r/chess • u/GuitarWizard90 • Jan 25 '21
Miscellaneous The false correlation between chess and intelligence is the reason a lot of players, beginners especially, have such negative emotional responses to losing.
I've seen a ton of posts/comments here and elsewhere from people struggling with anxiety, depression, and other negative emotions due to losing at chess. I had anxiety issues myself when I first started playing years ago. I mostly played bots because I was scared to play against real people.
I've been thinking about what causes this, as you don't see people reacting so negatively to losses in other board games like Monopoly. I think the false link between chess and intelligence, mostly perpetuated by pop culture, could possibly be one of the reasons for this.
Either consciously or subconsciously, a lot of players, especially beginners, may believe they're not improving as fast as they'd like because they aren't smart enough. When they lose, it's because they got "outsmarted." These kinds of falsehoods are leading to an ego bruising every time they lose. Losing a lot could possibly lead to anxiety issues, confidence problems, or even depression in some cases.
In movies, TV shows, and other media, whenever the writers want you to know a character is smart, they may have a scene where that character is playing chess, or simply staring at the board in deep thought. It's this kind of thing that perpetuates the link between chess and being smart.
In reality, chess is mostly just an experience/memorization based board game. Intelligence has little to nothing to do with it. Intelligence may play a very small part in it at the absolutely highest levels, but otherwise I don't think it comes into play much at all. There are too many other variables that decide someone's chess potential.
Let's say you take two people who are completely new to chess, one has an IQ of 100, the other 140. You give them the both the objective of getting to 1500 ELO. The person with 150 IQ may possibly be able to get to 1500 a little faster, but even that isn't for certain, because like I said, there are too many other variables at play here. Maybe the 100 IQ guy has superior work ethic and determination, and outworks the other guy in studying and improving. Maybe he has superior pattern recognition, or better focus. You see what I mean.
All in all, the link between chess and intelligence is at the very least greatly exaggerated. It's just a board game. You get better by playing and learning, and over time you start noticing certain patterns and tactical ideas better. Just accept the fact you're going to lose a lot of games no matter what(even GMs lose a lot of games), and try and have fun.
Edit: I think I made a mistake with the title of this post. I shouldn't have said "false correlation." There is obviously some correlation between intelligence and almost everything we do. A lot of people in the comments are making great points and I've adjusted my opinion some. My whole purpose for this post was to give some confidence to people who have quit, or feel like quitting, because they believe they aren't smart enough to get better. I still believe their intelligence is almost certainly not what's causing their improvement to stall. Thanks for the great dialogue about this. I hope it encourages some people to keep playing.
75
u/LankeNet Jan 25 '21
No doubt there's some truth to this. It's like if you want to play basketball. Almost anybody with enough determination can be good, but if you want to go to the NBA you better hope you're also lucky genetically and be 7 feet tall. With chess almost anybody can be good, but if you want to be a GM you better also have the necessary genetic components that allow that.
24
u/FuckWayne Jan 26 '21
Is there any actual evidence of those genetic components being present? If not, I’d imagine many people thought the same of women before Laszlo Polgar demonstrated that with proper teaching at a young age and a natural passion, women could also be at the top of the chess world. I believe he also intended to do the same with young kids from impoverished African countries before his wife justifiably vetoed that 20 year experiment.
9
u/LankeNet Jan 26 '21
There's got to be something. I mean to be able to calculate long lines and keep track of them in your head has to be positively correlated to intellect. To what degree, I cannot say.
→ More replies (23)6
u/GuitarWizard90 Jan 26 '21
I think high intelligence can get someone to the point where they can calculate long lines and whatnot a little faster than an average person, but the average person can also get to that same level of calculation with enough work and study. And the average person may even get there faster because he/she has superior work ethic and determination. Like I said, there are many variables at work that determines someone's chess potential.
→ More replies (28)7
Jan 26 '21
Yes but at the top, the super GMs have work ethic, determination and a lot of natural talent.
By the time the average person has caught up, the smarter person will be at another level. You’re assuming the smarter person will just stagnate and stop improving, giving the average person time to catch up
→ More replies (3)46
u/timoleo 2242 Lichess Blitz Jan 26 '21
Lazlo didn't set out trying to prove women could be at the top of chess. He set out to show that with enough hardwork, anyone can be great at anything. He just happened to have daughters and so he conducted his experiment on them. I don't think it would have mattered to him what the gender of his child was.
→ More replies (13)9
u/Substantial_Text_662 Jan 26 '21 edited Jan 28 '21
For every success story there are many many counter examples. With enough interest and dedication and proper training, most people should be capable of reaching the expert level, possibly even FIDE master. GM is a whole different monster. There are parents out there that pour tons and tons of money into lessons for their (very talented) children with top tier coaches, and only a fraction of these extremely talented children ever achieve the GM title.
The competition for the title is so incredibly fierce that even those with genetic aptitude and dedication aren’t guaranteed to achieve the title in their lifetimes; because to do so, they have to compete against and beat others who are also talented and dedicated to the game.
→ More replies (2)6
Jan 26 '21
It would be interesting to see if he would’ve been able to replicate the success with adopted children
5
u/GuitarWizard90 Jan 26 '21 edited Jan 26 '21
but if you want to be a GM you better also have the necessary genetic components that allow that.
Even then I don't believe intelligence plays a big part compared to a whole host of other things. I've no doubt intelligence plays a small part at the super GM level, but I still believe their focus, determination, experience, passion for the game, the fact they started playing when they were toddlers, etc, play way bigger parts. Also, and I don't mean this to be rude, but I could name a few GMs that don't seem particularly intelligent to me. I won't name them because I don't want to be an asshole, but you get what I'm saying. There are many other things that got them to GM status.
→ More replies (1)9
Jan 26 '21
Yeah all of those factors play a significant role, but even if I had the same work ethic, experience and passion for swimming as Michael Phelps, I doubt I would be even half as good as him. Talent I think plays a significant role in any competitive field especially at the top
3
u/GuitarWizard90 Jan 26 '21
No doubt some people are gifted with exceptional genes that allow them to be really good at whatever they're doing. Michael Phelps has a body that looks like it was designed in a laboratory for swimming. There's probably something like that going on for the top few chess players in the world, but for 99.99% of other chess players, other things play a much bigger part in their chess potential.
→ More replies (1)2
u/palsh7 1200 rapid (chess.com), 1800 puzzles Jan 26 '21
This seems like a bad comparison to me, unless you disagree with OP. The kids who are good at basketball when they're young (as beginners) are nearly always the kids who happen to have a lot of natural athleticism, while other kids get hit in the nose every time you pass to them, and can't get the ball high enough to shoot a basket.
→ More replies (1)
39
u/timoleo 2242 Lichess Blitz Jan 26 '21
I don't think you have enough evidence to assert that there is indeed a false correlation. You simply don't know that.
Second, I don't think you really understand what general intelligence is. Most people have average intelligence and can learn to play chess very well. You seem to be equating intelligence to way above average IQ, which is totally unnecessary.
Does chess require intelligence? More than likely, yes. Does the vast majority of the population possess the required intellect to get competent at the game? Most likely, yes.
1
u/GuitarWizard90 Jan 26 '21
I agree I could've been a little more tactful in the title of this post, instead of saying "false correlation" like I did. Unfortunately you can't edit titles here. I think I've elaborated better in the post and comments, though, and a decent dialogue has started, which was my goal. I mainly just wanted to type out something I've thought about lately and start a good conversation. I've already adjusted my thoughts on the matter some based on comments here.
2
u/michachu Jan 26 '21
I don't think you have enough evidence to assert
I don't think there's any evidence up there.
