wrote in message
ups.com...

Sanny wrote:

Computer will always play with same IQ Level.


Why? You don't believe in progress and in self-learning programs?


So if a person gets higher ratings in Chess it is clear idea he is more
intelligent, Has better brains than those who fail to win.


I must have a very low IQ because I don't see any logic in the above
derivation.

Me to. I must have even lower IQ.

There is no correlation between chess and IQ (that is not a sociology*). IQ
measures primarily left-brain functions of literacy and numeracy in
sequencing, with some pattern recognition. Some people play chess like that,
but also dominos like that or drive their car like that! Master chess
players utilise abstract spatial intelligence [right brain] and sequence
play based on that [left-brain] as an /integration/ [de Groot].

The pattern recognition in IQ tests is not even the same type as utilised by
a chess player. IQ was almost entirely concrete spatial [Gardner] whereas
chess playing utilises abstract dynamic spatial.

Concrete spatial is about physcial forms, and would suit an artist or even
design engineer. [Gardner]
Abstract dynamic is not dependent on any form [/nb/] and concerns movement
of forces in 3space. [de Groot]

IQ tests are perfunctory measures of the ability to process information in
sequences, but are poor at describing or even identifying what information
is processed.

Phil Innes

*like for pale weedy types and also large lard-ones who stay indoors and
worry about things, swot books, play chess with imaginary friends, become
passionate about history of golfballs in Turkistan &c


Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

Here Nomorechess is on Top showing he is much intelligent than others.

Taylor Kingston 2300+ Rating is Second So he too is Intelligent

Bob Ranks Third So he is betterthan other 100 Players who are unable to
reach in Top Three.

So I feel IQ can be easily tested using Chess.


Is this supposed to be humour?


But I think IQ testing techniques are useless.

A person in Africa can never tell about Streets in Japan, Simmilarly a
person in Japan can never tell about cities in Africa.

So IQ should be tested depending on occupation and region the person
lives in.

Bye
Sanny

Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

Ed Seedhouse wrote:
In fact there is really no convincing evidence that IQ is related
causally to anything at all except perhaps the ability to do well on
IQ tests.

Hey! That's my line! Give it back!


Dave.

--
David Richerby Unholy Nuclear Puzzle (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like an intriguing conundrum that's
made of atoms but it's also a crime
against nature!

Sanny wrote:
A person in Africa can never tell about Streets in Japan, Simmilarly
a person in Japan can never tell about cities in Africa.

So IQ should be tested depending on occupation and region the person
lives in.

IQ has nothing to do with streets in Japan or cities in Africa.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Flammable Radio (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ radio but it burns really easily!

Chess One wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Sanny wrote:

Computer will always play with same IQ Level.


Why? You don't believe in progress and in self-learning programs?


So if a person gets higher ratings in Chess it is clear idea he is more
intelligent, Has better brains than those who fail to win.


I must have a very low IQ because I don't see any logic in the above
derivation.

Me to. I must have even lower IQ.

There is no correlation between chess and IQ (that is not a sociology*).


I assure you that you are wrong. If you take any group of top
performers in any intellectual activity - be it chess, math, science,
poetry, management, law, etc - their IQ score will be several standard
deviations above 100.

I am amazed that intelligent people can dispute this obvious fact.
There must be some severe brain damage, caused by perverted political
correctness, that is responsible for such blindness to the obvious.


IQ
measures primarily left-brain functions of literacy and numeracy in
sequencing, with some pattern recognition. Some people play chess like that,
but also dominos like that or drive their car like that! Master chess
players utilise abstract spatial intelligence [right brain] and sequence
play based on that [left-brain] as an /integration/ [de Groot].

The pattern recognition in IQ tests is not even the same type as utilised by
a chess player. IQ was almost entirely concrete spatial [Gardner] whereas
chess playing utilises abstract dynamic spatial.

Concrete spatial is about physcial forms, and would suit an artist or even
design engineer. [Gardner]
Abstract dynamic is not dependent on any form [/nb/] and concerns movement
of forces in 3space. [de Groot]

IQ tests are perfunctory measures of the ability to process information in
sequences, but are poor at describing or even identifying what information
is processed.

Phil Innes

*like for pale weedy types and also large lard-ones who stay indoors and
worry about things, swot books, play chess with imaginary friends, become
passionate about history of golfballs in Turkistan &c


Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

Here Nomorechess is on Top showing he is much intelligent than others.

Taylor Kingston 2300+ Rating is Second So he too is Intelligent

Bob Ranks Third So he is betterthan other 100 Players who are unable to
reach in Top Three.

So I feel IQ can be easily tested using Chess.


Is this supposed to be humour?


But I think IQ testing techniques are useless.

A person in Africa can never tell about Streets in Japan, Simmilarly a
person in Japan can never tell about cities in Africa.

So IQ should be tested depending on occupation and region the person
lives in.

Bye
Sanny

Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

On 17 Oct 2006 09:34:27 -0700, wrote:


I assure you that you are wrong. If you take any group of top
performers in any intellectual activity - be it chess, math, science,
poetry, management, law, etc - their IQ score will be several standard
deviations above 100.

