12 ms·

Does playing chess make you smarter? A look at the evidence

69 points by imaliesiera 6y ago

nefitty 6y ago
Apparently, the authors believe chess skill is domain specific. This is opposed to domain generalization, ie claims such as “chess makes you smarter”. Compared to a list of actual domain generalizable skills, it is clear that chess would be the odd one out. For example, some domain generalizable skills include self-control, leadership, time management, etc.
pattusk 6y ago
GM Hikaru Nakamura famously took the Mensa online IQ test and scored a very average 102 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nx3h70GoaoM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nx3h70GoaoM I guess if you accept IQ as a proxy for general cognitive ability, this would suggest the article is right. On the other hand, I still find it very counter intuitive. The ability to plan ahead and the spatial thinking are things I though would transfer well to other domains (arguably both are not things that an IQ test, or the academic tests from the article, would measure well though).
- imaliesiera 6y ago
  I've always thought of chess being more about talent rather than the measure of IQ but it also depends on what one's definition of "smart" really is.
  - pmoriarty 6y ago
    Nah, chess ability is more about playing lots of chess when you're young, and being trained effectively at it at a critical age. If you start playing chess too late in your life, it doesn't matter what innate talents you have, you're never going to be very good.
    - imaliesiera 6y ago
      There is definitely the aspect of talent. I've seen (and arbitrated) players who began at an early age, had the most effective training and became completely average or even stagnated. And I've also interacted with those who heightened their chess skills in a really short time and are among the highest rated players.
      - pmoriarty 6y ago
        Point well taken, but I'm still not convinced that the variability you describe couldn't be accounted for by things like differences in diet (which can greatly affect cognitive ability), or differing circumstances at home (ie. abusive homes, or parents who are neglective vs caring and nurturing) and/or outside the home (like various forms of stress when kids live in dangerous neighborhoods where their peers and adults get assaulted or murdered on a regular basis), parents who push their kids to achieve vs ones who don't care how or what their kids do, etc... Picking out the effects of nature vs nurture in a random chess playing kid is not easy, and I wouldn't be so quick to attribute to innate talent that which could be explained by environment. What is clear, however, and something which you did not seem to deny in your own response, is that playing a lot of chess when you're young is critical to overall chess performance. Without that even "intelligent" and very capable adults who started playing too late are just not going to catch up to capable kids who played a lot of chess early.
        imaliesiera 6y ago
        Yes, I may have assumed that all other variables are held constant, which is usually not the case. Although on your other point, I feel as though your argument sounds more like the 10,000 Hour rule popularised by Malcom Gladwell which I don't 100% agree with.
        pmoriarty 6y ago
        But I don't believe an adult who started playing chess late and plays 10,000 hours will be anywhere near as good as a child who started playing chess early and played 10,000 hours (all other variables held constant). Also, I have no confidence in a 10,000 hour (or any other fixed number of hours) figure. The hours it takes to attain a certain skill in chess will vary from person to person, depending on all sorts of intrinsic and extrinsic factors, including their training regimen, the skill of their teachers, and many of the factors I listed in my earlier post.
- gameswithgo 6y ago
  It isn't assumed that IQ is a proxy go general cognitive ability, it is known that it correlates to some degree with many positive outcomes and abilities. So you can look up how well it correlates with what things, and what it doesn't, and get an idea of what it is predictive of. It isn't anywhere near perfect of course, you can't capture the whole of a person's cognitive ability in one number, but then it is only a "proxy" as you said.
  - weego 6y ago
    Recent research across various specialisations just indicates that being good at mensa tests largely only correlates to being good at mensa tests.
    - david-gpu 6y ago
      Sources, please. Peer-reviewed, if possible. Mensa is an association of moderately high-IQ people, and IQ correlates positively [0] with education and income, among other things. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Social_correlations https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Social...
      - new2628 6y ago
        It correlates with education, income, etc. because it serves basically as a literacy test. (As in, very low IQ means you fail at most measurable things.) Once you condition on IQ>110, the correlation disappears.
        rodonn 6y ago
        Do you have a source for this claim? Here are two survey articles with a lot of evidence about all the different outcomes that are strongly correlated with IQ. https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2015-strenze.pdf https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2015-strenze.pdf https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2007-strenze.pdf https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2007-strenze.pdf Specifically, when looking at people with IQ above 110, it seems like the correlations are still there at least for PhD level science. Most fields have average IQs above 130: http://www.religjournal.com/pdf/ijrr10001.pdf http://www.religjournal.com/pdf/ijrr10001.pdf One thing I didn't know initially is that IQ tests are normalized so the mean is 100 and the standard deviation is 10. If we assume IQ is normally distributed (not exactly true, but roughly accurate), then IQ of 110 puts you in the top 33% of the population. IQ of 130 puts you in the top 0.3%.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- dmonitor 6y ago
  Skills from chess certainly would translate to other fields, but that is true for any activity. The question is whether chess is better than alternative than other things.
- csa 6y ago