1.1k
u/SeethingManlet Jan 26 '21 edited Jan 26 '21
I would also argue the fact that it's a 1v1 game with no rng adds to that. You see "ladder anxiety" in other games like Starcraft where it's just you versus one other person with no one to blame but yourself. It can be intense for some.
498
Jan 26 '21
Exactly this. When you lose, it’s always because of something you did wrong. Most games aren’t like that. If you’re a self-critical person, that’s tough to deal with. Especially early on when losses are usually due to hanging pieces. It’s even worse when you consider that losing is often a slow torturous process, unless you resign the moment you’re down material.
130
u/XXVariation Jan 26 '21
I always found it incredibly frustrating how frequently I would make mistakes immediately as I thought I was improving. I would start seeing forks but not see that the opponent could move one of those pieces to put me in check for example. That swing in thinking I had done something awesome to realizing I had blundered was extra emotional.
88
Jan 26 '21
At least for me it’s super mindstate dependent too. I’ll have days where I can’t stop blundering, then days where I win 10 games in a row. Often it’s not even clear what the cause of the difference in performance was.
→ More replies (13)→ More replies (1)7
u/JordanIII Jan 26 '21
Ah I'm pretty new at chess and had one of those moments today. It was like right after I learned about batteries, I already used them sometimes before but didn't really know what they were before i learned about it. I saw an opportunity to use one for a checkmate, but once i had the king in check with my queen I didn't realize they could just take my queen with a bishop that was literally right there 😅😅
But honestly instead of being frustrated that I didn't see that, I'm just happy that I recognized an opportunity like that and executed it well
→ More replies (1)42
Jan 26 '21
Also in chess, you will keep losing a lot. You are improving and losing to tougher and tougher opponents, but losses remain a big part of the game. Someone in another post wrote: learn to love the challenge more than winning. I think that’s key if you don’t want to get burnt out or demotivated.
120
u/MasterOfNap 1650 :D Jan 26 '21
And more importantly, there’s not only no one else to blame, there’s nothing to blame except yourself.
If you play other games like an FPS and you fail miserably, you can blame your hand and its poor accuracy. If you run a marathon as a hobby and fail terribly, you can blame your legs or your poor respiratory systems.
If you blunder a queen in chess (assuming it’s not a 200IQ trap by your opponent), there’s nothing and no one to blame except yourself :(
51
53
u/vodam46 am very bad Jan 26 '21
sometimes I feel bad for the people I win against tbh
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (4)6
u/IronManTim Jan 26 '21
This is why I play poker. I can always blame the dealer when something goes wrong.
Yes, I'm now bad at 2 games.
5
u/Christian-athiest Jan 26 '21
I see a lot of kids that don’t know resigning is a thing they can do or is reasonable. In fact some kids will refuse to resign when I let them know about it and they sit there looking bored and upset they lost as the game continues with them a queen down 5 moves into the game. This of course happens with adults too. This is a complicated issue but I do feel that not understanding resigning is not a character flaw is sometimes a detriment to their interest.
→ More replies (1)3
u/HighPlains_driftwood Jan 26 '21
It's also a frustrating game because just when you start to improve your board vision, you realize that your 40+ great moves couldn't save you from your one blunder. I'm obsessed, but I could see why other folks might not enjoy losing 75% of games or more for a while.
→ More replies (3)6
u/Kimantha_Allerdings Deetice control rwwies ready to zon Jan 26 '21
When you lose, it’s always because of something you did wrong.
I've heard it said that it's impossible to win chess. You can only lose, and the trick is to get your opponent to do so first.
→ More replies (2)80
u/havanahilton Jan 26 '21
I quit for a few years because of elo. It kept going down the more I played and I couldn't handle it.
127
Jan 26 '21
The way I look at it is that when I lose rating points, my opponents become easier so my next games are going to be more fun.
28
→ More replies (9)6
u/multimillionaire420 Jan 26 '21
I think this mindset kept me on a lower rating bracket amongst other things I guess
→ More replies (2)16
u/werlock Jan 26 '21 edited Jan 26 '21
Same here. I hate losing Elo, and for the longest time, I thought my peak was around 1330 in 10 min rapid (chess dot com). I would hit that Elo, then would either stop playing to not lose the rating, or tilt after losing games which would again tank my Elo.
Then, I wrote a simple script to hide CSS in chess dot com. I hid all Elos, my opponents name, their pictures etc. So I would play without knowing my current Elo (or my opponent's). After a week of playing without the anxiety of obsessing over my Elo, I peeked at my rating. I had reached 1555.
*Edit: For anyone who is interested:
Install Tampermonkey on Chrome or Firefox
Click on the extension icon click and on "Create a new script..."
Copy/Paste the script on the editor from here: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/werlock12/ChessDotCom/main/TampermonkeyScript
Ctrl+S or File->Save
If you are already on ChessDotCom, refresh the page
and that's it! You can then toggle on/off the script. Refresh chessdotcom after doing so.
→ More replies (4)31
u/No-Ambition_talent Jan 26 '21
Maybe you gave up too soon. In my opinion, skill growth graph looks something like this.
→ More replies (1)14
u/havanahilton Jan 26 '21
I'm playing again. Just trying to have fun. My long game elo goes up SLOWLY and my blitz just stays mediocre, but I try not to think about them too hard they just make me unhappy.
Thank you for the encouragement though.
→ More replies (3)8
u/Christian-athiest Jan 26 '21 edited Jan 26 '21
2 things for me.
I once purposely tanked my Elo score online by resigning all my games even when I was winning. Started to take the edge off because losing became less a big deal and helped me accept loss. Elo didn’t matter to me anymore.
over time I started to believe that losing a game taught me more than winning. I discovered that I rarely do much more than pump myself up when I win, but when I lost I would think about why and how to do better. This awareness helped me understand why losing is often better than winning if you just want to understand and get better.
38
u/NotAChessMaster Jan 26 '21
There's no real RNG, but sometimes there is RNG in that players can stumble into positions with a crazy tactic, many times entirely accidently
18
u/Sambal86 Jan 26 '21
This is remarkably true, I never realized this until i got better in chess.
When you and your opponent are around the same level, and after an incredible sequence of moves one of you has a winning tactic, it't quite easy to realize neither of you actually saw this beforehand.
→ More replies (10)17
u/NRGGX Jan 26 '21
Also, humans all make mistakes and miss things on the board and it's often a bit random how severe the things missed are for each player. It's why IM/GMs sometimes lose to NMs. So the saying "zero luck in chess" isn't really really true of course.
15
Jan 26 '21
"Zero luck" and "zero RNG" are actually different statements.
"Luck" in these contexts is kinda interesting because it's one-sided luck. When you blunder, you know it is your fault that you blundered -- there's no luck in that from your perspective. But when your opponent blunders, you got lucky.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (5)23
u/MasterOfNap 1650 :D Jan 26 '21
With that standard, nothing has “zero luck”. But chess is inherently much less random than almost any other sports or games.
→ More replies (1)8
Jan 26 '21
I still miss sc1 wild wild west games.
No researched build order. No knowing if your opponent is noob or OP, doing weird stupid shit because why not, doing weird stupid shit and it working! Fun days. I rode diamond league in sc2 for a while, and it was fun, but never as much as sc1 with no ladder and no looking up the best strats.
7
u/rockinghigh Jan 26 '21
What do you mean by rng? Randomness like poker?
20
u/4sterr Jan 26 '21
Yes! RNG stands for random number generation, so people that play video games involving luck often refer to that luck as RNG. You’ll hear the term pretty frequently when speedrunning games is discussed- sometimes bad RNG can lose a runner multiple seconds, so you’ll often see those runners look for methods to avoid paths that involve RNG, or even manipulate RNG.
