Chess One wrote:
wrote in message
oups.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?