  IQ tests can have a lot of type 2 error (scoring lower than one’s theoretical maximum). I wouldn’t put too much weight on a low score for someone who is demonstrably intelligent. Edit: He was doing it while on stream (multitasking) while being watched (probably increased stress), while talking out his answers. For most folks who tried to do the same, the results would be much lower a score taken under typical conditions.
- sukilot 6y ago
  That test is terrible. He bombed the test because he didn't understand the format that the grid is a series of 3 geometric equations (one per row) like A XOR B = C
mellosouls 6y ago
Does playing chess make you smarter? Not really - presumably the title has been miscopied?
- imaliesiera 6y ago
  Corrected. Thanks.
  - mellosouls 6y ago
    cheers - I've since posted the original article link in another comment.
jfkebwjsbx 6y ago
Chess is all about memorizing patterns of many kinds to then recognize them and reapply on the spot. What all great chess players have in common is an amazing memory and the will to think and work on chess all day long (which is more astonishing to me than the memory side).
- pbhjpbhj 6y ago
  >Chess is all about memorizing patterns // Professional chess, you mean; I think that's worth mentioning. Thar description would put me off entirely: whilst it's a game I've enjoyed and taught to several others (I've helped at a school chess club, for example). My memory is terrible - I play by analysing a tree of possible outcomes, or more casually by strategic feel (positional play) which is far less intense and still enjoyable for me.
- dwd 6y ago
  Their dedication and mental stamina (maintaining focus over multiple long games) is a big factor. Their proficiency is like any game that you might practice to extreme: whether speed-cubing or competitive video games. Getting really good (fast), even for simple games like Tetris, Solitaire or Minesweeper is just training your brain to quickly recognise some very specific patterns.
- qxf2 6y ago
  This line of thinking ends up being applied only to chess, while what you are saying is true about most fields that need human expertise and judgement. LeBron James is famous for being able to remember every shot he makes. There are cricketers who can tell you ball-by-ball plays from memory. Roger Federer remembers most of his matches. I have seen technical founders have an uncanny ability to 'remember' their code bases and figure out what to change. Boxers remember fights and sparring sessions in crazy detail. Mathematicians can do the same with papers they read ages ago. I feel that memory and understanding co-evolve. The more you understand something, the better you remember it. The more knowledge you are able to memorize, the better you are able to understand and assimilate and create new ideas. I am commenting because I have seen several smart people give this line about chess being about memory without realizing their professional expertise involves a great deal of memory too. In my experience, this is probably because when kids play chess, there is always this one kid trying to memorize opening and dazzle other people. Ultimately, those kids do not go on to become grandmasters. But yet, the people who lose to them think they lost because they did not memorize an opening.
mellosouls 6y ago
The original article (from 2017) - this one has been lifted without the links which provide references. https://theconversation.com/does-playing-chess-make-you-smarter-a-look-at-the-evidence-76062 https://theconversation.com/does-playing-chess-make-you-smar...
paulpauper 6y ago
Of course it cannot make you smarter. Intelligence is innate. chess is a skill/ability in which ones proficiency may be positively correlated with IQ but in and of itself does not make you smarter. There are no exercises or activities that have been shown to actually rise IQ, unfortunately.
- twelve40 6y ago
  > There activities that have been shown to actually rise IQ, unfortunately what does this sentence mean?
- pbhjpbhj 6y ago
  So you can't learn to focus better and doing so doesn't make you 'smarter'??
  - paulpauper 6y ago
    when you describe someone as being smart, presumably you are refereeing to an attribute that is innate. You can study smarter, but this does not make you smarter but rather more efficient at whatever task you are trying to study. For it to make you smarter would require such techniques to lead to a permanent rise of IQ, which has not been shown to be the case. Psychologists have spent a long time trying to find ways to raise IQ and have failed, according to Dr. Jordan Peterson.
- HALtheWise 6y ago
  (note that of the many possible definitions of intelligence, I'm using IQ here to align with research terminology) There are definitely activities that have been shown to increase IQ, even when attempting to correct for confounders, although not by a dramatic amount. For example, spending an additional year in school increases IQ by 1-5 points, depending on which study you believe. [0] Similarly, having a healthy diet as a child "increases" IQ, although you could equivalently phrase it as malnutrition decreasing IQ. [0] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/brainstorm/201806/how-much-does-education-really-boost-intelligence https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/brainstorm/201806/ho...
pbhjpbhj 6y ago
Slightly OT: >This is why so many parents around the world are keen to get their children playing chess // Did they study this or is it assumed. I taught my kids to play because it's fun and I hoped they'd enjoy playing.
ykevinator 6y ago
Did anyone think it did?
Oricle 6y ago
The IQ test was only ever meant to see if someone was 'lacking' on the cognitive side of things, it was never meant to be a test for how smart people are! It's a terrible test to be judging intelligence from!
Gatsky 6y ago
One question is whether you can learn non-cognitive skills from chess that transfer to other fields eg. tenacity, dealing with loss, the ability to sit and think for long periods of time. I probably had some of the most memorable failures of my sheltered life on the chess board, starting from when I got suckered with a 4 move checkmate in the first week I learned how to play.
- new2628 6y ago
  Some of these skills (I would add: patience, focus, controlling anger, planning a few steps ahead) definitely transfer and are especially valuable to teach to children. But all these apply at the beginning already, for champion-level play the famous Morphy quote applies: "The ability to play chess is the sign of a gentleman. The ability to play chess well is the sign of a wasted life."