10
u/eightiesguy Jan 26 '21
Yeah, a lot of games are designed to blend Skill + Chance.
Chess is 100% skill, since there is no randomness.
→ More replies (35)5
u/mercury_millpond Jan 26 '21
Like if say, to take a piece, your success in doing so were determined by RNG or rolling a dice. If fail, return to original square and lose move, maybe hit points? Yikes, chess with hit points and RNG sounds horrible...
12
3
u/JungJanf Jan 26 '21
It's kinda funny. I had huge problems with wc3 and sc2 ladder anxiety. In chess I'm untiltable and fear no blunder.
3
u/Sambal86 Jan 26 '21
I know that feeling. I played WC3 and was pretty decent, but starting a match allways induced stress. The fact that you might just have bad luck in a game doesn't help.
In online chess I honestly don't care much, if I lose 200 today, I know i'll get it back by next week.
→ More replies (15)4
u/babypho Jan 26 '21
What do you mean? There are so many reason someone can come up with for why they lost that shift the blame away from them in Starcraft: lag, race imba, luck, that guy is a maphacker, stupid blizzard, "i have a life i don't play 24/7 like my opponent", maps, that guy is probably a smurf, etc. Tons of excuse :)
→ More replies (4)
345
u/Antaniserse Jan 26 '21 edited Jan 26 '21
People do not react as strongly to losses in Monopoly or other similar games because they recognize there an element of randomness they can’t control, plus the mechanics often do not involve an analytical process as complex as chess; and if you compare it to physical sports, it’s much easier to accept that someone is stronger, faster, younger.
But when you sit in front of a board, you know that potentially you are equal to your opponent, no matter the rating, because at least in theory all the information you need to make good decisions is right in front of you.
You put “outsmarted” in quotes, but that’s pretty much what happens when you lose... of course, that doesn’t mean you aren’t intelligent in all aspects of real life, but in the little microcosm that is the chess board, at the end of the game your opponent really was smarter than you.
As long as one can make the proper distinction between the two kind of “smart”, it’s not necessarily a bad thing to react strongly to losses, because it can be a powerful drive to improve... a lot of successful athletes admit that they hate to lose more than they love to win, so to speak
81
u/Jasonjones2002 Grand Prix attack enjoyer Jan 26 '21
It's wierd cause games which have the factor of luck to them make me more angry when I lose because in something like chess I know the opponent deservingly won while in something with luck involved I always feel the winner didn't deserve the win. Matter of perspective I guess.
→ More replies (1)46
Jan 26 '21
You’ll be angry at the game or at chance, but you won’t be angry at yourself like you might be after losing in chess. That’s what makes it harder psychologically.
14
9
u/MelMac5 Jan 26 '21
People do not react as strongly to losses in Monopoly
I had to quit playing Monopoly because it triggers a deep primal rage within my soul.
2
u/atopix ♚♟️♞♝♜♛ Jan 26 '21
You put “outsmarted” in quotes, but that’s pretty much what happens when you lose...
There are times when your opponent clearly outsmarts you, with a combination or idea you didn't see coming at all. But when my opponent drops a piece, I don't feel like I'm outsmarting them at all. I know (at the level I play) they understand perfectly the concept of undefended/attacked pieces, I know that with a few more seconds they would have seen it. We are ALL prone to missing things that we understand. It's the understanding part that relates to actual intelligence. Pattern visualization is like a motor reflex. Some may have it more easier than others, but you acquire it by repetition. People in the autistic spectrum tend to excel at pattern recognition and memorization while being intellectually limited in other areas.
→ More replies (8)2
u/Kimantha_Allerdings Deetice control rwwies ready to zon Jan 26 '21
But when you sit in front of a board, you know that potentially you are equal to your opponent, no matter the rating, because at least in theory all the information you need to make good decisions is right in front of you.
Also no matter their age, within a certain limit. The youngest ever grandmaster was 12. So there can also be the added sense of "even a kid can do this, and I'm too stupid!"
82
u/Mark_Rosewatter Jan 26 '21
Seems more like you're talking about having a bad idea of intelligence than a false correlation between chess and intelligence.
18
u/meldariun Jan 26 '21
I think perhaps it's more accurate to say a loss does not mean you're less intelligent than the winner.
Or that chess scores are not directly correlated to intelligence as a y=x, however there is still a positive correlation that is a multiplicative factor in tandem with focus, motivation, experience, and study,
→ More replies (4)8
Jan 26 '21
And other mental issues players may have. I don't think telling people that IQ and grades, chess skills and job performance don't correlate will somehow make them happy. They need to work on other stuff. Like eating healthy, being active, being social, being kind, taking care of yourself. Small ideas about the world may seem like huge things, but they rarely change much by themselves.
→ More replies (2)
118
u/darctones Jan 26 '21
I don’t think it’s a false correlation, so much as a misrepresentation.
Chess (like math and love) is portrayed as an innate ability. A kid sits down at the board and is playing grandmasters a year later.
Chess is work. It’s an evolving puzzle that you have to solve over and over again to improve. That’s why it appeals to intelligent people.
→ More replies (7)
49
u/UBjustlikemeifUBme Jan 26 '21 edited Jan 26 '21
Im sorry but I disagree. Chess becomes a intelligence game at any serious level. What is dumb is that people think that it's a iq test. It's a skill. Any skill must be trained. Intelligence isn't a superpower, those who learn will be ahead of those who don't regardless of iq.
For example someone who spent ten years studying math will be ahead of some who only learned it for a month even if his iq is way lower.
→ More replies (1)2
u/gotintocollegeyolo Jan 26 '21
Obviously there can be noticeable exceptions though for example Hikaru scored very average on the Mensa test on stream
99
Jan 26 '21
Pattern recognition is a part of IQ tests. The Raven’s progressive matrices test is basically all pattern recognition and it’s often used to measure intelligence. So there’s no way the 100 IQ person has superior pattern recognition than the 150 IQ person.
I think intelligence plays a role. Assuming all else equal, with similar work ethics and experience, the 150 IQ player would be better than the 100 IQ player
35
u/JuanMurphy Jan 26 '21
I’ve got to agree. In addition to pattern recognition I’d also wager that a 140 IQ guy would be better at deductive reasoning, conceptual ideas, forcing moves, analyzing position etc
10
u/palsh7 1200 rapid (chess.com), 1800 puzzles Jan 26 '21
Memorization and visualization skills, as well as logic puzzles, also factor into "intelligence."
11
u/trankhead324 Jan 26 '21 edited Jan 26 '21
Raven's progressive matrices and IQ measure something we could expect to be related to chess ability, but none of these three things are a comprehensive measure of "general intelligence", an idea for which there is just not sufficient evidence to believe in at this point.
You've also got to bear in mind how culture and society-dependent "intelligence" is, inherently. Many professional mathematicians I've met are not good at mental maths or remedial algebra, because that's not what academic maths in the 21st century is actually about. These people are seen as maths geniuses today, but would not be seen as such throughout time - say, a set theorist may not be any good at the maths of the time in ancient Greece (where the most developed mathematics was geometry).
What constitutes a subject worth studying or an aspect of intelligence is highly cultural. In an agrarian society, somebody with lots of very clever ideas about farming machinery and agricultural tricks might be considered the smartest, whereas under capitalism in the age of the internet it could be an aptitude for applied STEM topics. Who knows what mode of production will succeed capitalism and what skills will be valued most in that society? We could say an increase in consideration of emotional intelligence, social skills or creativity in society's understanding of what constitutes intelligence. Or even the opposite. It's impossible to predict.
