Here is a foundation work linking chess and intelligence by two of the
foremost educational and psychological researchers of the C20th. //Phil
Innes

---

Dr. Howard Gardner, in his 1983 book Frames of Mind: The Theory of
Multiple
Intelligences, discussed chess as the primary example of spatial
intelligence. In private email, Dr. Gardner has acknowledged, "Skill in
chess probably depends on both logical, mathematical and spatial
intelligence; and since it is a competitive game, interpersonal
intelligence
is probably important as well." Dr. Gardner and other Harvard professors
were actively involved with the "Learn to Think Project" in Venezuela.
The
findings (based on a sample of the 4,266 second grade students) were
nothing
short of amazing: After a minimum of 4.5 months in the chess program,
most
students showed a significant gain in IQ. B.F. Skinner wrote, "There is
no
doubt that this project in its total form will be considered as one of the
greatest social experiments of this century."

On Mar 8, 2:08 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

Here is a foundation work linking chess and intelligence by two of the
foremost educational and psychological researchers of the C20th. //Phil
Innes

You lost me: C20th? (Where is my Mensa
secret decoder ring?)

My theory is that, since 2450 nearly-IMs
have essentially no intelligence whatsoever,
any research linking chess with intelligence
must have some (perhaps deeply-hidden)
flaws.

Okay, after considerable thought I have
come up with what I believe to be a *real*
link: between freaky, overinflated egos and
chess ratings and titles. The evidence is
all around us.

Rather than (general) intelligence, I have
found it very helpful if chess was learned
-- and I mean really learned -- at a young
age. Take me, for instance; I did not
learn to play until I was already turning
old and gray; this explains why I cannot
*always* beat GetClub like carrots. But
several players I have known, who were
what they call "very talented", in fact
learned the game at a MUCH younger age;
such players seem to have a quicker grasp,
a better-developed feel for the game than
oldsters who showed up late to the party.

Likewise, I have noticed that when I go
to some distant chess tournaments and
see "IMs", I later discover that they have
been competing actively for many years.
These are no Johnny-come-latelys, who
just happen to be great at everything they
try, but well-studied, battle-hardened
warriors who have honed their chess
skills to a fine edge. Is it any wonder
then, that I only draw? Kidding!


-- help bot

"help bot" wrote in message
...
On Mar 8, 2:08 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

Here is a foundation work linking chess and intelligence by two of the
foremost educational and psychological researchers of the C20th. //Phil
Innes

You lost me: C20th? (Where is my Mensa
secret decoder ring?)

Doh!

My theory is that, since 2450 nearly-IMs
have essentially no intelligence whatsoever,

My theory is that help-bot is a maliciously uneducated dunce, proud to
pronouce on his non-understanding of C20th, and couples that with his usual
stuff, resentment of strong players [every post] and insurmountable
innocence rather than ignorance. Who would blame anyone for taking off on
"C20th" when they never heard of it?

any research linking chess with intelligence
must have some (perhaps deeply-hidden)
flaws.

Let me not make further comment on two pioneers of C20th educational
psychology to a complete ignormus.

Phil Innes

Okay, after considerable thought I have
come up with what I believe to be a *real*
link: between freaky, overinflated egos and
chess ratings and titles. The evidence is
all around us.

Rather than (general) intelligence, I have
found it very helpful if chess was learned
-- and I mean really learned -- at a young
age. Take me, for instance; I did not
learn to play until I was already turning
old and gray; this explains why I cannot
*always* beat GetClub like carrots. But
several players I have known, who were
what they call "very talented", in fact
learned the game at a MUCH younger age;
such players seem to have a quicker grasp,
a better-developed feel for the game than
oldsters who showed up late to the party.

Likewise, I have noticed that when I go
to some distant chess tournaments and
see "IMs", I later discover that they have
been competing actively for many years.
These are no Johnny-come-latelys, who
just happen to be great at everything they
try, but well-studied, battle-hardened
warriors who have honed their chess
skills to a fine edge. Is it any wonder
then, that I only draw? Kidding!


-- help bot

On Mar 8, 10:39 pm, Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote:

Chess One wrote:

help bot wrote

My theory is that, since 2450 nearly-IMs
have essentially no intelligence whatsoever,

My theory is that help-bot is a maliciously uneducated dunce,

Get a room, you two.

I specifically requested a half-way intelligent
heckler, but no-- the powers that be misread
my intended meaning and assigned someone
with only half an intellect to my case. OTOH,
the service is free... .


-- help bot