- unethical_ban 6y ago
  Risk taking, patience, dealing with loss/intentional sacrifice, and thinking ahead are skills learned in chess - things I only realized several days ago, when picking it up again as a fun mobile game without in-app purchases. I suck at it, but by being less afraid to lose, by realizing you have to sacrifice pieces intentionally to win, I have enjoyed the game more. It is definitely a game I would promote to my future children.
putzdown 6y ago
“The chess community is probably right in criticising the recent study, as it suffers from several methodological shortcomings that probably invalidate the results.” A remarkably self-undermining statement, and at odds with the tone of finality in the rest of the article.
murgindrag 6y ago
I'll take issue with this quote: "This is a problem because research has shown that the excitement and fun induced by novel activities can cause a positive temporal effect on test scores - a placebo effect." This is not a placebo effect. Doing a variety of things does make you smarter. If I learn to play chess, there is a very real effect. From there, you have diminishing returns on investment. If I play chess for 4 hours per day, then it crowds out other, more productive activities. There is a perceived mystique to chess, but it's no different then checkers, contemporary German game geek games, or any of a range of other strategic games. People who play such games a lot will be better players when placed in a novel game (or a real-life situation which requires the same type of strategic thinking). And such games are no different than a broader set of other cognitively-engaging activities, be that logic puzzles, editing Youtube videos, or STEM/maker activities. In most activities, there's an initial surge of growth (so long as I do it for long enough to learn something -- not a one-hour thing I forget after a few months), followed by rapidly diminishing returns, but that's far from universal. In programming, for example, that surge comes when people start to think algorithmically (e.g. in terms of big-O notation), not when learning to order operations. In reading/writing, that comes when people start to really think through audiences, structure of text, etc.
- thinkingemote 6y ago
  The placebo effect is a real thing as in its a good positive thing that is fundamentally real. You do feel better even if the effect is a placebo. Placebo doesn't mean fake, or the subject imagined it up, or pretended. In science you have to control for things to make sure effects can not be just a temporary effect.
  - sitkack 6y ago
    > In science you have to control for things to make sure effects can not be just a temporary effect. The duration doesn't have anything to do with whether something is scientific. It has to do with a statistical correlation of cause and effect.
cy6erlion 6y ago
Playing chess does not make you smarter but studying chess does. You see when you decide to study chess theoretically you come to a point where you want to figure out a system to increase your chances of winning. Chess is very dynamic and complex, uncountable positions can be reached so the system you come up with should consider all of those factors. Chess theorist (not necessarily GM players who mostly memorize patterns) are able/trying to grasp complexity in a systematic way. The skills learned from studying chess can be applied to studying the stock market, distributed systems and other inherently complex systems.
lmilcin 6y ago
I think this is one thing that would be very, very difficult to study right. There is huge selection bias. Playing chess for a long time select people who are very different from general public and from people who just decided to play but will drop it soon. People also play chess in a different way: some people play just to kill time while some play really competitively. I think that regardless of whether chess in itself doesn't do much (I would be surprised if that was so), people who can stick to playing chess competitively are more likely to also exercise their minds in other ways. I also believe that playing chess is one of those exercises that have other beneficial results (like training focus). Other example might be running which I think of the beneficial effects one that people forget to mention is training ones willpower (assuming you do more than just light jog).
bluedino 6y ago
Are any of the well-known grandmasters computer programmers?
- agarv 6y ago
  Mikhail Botvinnik https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Botvinnik https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Botvinnik
- pizzabearman 6y ago
  CEO of deepmind, was one of the best in UK for his age. He played when he was very young
- agarv 6y ago
  Matthew Sadler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Sadler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Sadler
- sireat 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tal_Shaked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tal_Shaked Nice guy, played blitz against him online after he already had left professional chess.
WarOnPrivacy 6y ago
Reading thru the posts here, I realize that what we ought to be searching for isn't what makes us smarter but what makes us more able.
massysett 6y ago
Yes of course it does. So does listening to classical music and having leather-bound Shakespeare volumes in a home library.
TulliusCicero 6y ago
> The same applies to video game training Eh? I read the introduction/summary of the linked article, it appears to say not that there's a failure to transfer, but that it depends on the game: > Enhancing perceptual and attentional skills requires common demands between the action video games and transfer tasks Adam C. Oei and Michael D. Patterson* Division of Psychology, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore Despite increasing evidence that shows action video game play improves perceptual and cognitive skills, the mechanisms of transfer are not well-understood. In line with previous work, we suggest that transfer is dependent upon common demands between the game and transfer task. In the current study, participants played one of four action games with varying speed, visual, and attentional demands for 20 h. We examined whether training enhanced performance for attentional blink, selective attention, attending to multiple items, visual search and auditory detection. Non-gamers who played the game (Modern Combat) with the highest demands showed transfer to tasks of attentional blink and attending to multiple items. The game (MGS Touch) with fewer attentional demands also decreased attentional blink, but to a lesser degree. Other games failed to show transfer, despite having many action game characteristics but at a reduced intensity. The results support the common demands hypothesis. Given that this linkage appears to be misleading, it's hard to take the conclusions of the article seriously; what else are they misleading the reader about?