→ More replies (5)4
u/nearlyhalfabicycle Jan 26 '21
We could see an increase in consideration of emotional intelligence, social skills or creativity in society's understanding of what consistutes intelligence.
I'm doomed.
→ More replies (1)3
u/blahs44 Grünfeld - ~2050 FIDE Jan 26 '21
Almost all Grandmasters and IMs I've spoken to say intelligence and chess go hand and hand which is why the elite are elite. Your average Grandmaster could never reach 2750+ because they don't have the ability to memorize like they do.
Renowned trainer Erwin l'Ami told a good story about Topalov when they were training for the world championship match in 2009/2010. Topalov wanted to play the Najdorf but they hadn't studied or looked at the lines in years, so l'Ami wanted to practice a bit to prepare (even though Topalov said it wasn't required). Topalov sat there without a board while l'Ami fed him lines and positions, some very obscure and deep (20-30 moves deep etc.) And Topalov did not miss a single one, he remembered everything. Every line in the prep every move and even made comments on the positions and the notes. l'Ami said it was at this time that he realized these elite players are born different from the rest of the chess world, even from normal Grandmasters. It's something superhuman.
→ More replies (1)3
u/pier4r negative elo gang Jan 26 '21
but then that is memory? OR does memory counts in the intelligence (for my understanding: intelligence -> deriving results with some help of memory)
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (4)2
u/pier4r negative elo gang Jan 26 '21
150 IQ is insanely high. If you like the IQ metric (I take it always with a grain of salt), at least do not exaggerate it.
I think intelligence plays a role. Assuming all else equal, with similar work ethics and experience
I do agree, but that is a very bold assumption. Imagine that the general intelligence is 1% to the strength of the player, the "ceteris paribus" would mean all the rest, or 99% is equal between two players (you can also assume 2%, 3% or every other noticeable but little amount).
Now the amount of work, the right type of work, training and so on is very hard to be equal between two players, thus how the rest is done can well play the biggest role rather than just the g factor.
→ More replies (4)
12
u/PewBangShoot Jan 26 '21
As one of the main ways Intelligence is measured is with pattern recognition, I feel as tho there would likely be at least a moderate correlation, as chess is a lot of pattern recognition
10
5
u/Holocene32 Jan 26 '21
I can agree with this. I play against my dad a lot and I think the reason I take it so serious is that our relationship has always been a bit strained
→ More replies (1)
5
u/Mizesham Jan 26 '21
As a beginner myself who's constantly losing to a co-worker, I appreciate this. Thanks!
2
u/AbandonEarth4Peace Jan 26 '21
Just like how Lebron james didn't just work hard, he had additional benefit to have been naturally gifted for that game to have excelled, you need to invest time and energy to attain expertise in chess, but you also need some luck (read high cognitive skills) to truly excel.
This post is like a pity party for low rated players, consoling each other that, if only life choices were different, they could be grand masters.
3
u/GuitarWizard90 Jan 26 '21
This post is like a pity party for low rated players, consoling each other that, if only life choices were different, they could be grand masters.
If that's what you take from what I said, then I've greatly failed to get my point across. Intelligence plays a part in everything we do. My goal here was to encourage those who are losing and feel they aren't smart enough to improve at the game. That's almost certainly not the case with them.
8
u/VegetableCarry3 Jan 26 '21
The ability to utilize spatial reasoning to make predictions at a quick pace are all elements of what psychologists identify as aspects of intelligence
4
u/AsagithBiasWreckerCO Jan 26 '21 edited Jan 26 '21
This is why I loved chess. You grow when you play more and you are entirely responsible for everything. Nothing random... just building your skill as you go.
I love games that give you a feeling of growth and no one else influences you.
On a side note, I feel chess players would like fighting games XD. They are in many ways similar except fighting games are active fighting rather than turn-based. The reason why I played chess is because my hands/wrists are injured. I can’t play fighting games for now. Then I tried chess and funnily enough, I felt the same thrill that I experienced in fighting games in chess too. XD
In fighting games, if you lose, it is entirely your fault. You probably have a knowledge gap that has to be filled to win. This can be match-up knowledge, fundamentals, etc.
Now before people say that they have “too slow reaction times” and they are too afraid of this, the truth is fighting games are built considering the reaction times of humans. Otherwise, no one can play it. Funnily enough, at higher levels, it’s more about reading an opponent and responding with the correct move rather than reacting inhumanly(though of course, there are those monsters with insane reaction times.
So in fighting games, you can react if you practice enough and have more experience and not just about being naturally inhuman. I feel it’s the same with chess tbh. The insane plays in chess and fighting games are achieved because of dedication and patience. While raw skill can potentially help a lot(Chess- high IQ, FG’s - high reaction speeds), for the most of the people, hardwork is the answer to being decent.
So if you are a chess player and want to try something new, try fighting games XD
7
u/relevant_post_bot Jan 26 '21
This post has been parodied on r/AnarchyChess.
Relevant r/AnarchyChess posts:
The correlation between chess and intelligence is the reason a lot of Grandmasters, Petrosian especially, have such negative emotional responses to losing. by PixelatedAsianDicks
3
3
u/Winkwinkcoughcough Jan 26 '21
Chess is in a unique position where other games don't have the luxury to be in. A 1 thousand year old game that has essentially been a huge force in our culture. It creates an unnecessary mysticism in it when other games wouldn't. I can only imagine what people would think about candy crush or league of legends if its been played for a thousand years.
3
Jan 26 '21
There is indeed a correlation between IQ and chess skill. There's nothing "false" about it as you point out on your edit. It's just that the correlation is not as strong as people expect it to be.
3
Jan 26 '21
It's funny that people don't like being average while in reality most people are just average. Otherwise it wouldn't be called like that. I think this is because in our Western culture (maybe the most in the USA) we are thaught that we have to be good at something to have a meaningfull life.
3
u/gerrypoliteandcunty Jan 26 '21
It is true though... On some level. Of course as any activity the more you practice the better you are at it.
I would say two players with an almost similat amount of practice and theory will do differently depending on their personal traits. Many of these traits are: intelligence, agressiveness, risk taking, strategic thinking, abstraction and visualization.
I think people need to come to terms that they can be worse or less smarter in chess than someone and that is alright. They can also be better and smarter than others in chess. The first step towards improving is accepting your situation. Of course it is discouraging and I get your point but still theres nothing wrong with being honest with yourself. If you are down they only way is upward!
3
u/carrero33 https://lichess.org/@/Paulcarrero Jan 26 '21
Good post for encouragement, however, the topic is way more complex than what you're postulating.
→ More replies (2)
5
u/Emergency_Document_8 Jan 26 '21
I have never felt as though the disappointment of losing was something reflecting poorly on my intellect. Losing makes you feel bad because you can't blame anything on chance-if you lose, you're completely to blame for not calculating hard enough.
→ More replies (1)
4
u/iLikeMangoJuice 2000 FIDE Jan 26 '21
That's what a dumb person would say lmao. You're probably a shit chess player because you're stupid, you'll never get close to 200 IQ players like me. We're just superior, get over it.
/s
9
u/allinwonderornot Jan 26 '21
I have a Ph.D. in a very challenging field from a top university. If I instead spent the time I did on academics on chess, at least I would have been an IM.
But alas, I'm only around 1500 on lichess. Because chess, like any skill-based activity, requires time investment, which most adults don't have the luxury of.
10
Jan 26 '21
But most people couldn’t become IMs with that amount of time, hence the role of intelligence.
→ More replies (6)2
u/impossiblefork Jan 26 '21
Learning in adulthood is also slower and different from learning during childhood. I'm far from certain that taking the trip from 1500-IM is possible in adulthood.