I am amazed that intelligent people can dispute this obvious fact.
There must be some severe brain damage, caused by perverted political
correctness, that is responsible for such blindness to the obvious.

Actually, truly intelligent people will notice how not one shred of
evidence is provided in the referred post for these claims. There's a
reason for that...

wrote:
Chess One wrote:
There is no correlation between chess and IQ (that is not a sociology*).

I assure you that you are wrong. If you take any group of top
performers in any intellectual activity - be it chess, math, science,
poetry, management, law, etc - their IQ score will be several standard
deviations above 100.

As I recall reading, James Watson, who won a Nobel Prize for
his work (with Francis Crick) in discovering the structure of DNA,
has an IQ score that's no more than slightly above average.

"Because he (Linus Pauling) was so smart he did not feel the need
to talk to anybody, which hampered his ability to figure things out
as fast as other scientists who worked together. As a matter of
fact, he was overwhelmed by how good he was. I wasn't, and
I'm still not because I know my IQ."
--James Watson (14 May 2003)

I am amazed that intelligent people can dispute this obvious fact.

They may do that because this 'obvious fact' is not necessarily true.

There must be some severe brain damage, caused by perverted political
correctness, that is responsible for such blindness to the obvious.

Does VKarlamov approve of the 1994 book, 'The Bell Curve: Intelligence
and Class Structure in American Life', by Richard Herrnstein and
Charles Murray?

--Nick

The Historian wrote:
Mike Murray wrote:
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 13:35:42 GMT, "Kenneth"
wrote:

The Levitt equation is a lot of BS. Akiba Rubenstein, one of this centuries
strongest GMs, was close to being mentally retarded. Most GMs are of just
normal intelligence, while a few are, exceptionally bright.


Sorry for the slight tangent...talk about the power of hypertext: I
happened onto this newsgroup googling's the legitimacy of someone's
claims about being a former national champion, from that I bumped into
this post, which prompted me to look up Rubinstein, which brought me to
this link

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1119679

Sorry if this has been discussed before, but

* the page states Rubinstein's move 22 (Rxc3) was given !!! (and I can
see why)
* but wouldn't Rd2 at 22 had been just as good? Regardless of what
white does afterwards I can't discern an outcome that doesn't lead to a
Bxe4 and eventual checkmate in 2/3 moves, or there's something I'm not
seeing here? (most likely, since I'm not a great chess player).

As for the topic. I think generally speaking--people with higher IQs
are generally better chess players than those with lower IQs, so
there's some correlation. Just the reverse is not as true, good chess
players don't necessarily have higher IQ. (Just as research has shown
folks with higher IQ stay single longer and hence there's correlation
between intelligence and prolonged bachelorhood, but being a bachelor
doesn't indicate high IQ).

A person in Africa can never tell about Streets in Japan, Simmilarly
a person in Japan can never tell about cities in Africa.

So IQ should be tested depending on occupation and region the person
lives in.

IQ has nothing to do with streets in Japan or cities in Africa.

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.

So if a person has never gone outside his town or read geography he
will never be able to answer these questions.

Bye
Sanny.

Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

Ed Seedhouse wrote:
wrote:
I assure you that you are wrong. If you take any group of top
performers in any intellectual activity - be it chess, math,
science, poetry, management, law, etc - their IQ score will be
several standard deviations above 100.

I am amazed that intelligent people can dispute this obvious fact.
There must be some severe brain damage, caused by perverted
political correctness, that is responsible for such blindness to
the obvious.

Actually, truly intelligent people will notice how not one shred of
evidence is provided in the referred post for these claims. There's
a reason for that...

Though I note you haven't cited any evidence, either. Surely somebody
must have done a study indicating that there's no significant
correlation between IQ and chess ability.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Carnivorous Mexi-Radio (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a radio that comes from Mexico but it
eats flesh!

Nick wrote:
wrote:
Chess One wrote:
There is no correlation between chess and IQ (that is not a sociology*).

I assure you that you are wrong. If you take any group of top
performers in any intellectual activity - be it chess, math, science,
poetry, management, law, etc - their IQ score will be several standard
deviations above 100.

As I recall reading, James Watson, who won a Nobel Prize for
his work (with Francis Crick) in discovering the structure of DNA,
has an IQ score that's no more than slightly above average.

"Because he (Linus Pauling) was so smart he did not feel the need
to talk to anybody, which hampered his ability to figure things out
as fast as other scientists who worked together. As a matter of
fact, he was overwhelmed by how good he was. I wasn't, and
I'm still not because I know my IQ."
--James Watson (14 May 2003)

I am amazed that intelligent people can dispute this obvious fact.

They may do that because this 'obvious fact' is not necessarily true.

There must be some severe brain damage, caused by perverted political
correctness, that is responsible for such blindness to the obvious.

Does VKarlamov approve of the 1994 book, 'The Bell Curve: Intelligence
and Class Structure in American Life', by Richard Herrnstein and
Charles Murray?


I don't remember details but it did seem like an intelligent book.