Main
Date: 11 Oct 2007 15:19:46
From: raylopez99
Subject: Does good chess correlate with high IQ? What Science (mag) says
What Science says, see below.

So, are strong chess players really idiot savants that practice like
crazy? Sure seems that way.

Ever notice how if you don't play everyday you get rusty and drop 50
points? That's why it's good to warm up first, before playing serious
chess.

RL

Science Vol. 317 21 Sep 2007 p. 1657

Chess for Drudges?
Good chess players are really st, right? Only up to a point,
according to a study that concludes practice is more important than
brains.
Merim Bilalic, a psychology doctoral student at Oxford University in
the U.K., studied 57 priy and secondary school chess players,
giving them chess problems and IQ tests and logging their daily chess
practice.
Although years of experience and IQ correlated with chess skills, the
researchers found that the highest correlation was with the number of
hours a day the children spent playing or studying the game. And among
the top 23 players (all boys), the correlation of chess skill with IQ
disappeared. Within this high-IQ group (average 133, versus 114 for
the other 34 players), it wasn't the brightest but those who practiced
the most who did best, the researchers report in the September issue
of Intelligence. The stest ones actually practiced less.
Chess has long pitted proponents of "expertise" theory, which
emphasizes the cultivation of specific skills, against those who argue
that talent is important. Psychologist Neil Charness of Florida State
University in Tallahassee says that the study bears out "the drudge
theory of expertise. Once you're about average IQ, the most important
predictor is deliberate practice." But Robert Howard of the University
of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, points out that chess
prodigies "rapidly outpace the average grandmaster" despite much less
practice time.





 
Date: 17 Oct 2007 01:21:16
From: KoKs
Subject: Re: Does good chess correlate with high IQ? What Science (mag) says
I blive that good chess players dont need an intelligent brain, they
just need a super-learning-by-heart brain that can memorize a lot lot
lot lot lot lot lot ............ lot of moving patterns.



 
Date: 16 Oct 2007 20:17:40
From: Max
Subject: Re: Does good chess correlate with high IQ? What Science (mag) says
On Oct 15, 10:22 pm, "Joel Olson" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Max" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 12, 11:47 am, "Joel Olson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> "help bot" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >>news:[email protected]...
>
> >> > On Oct 11, 9:44 pm, Simon Waters <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >> Since we are hardly likely to discover it wasn't high enough for him
> >> >> to have become world champion, and playing chess is one of the most
> >> >> effective ways we know of increasing IQ if he felt his was inadequate
> >> >> in
> >> >> some way.
>
> >> > No, the most effective way to increase one's IQ is
> >> > to study IQ tests; learn their ins and outs. Many of
> >> > the questions are deliberately presented in such a
> >> > way as to trip you over the "obvious" answer. In
> >> > other words, the test-makers were not st enough
> >> > to figure out how to really measure /intelligence/, so
> >> > they tried other means of inducing wrong answers.
>
> >> An interesting account of how IQ tests were developed, deployed and the
> >> resulting changes in the US educational systems (e.g. Kerr's
> >> plan):http://www.amazon.com/Big-Test-History-American-Meritocracy/dp/037429...
> >> Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Actually, that's about the SAT. Similiar questions and format, but not
> > exactly the same. And a different usage.
>
> You've read it?
> Got my copy from a remaindering house, and thought I was the only one.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

No, I was just going on the description in the review. Regardless of
their viewpoint, I figured they had those basic facts right. I don't
have a copy myself, but it sounds fascinating. I'll look for it in my
local libraries.



  
Date: 16 Oct 2007 18:14:03
From: Joel Olson
Subject: Re: Does good chess correlate with high IQ? What Science (mag) says

"Max" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Oct 15, 10:22 pm, "Joel Olson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Max" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Oct 12, 11:47 am, "Joel Olson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> "help bot" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> >> > On Oct 11, 9:44 pm, Simon Waters <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> Since we are hardly likely to discover it wasn't high enough for
>> >> >> him
>> >> >> to have become world champion, and playing chess is one of the most
>> >> >> effective ways we know of increasing IQ if he felt his was
>> >> >> inadequate
>> >> >> in
>> >> >> some way.
>>
>> >> > No, the most effective way to increase one's IQ is
>> >> > to study IQ tests; learn their ins and outs. Many of
>> >> > the questions are deliberately presented in such a
>> >> > way as to trip you over the "obvious" answer. In
>> >> > other words, the test-makers were not st enough
>> >> > to figure out how to really measure /intelligence/, so
>> >> > they tried other means of inducing wrong answers.
>>
>> >> An interesting account of how IQ tests were developed, deployed and
>> >> the
>> >> resulting changes in the US educational systems (e.g. Kerr's
>> >> plan):http://www.amazon.com/Big-Test-History-American-Meritocracy/dp/037429...
>> >> Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > Actually, that's about the SAT. Similiar questions and format, but not
>> > exactly the same. And a different usage.
>>
>> You've read it?
>> Got my copy from a remaindering house, and thought I was the only one.-
>> Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> No, I was just going on the description in the review. Regardless of
> their viewpoint, I figured they had those basic facts right. I don't
> have a copy myself, but it sounds fascinating. I'll look for it in my
> local libraries.
>

I suppose each reviewer will have parts they liked and those they didn't.
I get the feeling this one was no fan of affirmative action. He didn't
mention ETS's in-house researcher who validated criticisms of cultural bias.