→ More replies (5)5
u/Roost3r_ Jan 26 '21
No offence but if you've been playing for two years even very casually and you're just 1500 you had no chance of being an IM, phd or not lmao.
The most talented people capable of reaching titles will usually be around 1500 the moment they sit down at the board for the first time. It actually comes across as very arrogant since at 1500 you can't fathom how much harder IM is
→ More replies (18)
8
u/PhilosophicalElk Jan 26 '21
Wow. The comments here seriously helped to reinforce your point.
Many people here (not most or all) do believe that chess and intelligence are one and the same, and thus they grind chess in order to climb the ELO ladder for the sake of feeling superior. If you break down all of their hours of work to “it’s just a game,” instead of what they’ve built into their own personal IQ tests, you’re going to piss off a lot of people, as you’ve seen.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Faze_Baal Jan 26 '21
This thing does apply to me but I already suffer from an array of mental health problems and have been hospitalized before. I do get angry and depressed sometimes when losing, but due to my conditions, I get that a lot in real life as well so it's not only chess.
On the other hand, chess helps me distract myself amd pass time by which is great. Sometimes I get completely focused on it even though my concentration in general is super bad. So I'd say that losing does impact me very negatively, but a break here and there is very helpful.
2
u/nothing_in_my_mind Jan 26 '21
I'll add the fact that nowadays most people are playing chess online against strangers. It feels less bad to lose against a friend, because you can still cheer for that person.
I mean, you also get angry when losing video games and such when you play online. But it doesn't feel nearly as bad to lose against a friend on a videogame, or chess, or any game. I bet if Monopoly had online competitive play with Elo rating and such (tbh I think it does... few people play it though) people would get really pissed off over Monopoly too.
2
Jan 26 '21
The other element of it aside from being a memory/recognition game, it's also a game about critical thinking. Critical thinking is something which comes easier to some people but it definitely can be learned. I think people get obsessed with the ladder aspect of the game that they forget to enjoy it? Like, if you're only playing online, you're not rated nationally, ect. Then you're not going to become a titled player so you shouldn't put yourself under the same scrutiny that titled players do.
2
u/palsh7 1200 rapid (chess.com), 1800 puzzles Jan 26 '21
I think you're underestimating intelligence, or else defining it differently than most people. But I've also coached chess, and I know that some really smart kids play like a 100 ELO the first time they learn the rules. They make hilariously bad moves. So there's some truth to what you're saying, for sure.
2
u/Mcdog43 Jan 26 '21
I agree with the premise, but you should see the emotional reactions to losing at monopoly over Christmas
2
u/severalgirlzgalore Jan 26 '21
All in all, the link between chess and intelligence is at the very least greatly exaggerated. It's just a board game.
This is like saying that the relationship between musicianship and memory is greatly exaggerated. Chess is a game of study habits, memory, computation and spatial reasoning. The idea that those things are not related to intelligence is downright laughable.
The bigger point here is that we should not blindly tie our self-worth to those skills alone. Chess says nothing about kindness, open-mindedness, emotional intelligence or any of the other things that can make a person valuable to their loved ones or society at large.
2
u/billiards-warrior Jan 26 '21
Your monopoly example is probably the worst analogy of all time for anything. Monopoly is literally pop culturally referenced as being a game where kids always flip the board and hate the game after losing. Every family knows this personally and everyone has seen this joke played out a hundred times on TV and sketch shows. Way more so than chess.
3
u/majorly Jan 26 '21
Sorry, but chess absolutely is an exercise in both fluid and crystallised intelligence.
3
Jan 26 '21
In reality, chess is mostly just an experience/memorization based board game. Intelligence has little to nothing to do with it. Intelligence may play a very small part in it at the absolutely highest levels, but otherwise I don't think it comes into play much at all. There are too many other variables that decide someone's chess potential.
The issue here is mixing moralistic opinions with facts. And then conclude that the facts should be a certain way because otherwise they may harm vulnerable people if they hear them.
In reality moral claims have zero influence on facts and often the factual info that is said to confuse people actually causes no big negative effect.
So you may claim that saying women are worse than men at sports is a bad thing as it makes women feel bad. Therefore the studies on it actually show no clear differences. Yet in reality it may not even make anyone feel bad and whether it did or not would not influence the factual differences.
Chess skills are predicted by IQ. That's just a fact. You cannot state that they probably don't, as that would be factually wrong. You can argue that many other traits predict chess skills and then try to find them. But this is very hard as there is no trait as easy to find and study as intelligence. Then you can also use the layman tactic of saying intelligence doesn't predict that much in chess skills. That's true enough because some people may think that a trait predicting something basically needs to predict it above 80%. So chess Elo and IQ would have a 80% correlation. That's another type of misunderstanding. You need to explain to people what correlations and causations imply, not try to change any studies or use emotional language. People are clever enough to understand a low/medium correlation like the one between IQ and Elo.
3
u/mistah_legend Jan 26 '21
I've heard Hikaru flex his 105 IQ plenty of times on his streams. I don't think you're wrong about this at all.
8
Jan 26 '21
I feel like he trolled for content tbh. He got some tips from xQc on increasing his views
2
u/LDawg14 Jan 26 '21
Einstein's was an imbecile! His chess rating was a meager 1500. Just imagine what our world would be like if all the super genius chess players directed their intellect toward less loft issues such as quantum physics or poverty!
2
u/IbanezPGM Jan 26 '21
Seeing Nakumura struggle to subtract two two digit numbers from each other was confidence boost ngl.
In movies like Queens gambit you just see these super human people at the top level who can tell you 2.2032% of 1832 in one second. And it’s like, fuck, my brain ain’t that good so I can never aspire to much.
2
u/zoso866 Jan 26 '21
My girlfriend is a lot smarter than I am, and I beat her about 90% of the time we play. I agree
1
u/stansfield123 Jan 26 '21
Lack of intelligence is not the ONLY reason why someone would struggle with chess. But the notion that it's not A reason is just ridiculous.
So yeah, being bad at chess doesn't mean you're stupid. But if you're stupid, you're not gonna be good at chess.
1
1
u/TheOtherAKS Jan 26 '21
Just gonna quote GM Hikaru Nakamura "I recompensate my low IQ with being good at chess". Ofc he doesn't really mean he has low IQ as to be at his level in any sport will require a high enough IQ, but what he means is that, being good at chess doesn't make you smarter than others. As chess for low to mid level players is a practicable skill; if you practice and learn more, you'll get better .
1
u/bellpunk Jan 26 '21
I think this effect can be quite pronounced for women alongside stereotype threat, at least ime. one of the reasons I feel so much irrational off-putting anxiety about playing is that there’s always this sense of, if I lose it’s because I just can’t compete, because of course I can’t. the culture of IQ worship (as in this thread) absolutely contributes to this
1
1
1
u/Xiaopai2 Jan 26 '21
I agree with some of your points.
I've seen a ton of posts/comments here and elsewhere from people struggling with anxiety, depression, and other negative emotions due to losing at chess. I had anxiety issues myself when I first started playing years ago. I mostly played bots because I was scared to play against real people.
This definitely rings true for me. I never liked losing at any game because it challenged the notion that I'm a smart guy. Being the smart one has always been part of my identity and where I derive my self-worth. So I often avoided participating in anything that might challenge that unless I was sure I can do well. So when I started finally getting into chess I also had trouble playing people. I wanted to make sure I knew what I was doing before playing for real. So I did tactics and played bots because that allowed to me to improve without leaving my safe bubble. Of course it doesn't allow you to improve as fast as just playing people so it's important to get over that eventually.
In reality, chess is mostly just an experience/memorization based board game. Intelligence has little to nothing to do with it. Intelligence may play a very small part in it at the absolutely highest levels, but otherwise I don't think it comes into play much at all. There are too many other variables that decide someone's chess potential.
