@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > Nick wrote: > > > > > vkarlamov@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > > Ed Seedhouse wrote: > > > > > > > vkarlamov@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > Nick wrote: > > >>> > > > > vkarlamov@yahoo.com wrote: > > >>> > > > >> I assure you that you are wrong. If you take any group of top > > >>> > > > >> performers in any intellectual activity - be it chess, math, science, > > >>> > > > >> poetry, management, law, etc - their average IQ score will be several > > >>> > > > >> standard deviations above 100. > > >>> > > > >> I am amazed that intelligent people can dispute this obvious fact. > > >>> > > > >> There must be some severe brain damage, caused by perverted political > > >>> > > > >> correctness, that is responsible for such blindness to the obvious. > > > > > >>> > > > >> Does VKarlamov approve of the 1994 book, 'The Bell Curve: Intelligence > > >>> > > > >> and Class Structure in American Life', by Richard Herrnstein and > > >>> > > > >> Charles Murray? > > > > Why do you speak to your conversation partners in the third person? > > Didn't your parents explain to you that it's highly rude? > > So VKarlamov feels completely qualified to give > a condescending lecture to me about rudeness. > > In his earlier post, VKarlamov called Ed Seedhous