- istjohn 6y ago
  I wasn't familiar with the term "attentional blink." From Wikipedia: "The Attentional blink (AB) is a phenomenon that reflects temporal limitations in the ability to deploy visual attention. When people must identify two visual stimuli in quick succession, accuracy for the second stimulus is poor if it occurs within 200 to 500 ms of the first."
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  The research is still showing that training with video games is only improving the video game skill, the "common demands." It is not transferring to improved overall cognition. That is in line with what the article says.
ryanthedev 6y ago
I mean. The same could be said about MTG, DND and a lot of other games. Seems obvious to me if you play a game that makes you use your brain, it will help you in the long run. If you just use your brain to consume trash it will become trash. Garbage in, garbage out.
dwheeler 6y ago
Far more important than whether or not chess makes you smarter is... that teaching chess helps kids appreciate thinking ahead. This doesn't make them smarter per se, but it helps them realize that they should be using their smarts. Learning to think ahead about what will likely happen is an incredibly important life skill.
lefstathiou 6y ago
I think playing Chess as kid did wonders for me in life and as an adult. Speaking only for myself, I am a competitive person and generally play to win any board game (as opposed to say golf which I suck at and play for pure leisure) A couple notable things Chess did for me: 1) taught me to think about multi-layered cause and effect (something I use daily in my life as a manager) - ie how to create and execute a strategy 2) boosted my Confidence in making a decision and owning the outcome (something I believe a lot of people struggle with). 3) Taught me to be aware of my state of mind. I lost countless games I “should not have” for endless reasons I felt were preventable. Today I am hyper aware of my state of mind and will deploy fixes to get me to a better state depending on the issue (need more rest, stop the distractions, white board it out) 4) inspired me. Nothing like playing against a great player and seeing the beauty of a strategy unfold all the while your pieces and strategy slowly disintegrate into a blazing flame of glory. I saw the possibilities of what I could accomplish with study and practice 5) I could add a lot to this list... Now did any of the above improve my GPA or SAT scores? Not directly but I do think it’s undoubtedly helped my career. No question in my mind that I am teaching my son chess just like my father did for me.
- jooize 6y ago
  > white board it out What is that?
  - trhaynes 6y ago
    Draw on a whiteboard
  - lefstathiou 6y ago
    Flush out the idea and strategy on a whiteboard (typically because I could not map it all out / maintain the complexity in my mind).
- pmoriarty 6y ago
  One of the most valuable things chess can teach is patience.
- econcon 6y ago
asimpletune 6y ago
I think part of the reason why we don’t see chess having a predictive impact is because the ability to generalize a specific skill must also be acquired for that to happen. Basically, being able to extrapolate a narrow skill to more general problems, is in its own right a skill.
abhayhegde 6y ago
I have been playing chess since 10. Whether smarter or not, it has made me cautious and planning way ahead for many of my endeavors. Thinking through each move, weighing every chance and pouncing on the slightest opportunity to win it all has certainly made me feel a lot more confident in myself. It is an addiction.
saucymew 6y ago
Chess was my FIRST introduction to "money hustle" via tournaments, playing pick-up park games, against my dad, etc. Owning the results and preparing for the next game taught me a life outlook: Win or lose, there's always a new game waiting if you still want to play.
sabujp 6y ago
what about playing go?
sam_lowry_ 6y ago
Looking at Kasparov, not really. Bet seriously, I have seen famous programmers in person. And famous sportsmen. A disproportionate number of them are dull IRL. So, do play chess. Just do not build your life around. And do let your parents lock you up to reach world-best results.
mrfusion 6y ago
I’ve been doing well just kind of obliterating all the pawns early on. It seems to open up the board a lot and presents opportunities. Is there a name for that strategy or maybe it will backfire against better players.
- metroholografix 6y ago
  The worse you are the chess, the more you want to keep pawns on the board since they tactically restrict the game. The more pawns that go off, the more the game opens up into sharp tactical lines which give experienced players an enormous advantage. All of that leads into my recommendation for getting good at Chess as a beginner: Don't waste any time with opening preparation. Pick two openings you like (one for white, one for black) and stick with them. All your time and effort should go into tactics.
  - jkulubya 6y ago
    Interesting. n=1 and I’m pretty rubbish at it (just started a few weeks ago), but when playing fellow beginners I find it easier to reduce the total number of pieces on the board (makes it easier to think)
  - newen 6y ago
    This is just false. Tons and tons of closed positions played by grandmasters.
    - metroholografix 6y ago
      Grandmasters spend enormous amounts of time doing opening preparation, in some cases creating strategies for and memorizing entire opening lines. Is that going to help bad/beginner/average players? Not at all, in many ways they're not even playing the same game. Jumping to conclusions based on what Grandmasters do is therefore apt to mislead.
      - newen 6y ago
        Granted, but saying worse players prefer closed positions is just false. Take the French defense, for example. Advance variation of the French is much harder for beginners compared to the exchange variation. And you can say the same for many other positions.