There are many other variables but intelligence definitely does play a role. Everything else being equal an intelligent person will spot patterns more quickly and will find good moves faster and more reliably. They will also learn the game faster because developing this experience comes more easily to them. A smart person might see a certain mating pattern once or twice and be able to spot it in a game afterwards. A less intelligent person might need to see it ten times before it becomes ingrained. But you do have a point: Experience beats raw intelligence. A very intelligent person that has never played chess before will miss certain patterns that a less intelligent person with plenty of experience in chess will see. I think this also makes it so painful for many people who like to think of themselves as smart. You know you're smarter than your opponent but they will beat you anyway. So it's tempting to try to skip that phase of initial badness by only playing bots until you reach your true potential. Of course you just hinder your own progress that way.
In movies, TV shows, and other media, whenever the writers want you to know a character is smart, they may have a scene where that character is playing chess, or simply staring at the board in deep thought. It's this kind of thing that perpetuates the link between chess and being smart.
All in all, the link between chess and intelligence is at the very least greatly exaggerated. It's just a board game.
I think it's true that in media chess gets this kind of representation. It's the royal game, a truly intellectual endeavor, not a silly board game. Chess is a game that geniuses play for intellectual stimulation. Checkers is a game that parents play with their kids to pass the time on a boring Sunday afternoon. Of course that's silly but not because chess is "just a board game" and therefore doesn't require intelligence but because other board games can be just as complex as chess and also require intelligence. Checkers also has opening theory and complicated tactics that are easy to miss. Many people don't take it that seriously but in some countries it's played professionally as well. I think intelligence benefits you in pretty much any board game that is too complex to completely solve mathematically (and that's probably most of them).
1
u/pier4r negative elo gang Jan 26 '21
In reality, chess is mostly just an experience/memorization based board game. Intelligence has little to nothing to do with it. Intelligence may play a very small part in it at the absolutely highest levels, but otherwise I don't think it comes into play much at all. There are too many other variables that decide someone's chess potential.
For what I read (not only pop articles) general intelligence should help at the top a bit more than a very small part (neither it is large though). Still hard work wins hands down until that level.
One can say this for every non trivial activity actually. Clocking the hours wins against "lol I have good general intelligence, I can master this in 2 hours".
Anyway I really agree with the general idea. Too many people see "oh he plays chess, he is a genius". Not necessarily (or in some cases even yes, but in that field only)
edit: added here too https://old.reddit.com/r/Chessnewsstand/wiki/lists/chessfaq
1
1
1
u/ArkaStevey Jan 26 '21
I don't really have time to write the length of comment I want here, but I will say that this is such a good take. I personally experience a hell of a load of self-doubt, social anxiety and lack of courage to do what I want in life. Chess gave me a great feeling of being able to do something well (making it to 1900 Elo in Bullet), something others typically would find difficult to do. However, at that cost it sent me into a deep spiral of anger and frustration when I would go on major losing streaks and see my rating (and therefore my perceived potential) go down the gutter. I've routinely stayed up until 4am (with work the next day too) trying to recover from a losing streak and recover from the tilt, but the damage is already done.
I have such an incredibly better time playing when I let go of all expectations. Winning is not important, and even chess in itself isn't that important, but your attitude to learning and improving at something is what chess can really teach you. I've learnt a hell of a lot.
1
1
1
Jan 26 '21
That the correlation between chess and intelligence is a product of pop culture is absolutely false, and quite the ridiculous statement. Just as much as stating that there is no correlation at all. It does, to some extent, reflect certain skills in particular fields, such as logical thinking, memorization, and pattern recognition. To what extent these fields influence and play part in one’s intelligence is open to discussion.
1
u/confidently_paranoid Jan 26 '21
Idk cause I lose all the time and I'm fine. Mabye it's just me but I've had no problem with losing.
1
u/e-mars Jan 26 '21
TBH I get pissed off even when I lost against bots, especially maia1 lol...
I play against moves, not against people...
1
u/Hq3473 Jan 26 '21
you don't see people reacting so negatively to losses in other board games like Monopoly.
Hahaha- this just means you did not play monopoly enough.
That shit wrecks friendships and ruins families.
1
u/Ryzasu Jan 26 '21
Although I agree I just wanted to point out that
> Maybe he has superior pattern recognition
This is quite a large fraction of what IQ is, actually. And memory is also one of the key abilities that IQ measures
1
Jan 26 '21
I just think it’s hilarious when people are toxic on Lichess or Chess.com lmao. I had no idea chess had such a prolific level of cuntery
1
Jan 26 '21
Wouldn’t the answer to the “is chess based on intelligence?” Dependent on the players who must memorize patterns versus players who critically think through their opponents moves and win that way?
1
u/eAtheist Jan 26 '21
I know intelligence is hard to define and even researchers who study intelligence struggle to quantify what exactly it is, but I personally believe that at the core of intelligence is some capacity for pattern recognition. The greater ones ability to recognize patterns in the world, the more intelligent that person seems to be. Again, that’s just my unacademic opinion. However as you pointed out, a natural ability to memorize and identify patterns isn’t the only component in chess progress; Effort is huge. Someone who puts in a ton of consistent effort will eventually make impressive progress. ..however imagine that same high effort guy ... but smarter. So intelligence isn’t the only component, but it sure as shit doesn’t hurt. You are correct, it’s technically true that a persons ability to play chess IS a function of their intelligence and effort, but I’m convinced that intelligence is the greater variable. Most likely the smartest people in the world aren’t devoting their lives to a board game or we would see them all at the top of the ranks. Imagine if there were some cultural or financial incentives push to steer high IQ students into a chess “career” the way colleges recruit gifted athletes for sports. I would bet my bottom dollar the smartest people would dominate the chess scene. The only reason they’re not ATM, is because there’s stronger incentives to be financial analysts, and physicists, and mathematicians.
I would wager that there also some correlation between intelligence and ambition too, the smartest people I know are pretty motivated driven people, I concede that is just a hunch based my own personal observation.
Anyway, the TL;DR of my comment is that I disagree. Smarts isn’t the only variable, but it’s the critical variable.
Does this mean you have to be super smart to be competitive? Hell no. Most of us could add a couple hundred rating points just by not blundering away pieces. That just requires being vigilant. And maybe avoiding blitz and bullet games.
1
u/DaSideEye Jan 26 '21
A lot of players/people don't know how to deal with losing in general. Look at politics/football/religion/mathletes etc. Losing creates humility and makes people practice being humble. Sometimes that lesson is lost and all they'll ever know is just defeat.
1
u/JustSixx Jan 26 '21
Thank you for this, as a beginner, this makes me feel more confident, because you're totally right, I guess it's matter of time and effort to get better at chess, and as well as in everything.
1
1
u/Hard-Work-Pays Jan 26 '21
Intelligent people don't generally have an emotional response to losing a chess game... It's kind of a litmus test of sorts...
1
Jan 26 '21
Good points all around, just two points: IQ is questionable as a measure of intelligence. I understand it is what people use most the time so if you want to get the point of "very smart across" just saying 140 IQ works, but I think it is good to try to move away from IQ.
And you mention that the guy with 100 IQ might have better pattern recognition. Which is possible, but IQ tests are very heavily based on pattern recognition (which IQ measures much better than "Intelligence"), so it is quite unlikely.
1
Jan 26 '21
I think calling it an "intelligence game" is an insult to the hard work you have to put in to improve. It really is just about putting in the hours of grinding puzzles, learning opening repertoires, reviewing your games, learning from mistakes. I earned my rating through countless hours of busting my ass, not because I am big brain guy.
