Nick wrote:

[much ad hom. snipped]


Before this thread began, Simon and I
have discussed 'The Bell Curve', and, as
I recall, he regards it as pseudoscientific
nonsense that's been cited to support racism.
Simon's latest advice to me is that VKarmalov
is just an abusive lying racist who should be
ignored and who warrants no response beyond
disdain.

You know, it's funny how all of Nick's imaginary friends
seem to have adopted his own characteristics, not the
least of which is a *mountain* of "disdain".

Calling The Bell Curve "psuedoscience" is very much akin
to VK calling Nick an "idiot", and this sort of thing melds
well with all the ad hominem stirred into the veggie stew.

-----------------

All I have read about this book is in this thread and the
article at Wikipedia.com, which by the way, seemed to
imply a split among "scientists" as to liking or hating this
controversial book.

One thing which seemed interesting to me was the
discussion of our past and current welfare system, and
how the U.S. governent in effect has promoted impoverished
citizens to procreate, allegedly dumbing-down our country
because these are the very people with the lowest IQs,
which purportedly reflect real intelligence. It's very close to
saying that the Nazis basically had the right idea, and we
are so dumb we got it back-asswards, and were well on our
way to becoming the dumbest nation on Earth (until the
welfare program was cut back).

-- help bot

Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On 20 Oct 2006 10:34:34 -0700, "Martin Brown"
wrote:

Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On 20 Oct 2006 03:11:29 -0700, "Martin Brown"
wrote:

I have yet to meet any strong chess player that didn't have powerful
innate pattern matching and abstract reasoning ability

Of course such a claim, as well as once again being supported by not one
bit of evidence, is unfalsifiable, a typical pseudo-science approach.

It isn't a claim it is a statement of fact.

Your confusion of "opinion" with "fact" is noted. Welcome to the
"ignore" file.

Your reading comprehension is sadly lacking. And you have deliberately
snipped the overall context to try and make a straw man argument. The
set of traits found in strong GM level players are perfectly amenable
to scientific testing and analysis.

And I did not say that all strong chess players must have certain
traits (although I suspect it might be the case) I said that I had
never met any that did not. That is a statement of fact.

Perhaps someone here has met a very strong player that cannot think
logically, and lacks innate pattern recognition skills. If they exist
then the ball is in your court to find one.

I do know a top mathematicain with a measured IQ of 60 (on a standard
test). But the problem there is with the test (and his lack of common
sense) not his intelligence.

Regards,
Martin Brown

Chess One wrote:
"Ed Seedhouse" wrote in message
...
On 20 Oct 2006 03:11:29 -0700, "Martin Brown"
wrote:

I have yet to meet any strong chess player that didn't have powerful
innate pattern matching and abstract reasoning ability

Of course such a claim, as well as once again being supported by not one
bit of evidence, is unfalsifiable, a typical pseudo-science approach.
What test could possibly disprove this claim?

The reference is too general, and does not differentiate pattern matches to
what is /meaningful/ chessically. Otherwise strong chess players are proved
to have /memorizational/ prowess far beyond normal realms, though
pattern-matching is as the person says, an abstraction - in fact a potential
ability.

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.

But how is it deployed so that it can be substanitated? Does the
potential ability also depend on a corresponding discipline to express it in
logical sequencing?

Crucially that potential ability can only be converted into actual
ability by hard work. You can get some very able people who are lazy
and do not use ther talent effectively. The thing missed in the SciAm
article is that experts are experts because they have both the aptitude
and discipline to work hard and use their skills to maximum effect.

I would hazard a guess that if you plotted mathematical IQ, logical
reasoning IQ or visuo-spatial IQ against chess rating you would get a
fairly good correlation and be able to determine an upper bound on
chess skill as a function of each parameter.

It would not be hard to find illiterate strong chess players for
instance. But I think you will struggle to find any that cannot solve
language independent logical puzzles.

Regards.
Martin Brown

wrote in message
ups.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?

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'.

How many mathematicians could cite a string of 10,000 numbers? :0

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.
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] will not vary
significantly from their social group, and those who do not play chess.

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.

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?

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?

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.

Cordially, Phil Innes

help bot wrote:

Nick wrote:

[much ad hom. snipped]

Before this thread began, Simon and I
have discussed 'The Bell Curve', and, as
I recall, he regards it as pseudoscientific
nonsense that's been cited to support racism.
Simon's latest advice to me is that VKarmalov
is just an abusive lying racist who should be
ignored and who warrants no response beyond
disdain.

You know, it's funny how all of Nick's imaginary friends
seem to have adopted his own characteristics, not the
least of which is a *mountain* of "disdain".

--Funny? - tragic more like it, & Simon (chapman billy) used to post
here in his own right (until driven off by inane trolli = plu.) also
where is 'erome billboard now - uh? But seriously bot, I have real
concern for academic Nick - 'tis not good for the soul to bottle up
'disdain' & _deep_ disdain is even worse by a magnitude. Nick must wear
this contorted mask to cover all that disdain bubbling inside - not
good! -- Nick, whatever it is torments you - let it go, the World is
still wonderful - Satchmo..

*

Calling The Bell Curve "psuedoscience" is very much akin
to VK calling Nick an "idiot", and this sort of thing melds
well with all the ad hominem stirred into the veggie stew.

--You a 'veggie'? bot..


-----------------

All I have read about this book is in this thread and the
article at Wikipedia.com, which by the way, seemed to
imply a split among "scientists" as to liking or hating this
controversial book.

--Oh! I've heard of it before (bellhead-curve) but read 'a brief 'istory
of time' in preference - unnerstood it too - preeenn..


**

One thing which seemed interesting to me was the
discussion of our past and current welfare system, and
how the U.S. governent in effect has promoted impoverished
citizens to procreate, allegedly dumbing-down our country
because these are the very people with the lowest IQs,
which purportedly reflect real intelligence.

--Yep, eightythree (83) US personnel dead _dead_ in Iraq this past
month. Pretty dang intelligent stuff - minutes silence folks - pls..
__________________________________________________ __________________
It's very close to
saying that the Nazis basically had the right idea, and we
are so dumb we got it back-asswards, and were well on our
way to becoming the dumbest nation on Earth (until the
welfare program was cut back).

--Look here Bot, I'm 100% certain my English comprehension is superior
to 87% of registered Americanos - see, & I push a brush for a living,
see #2, and see #3 in the series - bot, that I'm being generous in my
assessment of a mob of some 300mil. etc. ..

*
-- help bot

Jimi Hendrix..

Martin Brown wrote:
Chess One wrote:
"Sanny" wrote in message
oups.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/se...2%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

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..

Chess One wrote:

...

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.

Cordially, Phil Innes

---Yeah right. I'm sorry Phil, I don't have the time nowadays to wade
through your tripe, to find as it were familial nuggets. Yawn. All the
best chappie..

Micky..

Chess One wrote:
wrote in message
ups.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

Martin Brown wrote:
Chess One wrote:
"Sanny" wrote in message
oups.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/se...2%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