69 points by imaliesiera 6y ago

Apparently, the authors believe chess skill is domain specific. This is opposed to domain generalization, ie claims such as “chess makes you smarter”. Compared to a list of actual domain generalizable skills, it is clear that chess would be the odd one out. For example, some domain generalizable skills include self-control, leadership, time management, etc.

pattusk 6y ago

GM Hikaru Nakamura famously took the Mensa online IQ test and scored a very average 102 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nx3h70GoaoM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nx3h70GoaoM I guess if you accept IQ as a proxy for general cognitive ability, this would suggest the article is right. On the other hand, I still find it very counter intuitive. The ability to plan ahead and the spatial thinking are things I though would transfer well to other domains (arguably both are not things that an IQ test, or the academic tests from the article, would measure well though).

imaliesiera 6y ago
I've always thought of chess being more about talent rather than the measure of IQ but it also depends on what one's definition of "smart" really is.
- pmoriarty 6y ago
  Nah, chess ability is more about playing lots of chess when you're young, and being trained effectively at it at a critical age. If you start playing chess too late in your life, it doesn't matter what innate talents you have, you're never going to be very good.
  - imaliesiera 6y ago
    There is definitely the aspect of talent. I've seen (and arbitrated) players who began at an early age, had the most effective training and became completely average or even stagnated. And I've also interacted with those who heightened their chess skills in a really short time and are among the highest rated players.
    - pmoriarty 6y ago
      Point well taken, but I'm still not convinced that the variability you describe couldn't be accounted for by things like differences in diet (which can greatly affect cognitive ability), or differing circumstances at home (ie. abusive homes, or parents who are neglective vs caring and nurturing) and/or outside the home (like various forms of stress when kids live in dangerous neighborhoods where their peers and adults get assaulted or murdered on a regular basis), parents who push their kids to achieve vs ones who don't care how or what their kids do, etc... Picking out the effects of nature vs nurture in a random chess playing kid is not easy, and I wouldn't be so quick to attribute to innate talent that which could be explained by environment. What is clear, however, and something which you did not seem to deny in your own response, is that playing a lot of chess when you're young is critical to overall chess performance. Without that even "intelligent" and very capable adults who started playing too late are just not going to catch up to capable kids who played a lot of chess early.
      - imaliesiera 6y ago
        Yes, I may have assumed that all other variables are held constant, which is usually not the case. Although on your other point, I feel as though your argument sounds more like the 10,000 Hour rule popularised by Malcom Gladwell which I don't 100% agree with.
        pmoriarty 6y ago
        But I don't believe an adult who started playing chess late and plays 10,000 hours will be anywhere near as good as a child who started playing chess early and played 10,000 hours (all other variables held constant). Also, I have no confidence in a 10,000 hour (or any other fixed number of hours) figure. The hours it takes to attain a certain skill in chess will vary from person to person, depending on all sorts of intrinsic and extrinsic factors, including their training regimen, the skill of their teachers, and many of the factors I listed in my earlier post.
gameswithgo 6y ago
It isn't assumed that IQ is a proxy go general cognitive ability, it is known that it correlates to some degree with many positive outcomes and abilities. So you can look up how well it correlates with what things, and what it doesn't, and get an idea of what it is predictive of. It isn't anywhere near perfect of course, you can't capture the whole of a person's cognitive ability in one number, but then it is only a "proxy" as you said.
- weego 6y ago
  Recent research across various specialisations just indicates that being good at mensa tests largely only correlates to being good at mensa tests.
  - david-gpu 6y ago
    Sources, please. Peer-reviewed, if possible. Mensa is an association of moderately high-IQ people, and IQ correlates positively [0] with education and income, among other things. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Social_correlations https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Social...
    - new2628 6y ago
      It correlates with education, income, etc. because it serves basically as a literacy test. (As in, very low IQ means you fail at most measurable things.) Once you condition on IQ>110, the correlation disappears.
      - rodonn 6y ago
        Do you have a source for this claim? Here are two survey articles with a lot of evidence about all the different outcomes that are strongly correlated with IQ. https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2015-strenze.pdf https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2015-strenze.pdf https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2007-strenze.pdf https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2007-strenze.pdf Specifically, when looking at people with IQ above 110, it seems like the correlations are still there at least for PhD level science. Most fields have average IQs above 130: http://www.religjournal.com/pdf/ijrr10001.pdf http://www.religjournal.com/pdf/ijrr10001.pdf One thing I didn't know initially is that IQ tests are normalized so the mean is 100 and the standard deviation is 10. If we assume IQ is normally distributed (not exactly true, but roughly accurate), then IQ of 110 puts you in the top 33% of the population. IQ of 130 puts you in the top 0.3%.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dmonitor 6y ago
Skills from chess certainly would translate to other fields, but that is true for any activity. The question is whether chess is better than alternative than other things.
csa 6y ago
IQ tests can have a lot of type 2 error (scoring lower than one’s theoretical maximum). I wouldn’t put too much weight on a low score for someone who is demonstrably intelligent. Edit: He was doing it while on stream (multitasking) while being watched (probably increased stress), while talking out his answers. For most folks who tried to do the same, the results would be much lower a score taken under typical conditions.
sukilot 6y ago
That test is terrible. He bombed the test because he didn't understand the format that the grid is a series of 3 geometric equations (one per row) like A XOR B = C

mellosouls 6y ago

Does playing chess make you smarter? Not really - presumably the title has been miscopied?