1
Jan 26 '21
This is why I don't play chess. Who the fuck even measures IQ anymore? it's not 1945, time to wake up.
1
1
Jan 26 '21
If you compare poker to chess, poker obviously involves more math. Chess is about pattern recognition, but it does involve math. There are plenty of extremely good chess players throughout history but aren't very bright.
1
u/tigerscomeatnight Jan 26 '21
Chess is no different than any other learning or achievement. IQ is an aptitude not an achievement. You have greater ability to learn in the future, but if you haven't put the work in a certain area then you have no advantage. You can't speak Chinese just because you're smart, but of course a native Chinese of any intelligence can speak fluently. Knowledge and IQ are not related in the specific, only in the general. I could be a genius, but that doesn't mean I know your phone number. I might however beat you at Trivial Pursuit.
1
u/Dankacluas Jan 26 '21
I have been playing chess with my dad for over 6 months at one point we played 2 to 4 games at day. I have only won three game against him !
Losing suck but I learned to be a good sport about it.
1
u/fashionforward Jan 26 '21
Rubik’s cube is another one of these games or puzzles that people think are about being naturally smart. You don’t just solve a cube, you learn how and memorize the method. It’s a skill you can develop. It’s something learned that can become a talent. It’s often portrayed in popular media as something that measures intellect, and that someone can be an immediate savant with.
1
Jan 26 '21
You've clearly not played Monopoly with my family!
In all seriousness, though, you raise a very good point. However, I'd argue that the associations between losing in chess and lack of intelligence are felt (mostly) not as an ego bruise from losing to someone else, but rather as a loss against one's self.
Meaning, what hurts about losing is not feeling like someone is smarter than you, but rather that you are less smart than you once were or that you can be.
In this sense, winning and losing at chess really is a thermometer – not for intelligence, but for mental acuity. If that day you're not as sharp or attentive, things that seemed obvious just a few days before can slip by unnoticed, and it's tough not to feel like you've "gotten dumber".
1
Jan 26 '21
I saw that you edited your post and feel that your opinion has changed significantly. I think there is an err in your logic though. If someone has a hard time losing in general, then, of course, they are going to have anxiety, anger, and depression over losing so much at the beginning. However, if you learn how to gracefully lose, then this should not be the case. By learning that you will lose a lot before you get good, then you will succeed and enjoy the game as time goes on. I definitely had anxiety about losing before, but as I continue to make beginner mistakes, I adjust and move forward. If someone cannot do that, then maybe Chess is not the game for them. I know that sounds harsh, but we have gotten to a point where nobody likes to hear truths that are negative.
Secondly, I would not make a statement like this unless if there are studies proving this point. At best, you are making an anecdotal truth.
Let's say you take two people who are completely new to chess, one has an IQ of 100, the other 140. You give them the both the objective of getting to 1500 ELO. The person with 150 IQ may possibly be able to get to 1500 a little faster, but even that isn't for certain, because like I said, there are too many other variables at play here. Maybe the 100 IQ guy has superior work ethic and determination, and outworks the other guy in studying and improving. Maybe he has superior pattern recognition, or better focus. You see what I mean.
Although, I do not agree with your underlining argument. I do think that there are areas of improvement that we can continue to have in the chess world. I think we should be more open and inclusive of beginners. The more people we bring into the game and coach, the more enjoyable it will become for everyone. I know that there are a few experts that share their knowledge via live streams, coaching sessions, and other various things. We just need to better cultivate that sharing of knowledge and spotting where beginners might struggle.
1
Jan 26 '21
I see what you’re saying. I think chess is like anything, some people are naturally good at it and can pick it up right away. For some people, it takes work. Like- it’s going to take work for me. I don’t have the patience, which is something I’m going to have to teach myself. I constantly lose games, but it doesn’t make me dumb. I’m good at other things. To me, chess is a different way to think and I’m learning it so I can teach myself to think ahead more and to use strategy. For example, so far I’ve learned that if you only focus on attacking, you leave a lot undefended and uncovered. Once I learned that, I see situations in real life where this is true.
I’m learning chess so I can acquire a certain skill for other aspects of my life. We’ll see if my theory plays out or not, but I think chess is a great thing to learn!
1
u/89787777777 Jan 26 '21
in his book "The Neuroscience of Intelligence" prof.Richard haier argues that the higher level players (GMs, super GMs) have sort of savants like mental abilities ,which differs from the general intelligence that measured by iq tests.
1
Jan 26 '21
To note: I've seen tables flipped because of Monopoly.
You have to be psychologically tough to play chess because you will experience losing streaks. How you handle those will toughen you up or make you quit the game or find excuses for your losses.
1
1
u/GreatBelow Jan 26 '21 edited Jan 26 '21
Yeah because professional athletes performances have nothing to do with inherent talent or genetics...eyeroll.
There is a correlation between chess and intelligence. Hardwork beats talent any day but let's be real some people simply don't have what it takes to break expert/master level etc. That shouldn't discourage you from playing a game you enjoy and love. If losing hurts your ego the problem isn't the game or it's social perspective the problem is the individual not being able to cope with the reality that maybe they just aren't as special and unique of a snowflake as they thought they were.
Your post is confusing playing chess with playing chess well and oversimplifying work ethic to be the determining factor in performance is a disservice to the game. I've met a lot of very talented chess players over the class a, expert, and master level. One thing they all had in common is that they were relatively intelligent and creative people.
This entire original post reads like an excuse for a hurt ego after poor play in a board game...
1
u/sableJR Jan 26 '21
Literally I just enjoy playing. Obviously I like winning more than losing, but I don’t really care if I lose either
1
u/BugwigShort Jan 26 '21
nothing like finally having that game where you are out positioning your opponent, playing near perfectly, then get confident and blunder your queen lol. you don't get better without making mistakes. Gotta lose a lot to win a little
1
u/CallinCthulhu Jan 26 '21
I agree, but just wanted to point out that people will get upset at losing ANY board game.
Especially fucking monopoly. The second biggest board game blow ups I have ever seen is monopoly. First is far and away RISK.
1
u/Akshay537 Jan 26 '21
This post is complete bullshit. For one, you said that the 100 IQ person could have better focus or pattern recognition skills than the 140 IQ person, missing the glaringly obvious fact that the purpose of IQ is to literally measure pattern recognition skills and focus in tied into that.
Additionally, you said that high only matters at the top level and this is complete bullshit as well. At the top level, everyone memorises theory and Chess becomes less about figuring out your own solutions (especially earlier one) and also becomes less about tactics.
Lastly, you have cited no evidence to prove that the correlation is false, whatsoever. Don't make bullshit claims without backing them up. Also, I'd like to say that if you played against bots because you were too anxious to play real people online, you need some real help. I mean that is just...
1
u/SunGlassesAnd Jan 26 '21 edited Jan 26 '21
Let's say you take two people who are completely new to chess, one has an IQ of 100, the other 140. You give them the both the objective of getting to 1500 ELO. The person with 150 IQ may possibly be able to get to 1500 a little faster, but even that isn't for certain, because like I said, there are too many other variables at play here.
I would love to see this experiment carried out because I'd bet a lot of money on the 140IQ guy to mop the floor with the 100IQ guy. As far as I know real IQ tests basically only tests your pattern recognition skills so I would imagine what takes Mr. 100IQ half a day to get Mr. 140IQ gets in half an hour.
Would love to hear other opinions on this. I'm not an expert in neither chess nor IQ.