The book is as much a history of US higher education as it is of the tests.











 
Date: 15 Oct 2007 20:51:37
From: Max
Subject: Re: Does good chess correlate with high IQ? What Science (mag) says
On Oct 12, 11:47 am, "Joel Olson" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "help bot" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 11, 9:44 pm, Simon Waters <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Since we are hardly likely to discover it wasn't high enough for him
> >> to have become world champion, and playing chess is one of the most
> >> effective ways we know of increasing IQ if he felt his was inadequate in
> >> some way.
>
> > No, the most effective way to increase one's IQ is
> > to study IQ tests; learn their ins and outs. Many of
> > the questions are deliberately presented in such a
> > way as to trip you over the "obvious" answer. In
> > other words, the test-makers were not st enough
> > to figure out how to really measure /intelligence/, so
> > they tried other means of inducing wrong answers.
>
> An interesting account of how IQ tests were developed, deployed and the
> resulting changes in the US educational systems (e.g. Kerr's plan):http://www.amazon.com/Big-Test-History-American-Meritocracy/dp/037429...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Actually, that's about the SAT. Similiar questions and format, but not
exactly the same. And a different usage.



  
Date: 15 Oct 2007 21:22:13
From: Joel Olson
Subject: Re: Does good chess correlate with high IQ? What Science (mag) says

"Max" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Oct 12, 11:47 am, "Joel Olson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "help bot" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Oct 11, 9:44 pm, Simon Waters <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >> Since we are hardly likely to discover it wasn't high enough for him
>> >> to have become world champion, and playing chess is one of the most
>> >> effective ways we know of increasing IQ if he felt his was inadequate
>> >> in
>> >> some way.
>>
>> > No, the most effective way to increase one's IQ is
>> > to study IQ tests; learn their ins and outs. Many of
>> > the questions are deliberately presented in such a
>> > way as to trip you over the "obvious" answer. In
>> > other words, the test-makers were not st enough
>> > to figure out how to really measure /intelligence/, so
>> > they tried other means of inducing wrong answers.
>>
>> An interesting account of how IQ tests were developed, deployed and the
>> resulting changes in the US educational systems (e.g. Kerr's
>> plan):http://www.amazon.com/Big-Test-History-American-Meritocracy/dp/037429...-
>> Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Actually, that's about the SAT. Similiar questions and format, but not
> exactly the same. And a different usage.
>

You've read it?
Got my copy from a remaindering house, and thought I was the only one.








 
Date: 12 Oct 2007 01:59:01
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Does good chess correlate with high IQ? What Science (mag) says
On Oct 11, 9:44 pm, Simon Waters <[email protected] > wrote:


> That they could pick an elite group with IQs above 130 out of a group of
> 57 chess players, and still have enough in the sample to draw
> statistically valid conclusions, tells us chess player probably have
> above average IQs anyway.


That's not exactly clear; it said they studied priy
and secondary school students, but at which schools,
and how were they selected? Some schools have
above-average students, and a student from Oxford
may have specifically targeted such schools. It is
also possible that they took only volunteers, and
that those who volunteer for such tests expect to
do much better than average, just as they have in the
past.


> It doesn't of course say whether this is why
> they play chess, or a result of their playing chess.


It certainly is not a result of their playing chess;
the questions on a normal IQ test grill you on
things like vocabulary, math, verbal logic, and OK,
spacial logic skills (which may be helped a bit by
chess). Those who become obsessed with chess
tend to spend far too much time memorizing ECO
and that leaves less time for other things. In my
experience, not once has any such test given me
even the slightest credit for my vast knowledge of
the game. (They don't even ask you to spell
"chess", "Bishop", or "fianchetto".) : >D



> Karpov had it right - "what is the point?" (in answer to measuring his
> IQ).


It depends; if the number is low relative to any of
his rivals, they may find some use for it -- in fact,
rehashing this over and over for decades.

If it turned out that GM Karpov was a genius, it
could explain how he got to the top in spite of his
being as he put it, "an idler". Instead of working
harder before the games, he may have just been
a bit ster, and worked a bit harder when it
really counted.


> Since we are hardly likely to discover it wasn't high enough for him
> to have become world champion, and playing chess is one of the most
> effective ways we know of increasing IQ if he felt his was inadequate in
> some way.


No, the most effective way to increase one's IQ is
to study IQ tests; learn their ins and outs. Many of
the questions are deliberately presented in such a
way as to trip you over the "obvious" answer. In
other words, the test-makers were not st enough
to figure out how to really measure /intelligence/, so
they tried other means of inducing wrong answers.