imaliesiera 6y ago
Corrected. Thanks.
- mellosouls 6y ago
  cheers - I've since posted the original article link in another comment.

jfkebwjsbx 6y ago

Chess is all about memorizing patterns of many kinds to then recognize them and reapply on the spot. What all great chess players have in common is an amazing memory and the will to think and work on chess all day long (which is more astonishing to me than the memory side).

pbhjpbhj 6y ago
>Chess is all about memorizing patterns // Professional chess, you mean; I think that's worth mentioning. Thar description would put me off entirely: whilst it's a game I've enjoyed and taught to several others (I've helped at a school chess club, for example). My memory is terrible - I play by analysing a tree of possible outcomes, or more casually by strategic feel (positional play) which is far less intense and still enjoyable for me.
dwd 6y ago
Their dedication and mental stamina (maintaining focus over multiple long games) is a big factor. Their proficiency is like any game that you might practice to extreme: whether speed-cubing or competitive video games. Getting really good (fast), even for simple games like Tetris, Solitaire or Minesweeper is just training your brain to quickly recognise some very specific patterns.
qxf2 6y ago
This line of thinking ends up being applied only to chess, while what you are saying is true about most fields that need human expertise and judgement. LeBron James is famous for being able to remember every shot he makes. There are cricketers who can tell you ball-by-ball plays from memory. Roger Federer remembers most of his matches. I have seen technical founders have an uncanny ability to 'remember' their code bases and figure out what to change. Boxers remember fights and sparring sessions in crazy detail. Mathematicians can do the same with papers they read ages ago. I feel that memory and understanding co-evolve. The more you understand something, the better you remember it. The more knowledge you are able to memorize, the better you are able to understand and assimilate and create new ideas. I am commenting because I have seen several smart people give this line about chess being about memory without realizing their professional expertise involves a great deal of memory too. In my experience, this is probably because when kids play chess, there is always this one kid trying to memorize opening and dazzle other people. Ultimately, those kids do not go on to become grandmasters. But yet, the people who lose to them think they lost because they did not memorize an opening.

mellosouls 6y ago

The original article (from 2017) - this one has been lifted without the links which provide references. https://theconversation.com/does-playing-chess-make-you-smarter-a-look-at-the-evidence-76062 https://theconversation.com/does-playing-chess-make-you-smar...

paulpauper 6y ago

Of course it cannot make you smarter. Intelligence is innate. chess is a skill/ability in which ones proficiency may be positively correlated with IQ but in and of itself does not make you smarter. There are no exercises or activities that have been shown to actually rise IQ, unfortunately.

twelve40 6y ago
> There activities that have been shown to actually rise IQ, unfortunately what does this sentence mean?
pbhjpbhj 6y ago
So you can't learn to focus better and doing so doesn't make you 'smarter'??
- paulpauper 6y ago
  when you describe someone as being smart, presumably you are refereeing to an attribute that is innate. You can study smarter, but this does not make you smarter but rather more efficient at whatever task you are trying to study. For it to make you smarter would require such techniques to lead to a permanent rise of IQ, which has not been shown to be the case. Psychologists have spent a long time trying to find ways to raise IQ and have failed, according to Dr. Jordan Peterson.
HALtheWise 6y ago
(note that of the many possible definitions of intelligence, I'm using IQ here to align with research terminology) There are definitely activities that have been shown to increase IQ, even when attempting to correct for confounders, although not by a dramatic amount. For example, spending an additional year in school increases IQ by 1-5 points, depending on which study you believe. [0] Similarly, having a healthy diet as a child "increases" IQ, although you could equivalently phrase it as malnutrition decreasing IQ. [0] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/brainstorm/201806/how-much-does-education-really-boost-intelligence https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/brainstorm/201806/ho...

pbhjpbhj 6y ago

Slightly OT: >This is why so many parents around the world are keen to get their children playing chess // Did they study this or is it assumed. I taught my kids to play because it's fun and I hoped they'd enjoy playing.

ykevinator 6y ago

Did anyone think it did?

Oricle 6y ago

The IQ test was only ever meant to see if someone was 'lacking' on the cognitive side of things, it was never meant to be a test for how smart people are! It's a terrible test to be judging intelligence from!