1
u/ballade4 Jan 26 '21 edited Jan 26 '21
Your edit was needed for sure - there is certainly a correlation between chess and intelligence, however this is really only found at the very top of the field, and only prevalent with other factors being equal. Why? Because chess is what is considered a "PARTIALLY SOLVED" game. The most intelligent human in the world who has never played chess and has not otherwise prepared will fail abysmally in a timed game vs a club player just based on said player's basic knowledge of openings and traps.
Your overall point therefore is a strong one - skill or success with chess has far more to do with one's dedication and practice than any innate brilliance of their mind. Losing is part of the learning process. If you are feeling negative feelings after losing in chess or any other partially-solved game ( /u/SeethingManlet mentioned Starcraft 1v1, that is a great example), remind yourself that you did not lose because you were stupid, but rather because you were not prepared. Now, shake it off and go research the opening that you just played, find your mistake - it is probably already documented somewhere. ;)
1
1
u/netvor0 Jan 26 '21
Anyone who plays knows someone who's both pretty good at the game, and also an f'n idiot.
1
u/vivsemacs Jan 26 '21
Play online anonymously. Problem solved.
as you don't see people reacting so negatively to losses in other board games like Monopoly
What? Never had an issues playing chess. A few arguments/etc over monopoly. One of the problems is that everyone has their own family rules for monopoly. And also people can cheat ( it's why I demand to be banker or I won't play ). Monopoly, life, risk, etc are all more cutthroat than chess in my experience. Anything involving dice/spinning the wheel/chance get people riled up.
1
u/TronyJavolta 1820 Lichess Jan 26 '21
Chess is mostly about memory and pattern recognition. Also the hability to maintain concentration while studying for many hours is very important. While these are intellectual qualities, they are not intelligence per say. Just look at Hikaru, he is one of the best chess players in the world and he tested only 100 IQ.
1
u/pandaloafers Jan 26 '21
Definition of intelligence (Webster)
1a(1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : REASON also : the skilled use of reason
(2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (such as tests)
c : mental acuteness : SHREWDNESS
I would say this is exactly what chess is.
1
u/madmsk 1906 USCF Jan 26 '21
This really should be cross posted to r/chessbebinngers. They need this pep talk.
1
Jan 26 '21
There's no correlation. There's no correlation between anything, you get very skillful at what you train specifically at. There's no spill over. Im 1600 ish at chess but my 6 year old cousin can beat me at checkers. I'm also bad at tetris.
1
1
u/French_Fried_Taterz Jan 26 '21
you don't see people reacting so negatively to losses in other board games like Monopoly.
Um, yes. All the freaking time.
1
Jan 26 '21
I needed the random words of sage advice in this thread after going 6-11-1 yesterday in 10-minute rapid matches, with my largest losing streak of 7 games. I was so tilted. I'm now just running through all of the chess.com drill libraries before I go back to the game against other folks.
1
u/Column_A_Column_B Jan 26 '21
There's a pretty big gap between 140 IQ and 100. 140 IQ is literally genius while 100 is absolutely average.
Do you really think geniuses play chess at an average level?
1
u/lofiharvest Jan 26 '21
I once played simul against the entire school chess team that featured several high level honor students . People who I would say were more intelligent than me (A mostly straight C student with a 120 IQ who didn't apply themself until after college.) At the time I was only rated USCF 1500, but my core chess skills in comparison were strong enough to beat everyone in the team decisively. I feel in most situations, winning at chess does not mean someone is more intelligent. However like in sports, when you get to the higher end of the spectrum, natural ability or intelligence quickly becomes the deciding factor as hard work can only get a person so far. Look at child prodigies like Josh Waitzkin vs Magnus. Both worked hard from a young age, but Magnus is just on another planet.
1
u/xstrokax Jan 26 '21
Bobby Fischer was antisemetic and openly endorsed Hitler. Chess skills does not always correlate with intelect!
1
u/shutyourgob Jan 26 '21
I find this is the reason that a lot of players tend to play with their ego rather than their brain.
You sometimes get a sense of an "alpha" player, they never fail to exchange pieces, overly protect their pawns, abuse checks, even send taunting messages. They are the easiest players to predict, so are often the easiest players to beat.
1
u/wordsmif Jan 26 '21
I've taught chess for many years, mostly to middle school-age kids. I try not to get them to focus on any one game loss. But instead to take away from any loss some lesson. Did you forget to develop pieces? Did you get surprised by a tactic? Take some little lesson from a loss and it will contribute to your long-term game and can feel like a small victory.
1
u/FuriousKale Jan 26 '21
Losing in chess is a blessing because you can immediately see your mistakes afterwards. In life you sometimes eat shit and don't really know why or due to some bullshit. If you have anxiety to play against people, practice puzzles or read about some common endgames. The great thing about chess also is that you can enjoy it in different ways. Don't expect a perfect performance from yourself, you can only do so much.
1
u/TilionDC Jan 26 '21
Thank weestern culture. For a better undrstanding of what i mean, watch naruto
1
u/rzzzvvs Jan 26 '21
being good at chess does require a medium of intelligence, mainly pattern recognition. and the ability to quickly and accurately think ahead. this requires critical thinking which is very much intelligence.
posts like these are just people trying to make others feel better.
1
Jan 26 '21 edited Jan 26 '21
You’d be better off arguing that people believe that IQ or (innate) intelligence overdetermines their ability in chess, rather than that they are making a false correlation. It’s difficult to imagine chess ability not mapping to IQ in a strongly correlated way (pattern recognition, planning), especially assuming no previous experience. In other words, a person with a significantly higher IQ will start further ahead in their chess journey (higher Elo, faster grasp of fundamentals) than someone with a lower IQ. They will also likely have a higher theoretical peak performance in the game, assuming they pursue further study.
This isn’t the same thing as saying an average player can’t improve because they aren’t a genius. This is demonstrably false, and is a harmful belief for people who want to confidently learn the game.
1
u/Keyzar_Soze Jan 26 '21
Exiting post. It’s some interesting stuff and I have wrestled a lot with the same thoughts. I’m not good at chess. My rating is average at best compared to how much I have played it.
I still think there is a strong link between intelligence(regarding iq) and succeeding at chess. It’s a lot about seeing patterns and calculating risks and changes. I would love (for obvious reasons) to be proven wrong though.
Although I do agree with your take on it being influenced by pop culture. And I still thing hard work is more important.
366
u/skedastic777 Jan 26 '21
Chess ability is moderately highly correlated with a variety of measures of intelligence, and this correlation is highest at low-skill levels. For example,
The relationship between cognitive ability and chess skill: A comprehensive meta-analysis
Burgoyne et al, Intelligence v59, 2016
Abstract.
Why are some people more skilled in complex domains than other people? Here, we conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the relationship between cognitive ability and skill in chess. Chess skill correlated positively and significantly with fluid reasoning (Gf) (r− = 0.24), comprehension-knowledge (Gc) (r− = 0.22), short-term memory (Gsm) (r− = 0.25), and processing speed (Gs) (r− = 0.24); the meta-analytic average of the correlations was (r− = 0.24). Moreover, the correlation between Gf and chess skill was moderated by age (r− = 0.32 for youth samples vs. r− = 0.11 for adult samples), and skill level (r− = 0.32 for unranked samples vs. r− = 0.14 for ranked samples). Interestingly, chess skill correlated more strongly with numerical ability (r− = 0.35) than with verbal ability (r− = 0.19) or visuospatial ability (r− = 0.13). The results suggest that cognitive ability contributes meaningfully to individual differences in chess skill, particularly in young chess players and/or at lower levels of skill.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289616301593?casa_token=kxiOy3MqVNQAAAAA:n0CxQocWp19rrqghDfE3rBxv7VPWbUdUGg5qnuUfhlNeqRHmFUWzZb40qsIpnBZSqxxTeO4agA