> Clearly if it was just IQ half our chess club would be beating Gary
> Kasparov.


GK is not stupid; he just has a problem in that
everywhere he goes, his ego goes there, too. (Not
to mention his Mum.) I think maybe he wants to
get "assassinated" like that guy who was given a
fatal dose of radiation; that would make him go down
in history books as somebody really important, not
just a famous board game expert. It's either that, or
else maybe he has an invincibility complex; bullets
can't hurt me -- I'm Gary Kasparov, the greatest
chess player who ever lived!


-- help bot





  
Date: 12 Oct 2007 10:47:12
From: Joel Olson
Subject: Re: Does good chess correlate with high IQ? What Science (mag) says

"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Oct 11, 9:44 pm, Simon Waters <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Since we are hardly likely to discover it wasn't high enough for him
>> to have become world champion, and playing chess is one of the most
>> effective ways we know of increasing IQ if he felt his was inadequate in
>> some way.
>
>
> No, the most effective way to increase one's IQ is
> to study IQ tests; learn their ins and outs. Many of
> the questions are deliberately presented in such a
> way as to trip you over the "obvious" answer. In
> other words, the test-makers were not st enough
> to figure out how to really measure /intelligence/, so
> they tried other means of inducing wrong answers.
>
>

An interesting account of how IQ tests were developed, deployed and the
resulting changes in the US educational systems (e.g. Kerr's plan):
http://www.amazon.com/Big-Test-History-American-Meritocracy/dp/0374299846










 
Date: 12 Oct 2007 02:44:42
From: Simon Waters
Subject: Re: Does good chess correlate with high IQ? What Science (mag) says
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:33:36 -0700, help bot wrote:
>
> raylopez99 wrote:
>
> An excellent troll post

;)

>> What Science says, see below.
>>
>> So, are strong chess players really idiot savants that practice like
>> crazy? Sure seems that way.

That they could pick an elite group with IQs above 130 out of a group of
57 chess players, and still have enough in the sample to draw
statistically valid conclusions, tells us chess player probably have
above average IQs anyway. It doesn't of course say whether this is why
they play chess, or a result of their playing chess.

Karpov had it right - "what is the point?" (in answer to measuring his
IQ). Since we are hardly likely to discover it wasn't high enough for him
to have become world champion, and playing chess is one of the most
effective ways we know of increasing IQ if he felt his was inadequate in
some way.

Clearly if it was just IQ half our chess club would be beating Gary
Kasparov.




 
Date: 11 Oct 2007 15:33:36
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Does good chess correlate with high IQ? What Science (mag) says

raylopez99 wrote:

An excellent troll post; however, it should be pointed
out that it has been a very short time since his last
troll posting here, which is considered poor form by
the experts.


> What Science says, see below.
>
> So, are strong chess players really idiot savants that practice like
> crazy? Sure seems that way.

One thing I have noticed is that it often happens
that I read about some strong new player I never
heard of before, only later to discover accidentally
that he has been playing chess for *many* years.


> Ever notice how if you don't play everyday you get rusty and drop 50
> points? That's why it's good to warm up first, before playing serious
> chess.
>
> RL
>
> Science Vol. 317 21 Sep 2007 p. 1657
>
> Chess for Drudges?
> Good chess players are really st, right? Only up to a point,
> according to a study that concludes practice is more important than
> brains.
> Merim Bilalic, a psychology doctoral student at Oxford University in
> the U.K., studied 57 priy and secondary school chess players,
> giving them chess problems and IQ tests and logging their daily chess
> practice.
> Although years of experience and IQ correlated with chess skills, the
> researchers found that the highest correlation was with the number of
> hours a day the children spent playing or studying the game. And among
> the top 23 players (all boys), the correlation of chess skill with IQ
> disappeared. Within this high-IQ group (average 133, versus 114 for
> the other 34 players), it wasn't the brightest but those who practiced
> the most who did best, the researchers report in the September issue
> of Intelligence. The stest ones actually practiced less.


Exactly. This is why I have now given up chess
altogether. Forever. No, really.


> Chess has long pitted proponents of "expertise" theory, which
> emphasizes the cultivation of specific skills, against those who argue
> that talent is important. Psychologist Neil Charness of Florida State
> University in Tallahassee says that the study bears out "the drudge
> theory of expertise. Once you're about average IQ, the most important
> predictor is deliberate practice." But Robert Howard of the University
> of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, points out that chess
> prodigies "rapidly outpace the average grandmaster" despite much less
> practice time.


You will find that those mediocre players who
practice a lot by playing other mediocre players
make little progress, because their mistakes are
not consistently punished. This is why I have
rigged up a device which delivers a (mild) electric
shock, each time I hang a piece against Fritz.
Thus far, the results have been negative; while I
have developed an increased tolerance for pain,
the only thing that seems to help is setting the
program to play in "patzer" mode. That way, I
am only shocked three or four times per game.


-- help bot