Gatsky 6y ago

One question is whether you can learn non-cognitive skills from chess that transfer to other fields eg. tenacity, dealing with loss, the ability to sit and think for long periods of time. I probably had some of the most memorable failures of my sheltered life on the chess board, starting from when I got suckered with a 4 move checkmate in the first week I learned how to play.

new2628 6y ago
Some of these skills (I would add: patience, focus, controlling anger, planning a few steps ahead) definitely transfer and are especially valuable to teach to children. But all these apply at the beginning already, for champion-level play the famous Morphy quote applies: "The ability to play chess is the sign of a gentleman. The ability to play chess well is the sign of a wasted life."
unethical_ban 6y ago
Risk taking, patience, dealing with loss/intentional sacrifice, and thinking ahead are skills learned in chess - things I only realized several days ago, when picking it up again as a fun mobile game without in-app purchases. I suck at it, but by being less afraid to lose, by realizing you have to sacrifice pieces intentionally to win, I have enjoyed the game more. It is definitely a game I would promote to my future children.

putzdown 6y ago

“The chess community is probably right in criticising the recent study, as it suffers from several methodological shortcomings that probably invalidate the results.” A remarkably self-undermining statement, and at odds with the tone of finality in the rest of the article.

murgindrag 6y ago

I'll take issue with this quote: "This is a problem because research has shown that the excitement and fun induced by novel activities can cause a positive temporal effect on test scores - a placebo effect." This is not a placebo effect. Doing a variety of things does make you smarter. If I learn to play chess, there is a very real effect. From there, you have diminishing returns on investment. If I play chess for 4 hours per day, then it crowds out other, more productive activities. There is a perceived mystique to chess, but it's no different then checkers, contemporary German game geek games, or any of a range of other strategic games. People who play such games a lot will be better players when placed in a novel game (or a real-life situation which requires the same type of strategic thinking). And such games are no different than a broader set of other cognitively-engaging activities, be that logic puzzles, editing Youtube videos, or STEM/maker activities. In most activities, there's an initial surge of growth (so long as I do it for long enough to learn something -- not a one-hour thing I forget after a few months), followed by rapidly diminishing returns, but that's far from universal. In programming, for example, that surge comes when people start to think algorithmically (e.g. in terms of big-O notation), not when learning to order operations. In reading/writing, that comes when people start to really think through audiences, structure of text, etc.

thinkingemote 6y ago
The placebo effect is a real thing as in its a good positive thing that is fundamentally real. You do feel better even if the effect is a placebo. Placebo doesn't mean fake, or the subject imagined it up, or pretended. In science you have to control for things to make sure effects can not be just a temporary effect.
- sitkack 6y ago
  > In science you have to control for things to make sure effects can not be just a temporary effect. The duration doesn't have anything to do with whether something is scientific. It has to do with a statistical correlation of cause and effect.

cy6erlion 6y ago

Playing chess does not make you smarter but studying chess does. You see when you decide to study chess theoretically you come to a point where you want to figure out a system to increase your chances of winning. Chess is very dynamic and complex, uncountable positions can be reached so the system you come up with should consider all of those factors. Chess theorist (not necessarily GM players who mostly memorize patterns) are able/trying to grasp complexity in a systematic way. The skills learned from studying chess can be applied to studying the stock market, distributed systems and other inherently complex systems.

lmilcin 6y ago

I think this is one thing that would be very, very difficult to study right. There is huge selection bias. Playing chess for a long time select people who are very different from general public and from people who just decided to play but will drop it soon. People also play chess in a different way: some people play just to kill time while some play really competitively. I think that regardless of whether chess in itself doesn't do much (I would be surprised if that was so), people who can stick to playing chess competitively are more likely to also exercise their minds in other ways. I also believe that playing chess is one of those exercises that have other beneficial results (like training focus). Other example might be running which I think of the beneficial effects one that people forget to mention is training ones willpower (assuming you do more than just light jog).

bluedino 6y ago

Are any of the well-known grandmasters computer programmers?

agarv 6y ago
Mikhail Botvinnik https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Botvinnik https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Botvinnik
pizzabearman 6y ago
CEO of deepmind, was one of the best in UK for his age. He played when he was very young
agarv 6y ago
Matthew Sadler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Sadler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Sadler
sireat 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tal_Shaked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tal_Shaked Nice guy, played blitz against him online after he already had left professional chess.

WarOnPrivacy 6y ago

Reading thru the posts here, I realize that what we ought to be searching for isn't what makes us smarter but what makes us more able.

massysett 6y ago

Yes of course it does. So does listening to classical music and having leather-bound Shakespeare volumes in a home library.

TulliusCicero 6y ago

> The same applies to video game training Eh? I read the introduction/summary of the linked article, it appears to say not that there's a failure to transfer, but that it depends on the game: > Enhancing perceptual and attentional skills requires common demands between the action video games and transfer tasks Adam C. Oei and Michael D. Patterson* Division of Psychology, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore Despite increasing evidence that shows action video game play improves perceptual and cognitive skills, the mechanisms of transfer are not well-understood. In line with previous work, we suggest that transfer is dependent upon common demands between the game and transfer task. In the current study, participants played one of four action games with varying speed, visual, and attentional demands for 20 h. We examined whether training enhanced performance for attentional blink, selective attention, attending to multiple items, visual search and auditory detection. Non-gamers who played the game (Modern Combat) with the highest demands showed transfer to tasks of attentional blink and attending to multiple items. The game (MGS Touch) with fewer attentional demands also decreased attentional blink, but to a lesser degree. Other games failed to show transfer, despite having many action game characteristics but at a reduced intensity. The results support the common demands hypothesis. Given that this linkage appears to be misleading, it's hard to take the conclusions of the article seriously; what else are they misleading the reader about?

