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

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

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!

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?