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 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...

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. Combine that with
some decent tactical skill...

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.

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. 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.

Regards,
Martin Brown

Henri Arsenault wrote:
"help bot" wrote:
Henri, please note that we geniuses prefer to be given
*links* which we can easily click on, as opposed to having
to *labor* in search of some given article in parts unknown.

Since I don't remember links by heart, why should it be easier for me to
google "chess scientific american" to get the link than you?

This will get you the link

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...4C1-8F9E83414B

That link has been truncated. Correct is

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...9E83414B7F4945

I don't want to get into this catfight but I'd recommend that, if
you've just been reading an article on the web and want to talk about
it here, it's a good idea to include the link. Little mistakes aside,
it't not difficult and it saves everyone time.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Evil Widget (TM): it's like a thingy
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ but it's genuinely evil!

help bot wrote:
Henri Arsenault wrote:
Since I don't remember links by heart, why should it be easier for
me to google "chess scientific american" to get the link than you?

When I google the above text, I get 2.47 million hits. Now, how am
I to know which .07 million to sift through? :D

Jeez, well... I'd start with the first one if it looks relevant. And,
guess what? It does!


This will get you the link

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...4C1-8F9E83414B

Actually, I am doubtful that an article from a recent SA can be
plucked for free right off the Web.

Well, it turns out you can get them for free, though Henri
accidentally truncated the link. Lots of magazines and newspapers put
their content up on the web. Often, the website only has the most
recent articles for free: if you want older articles, you either have
to buy and keep the paper version or pay for a web subscription to the
archives.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Hungry Aluminium Sushi (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a raw fish that's really light
but it'll eat you!

Martin Brown wrote:
Or you could try looking for a GM with poor logical reasoning skills -
but do you really think that is likely to work?

Well, there's Yasser Seirawan's recent Chessbase article where he
seems to think that Gurt Gijssen's failure to publicly blame anyone
for `toiletgate' means that Gijssen believes that nobody is to blame
for anything in the whole world. Does that count?

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3441


Dave.

--
David Richerby Strange Evil Pants (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a well-tailored pair of trousers but
it's genuinely evil and totally weird!

"michael adams" wrote in message
...
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..

thank you for, well, not noticing, #2 brush
stick stalwart to the 'serious' sciencers since some surely sometimes speak
sage sayings?

snowing here

Micky..

Inny

Chess One wrote:

...

thank you for, well, not noticing, #2 brush
stick stalwart to the 'serious' sciencers since some surely sometimes speak
sage sayings?

snowing here

Micky..

Inny

Yes, yes Phil, & Summer is about to begin here - yeech! even saw Santa
knocking about in his big beard & red apparel disguise. I'm a Summer
person proper - August, you see?..

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?

---------
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

"David Richerby" wrote in message
...
Martin Brown wrote:
Or you could try looking for a GM with poor logical reasoning skills -
but do you really think that is likely to work?

Well, there's Yasser Seirawan's recent Chessbase article where he
seems to think that Gurt Gijssen's failure to publicly blame anyone
for `toiletgate' means that Gijssen believes that nobody is to blame
for anything in the whole world. Does that count?

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3441

Guert Gijssen is the dude who brought as the 'no note taking rule' which
then requires an arbiter to determine what happened OTB without the benefit
of the score sheet.

In the instance of Elista, he was responsible for administering rules - and
if he did not agree with them, he could have quit. But in terms of his
existing responsibilities, he needed to monitor the activity of Kramnik, who
left the stage very frequently. Bu the couldn't put his foot down and ask
him not to, nor assess if an absent chessplayer was important to the other
player in a world championship.

It is unpopular to side with Topalov, but Gijssen agreed to be paid for
administering rules which are very odd, and secondly, without complaint, to
having them changed on him by political appointed chess committee.

When I previously asked here how some of these new arbiter determined
rulings were actually to take place, no one had any answer other than the
anodyne 'by best judgement'.

Conduct at Elista was by worst judgement.

Phil Innes


Dave.

--
David Richerby Strange Evil Pants (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a well-tailored pair of trousers
but
it's genuinely evil and totally
weird!

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?

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 novice 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