istjohn 6y ago
I wasn't familiar with the term "attentional blink." From Wikipedia: "The Attentional blink (AB) is a phenomenon that reflects temporal limitations in the ability to deploy visual attention. When people must identify two visual stimuli in quick succession, accuracy for the second stimulus is poor if it occurs within 200 to 500 ms of the first."
boomboomsubban 6y ago
The research is still showing that training with video games is only improving the video game skill, the "common demands." It is not transferring to improved overall cognition. That is in line with what the article says.

ryanthedev 6y ago

I mean. The same could be said about MTG, DND and a lot of other games. Seems obvious to me if you play a game that makes you use your brain, it will help you in the long run. If you just use your brain to consume trash it will become trash. Garbage in, garbage out.

dwheeler 6y ago

Far more important than whether or not chess makes you smarter is... that teaching chess helps kids appreciate thinking ahead. This doesn't make them smarter per se, but it helps them realize that they should be using their smarts. Learning to think ahead about what will likely happen is an incredibly important life skill.

lefstathiou 6y ago

I think playing Chess as kid did wonders for me in life and as an adult. Speaking only for myself, I am a competitive person and generally play to win any board game (as opposed to say golf which I suck at and play for pure leisure) A couple notable things Chess did for me: 1) taught me to think about multi-layered cause and effect (something I use daily in my life as a manager) - ie how to create and execute a strategy 2) boosted my Confidence in making a decision and owning the outcome (something I believe a lot of people struggle with). 3) Taught me to be aware of my state of mind. I lost countless games I “should not have” for endless reasons I felt were preventable. Today I am hyper aware of my state of mind and will deploy fixes to get me to a better state depending on the issue (need more rest, stop the distractions, white board it out) 4) inspired me. Nothing like playing against a great player and seeing the beauty of a strategy unfold all the while your pieces and strategy slowly disintegrate into a blazing flame of glory. I saw the possibilities of what I could accomplish with study and practice 5) I could add a lot to this list... Now did any of the above improve my GPA or SAT scores? Not directly but I do think it’s undoubtedly helped my career. No question in my mind that I am teaching my son chess just like my father did for me.

jooize 6y ago
> white board it out What is that?
- trhaynes 6y ago
  Draw on a whiteboard
- lefstathiou 6y ago
  Flush out the idea and strategy on a whiteboard (typically because I could not map it all out / maintain the complexity in my mind).
pmoriarty 6y ago
One of the most valuable things chess can teach is patience.
econcon 6y ago

asimpletune 6y ago

I think part of the reason why we don’t see chess having a predictive impact is because the ability to generalize a specific skill must also be acquired for that to happen. Basically, being able to extrapolate a narrow skill to more general problems, is in its own right a skill.

abhayhegde 6y ago

I have been playing chess since 10. Whether smarter or not, it has made me cautious and planning way ahead for many of my endeavors. Thinking through each move, weighing every chance and pouncing on the slightest opportunity to win it all has certainly made me feel a lot more confident in myself. It is an addiction.

saucymew 6y ago

Chess was my FIRST introduction to "money hustle" via tournaments, playing pick-up park games, against my dad, etc. Owning the results and preparing for the next game taught me a life outlook: Win or lose, there's always a new game waiting if you still want to play.

sabujp 6y ago

what about playing go?

sam_lowry_ 6y ago

Looking at Kasparov, not really. Bet seriously, I have seen famous programmers in person. And famous sportsmen. A disproportionate number of them are dull IRL. So, do play chess. Just do not build your life around. And do let your parents lock you up to reach world-best results.

mrfusion 6y ago

I’ve been doing well just kind of obliterating all the pawns early on. It seems to open up the board a lot and presents opportunities. Is there a name for that strategy or maybe it will backfire against better players.

metroholografix 6y ago
The worse you are the chess, the more you want to keep pawns on the board since they tactically restrict the game. The more pawns that go off, the more the game opens up into sharp tactical lines which give experienced players an enormous advantage. All of that leads into my recommendation for getting good at Chess as a beginner: Don't waste any time with opening preparation. Pick two openings you like (one for white, one for black) and stick with them. All your time and effort should go into tactics.
- jkulubya 6y ago
  Interesting. n=1 and I’m pretty rubbish at it (just started a few weeks ago), but when playing fellow beginners I find it easier to reduce the total number of pieces on the board (makes it easier to think)
- newen 6y ago
  This is just false. Tons and tons of closed positions played by grandmasters.
  - metroholografix 6y ago
    Grandmasters spend enormous amounts of time doing opening preparation, in some cases creating strategies for and memorizing entire opening lines. Is that going to help bad/beginner/average players? Not at all, in many ways they're not even playing the same game. Jumping to conclusions based on what Grandmasters do is therefore apt to mislead.
    - newen 6y ago
      Granted, but saying worse players prefer closed positions is just false. Take the French defense, for example. Advance variation of the French is much harder for beginners compared to the exchange variation. And you can say the same for many other positions.