6 ms·

> I think that almost everyone should be able to achieve a solid 2000 elo rating, with enough dedication over the years I think you are massively underestimati

> I think that almost everyone should be able to achieve a solid 2000 elo rating, with enough dedication over the years I think you are massively underestimating the natural range of human intelligence. I don't think the average IQ 100 individual could ever reach an ELO of 2000 regardless of how much they practice, and half the population has IQs of less than 100.

gautamcgoel 6y ago
Don't you mean overestimating?
- mroset 6y ago
  I think the parent comment does mean underestimating the _range_, but overestimating the IQ, as you point out.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
paulpauper 6y ago
Garry Kasparov is smart but we're not talking Feynman levels of intelligence The correlation between chess ability and IQ is positive but not that high. not as high as it is with physics and math abiltiy.
- globular-toast 6y ago
  That's because physics and maths ability is included in the IQ test. If you included lots of chess or chess-like problems than Kasparov would magically rank a lot higher.
- mpol 6y ago
  Chess is mainly about memory and recognizing patterns and implementing those patterns at that exact moment at the chessboard. So I would definitely think there is correlation between chess and memory. There was a really good documentary about memory called How Does Your Memory Work. Highly recommended, you get to see a glimpse of the workings of Susan Polgar's brain. I might also confuse it with My Brilliant Brain from National Geographic :) I remember seeing a live post-mortem analysis by Anish Giri. It was just astonishing how fast he can see combinations, yet also how deep those combinations are. And then on top of that throw in a sentence like "Oh, it is not new, it was played in 2006 as well, in that game between him and him". So really, fast thinking, slow thinking, and picking deep into your memory, all at once, seemingly without any effort. That is 2760 ELO for you :)
- mgamache 6y ago
  Funny that you bring up Feynman, he stated he only had an IQ of 125. High, but probably lower than Kasparov.
globular-toast 6y ago
Once again HN readers revealing how sheltered they are in their little bubbles. If you pay attention to it you'll see how far removed from reality a lot of the readers here are. It's quite worrying really.
- ZephyrBlu 6y ago
  Can you elaborate instead of just dropping a sharp comment? I'm curious about what you mean.
  - globular-toast 6y ago
    Sure. I see it almost every time I visit HN. I've encountered many people with a slightly warped sense of reality but none more so that on this website. There are two broad patterns I often see: The first is where they think everyone on the planet is somewhat like them. You'll see comments like "everyone should be able to program" or even "everyone should program". I've even seen people claim that ability to program should be considered a fundamental life skill. In general it's hugely overestimating not only the IQ but the interests and mindset of the general public. The comment I replied to here is an example of this type. The other one is where their perception of a baseline standard of living is far higher than that of average people even within their own country. It's usually that they think some luxury item is absolutely essential despite people around the world living healthy and happy lives without it. They seem to be completely unaware that these other people exist. My theory is that these people have been fed through schools in affluent areas, through university and straight into ridiculously high paying jobs and have simply never had (and probably never will have) any contact with people from other walks of life.
    - ZephyrBlu 6y ago
      I agree with what you're saying but it seems like you might have replied to the wrong comment. The parent comment is making the same point as you about IQ: "I don't think the average IQ 100 individual could ever reach an ELO of 2000 regardless of how much they practice, and half the population has IQs of less than 100."
tutfbhuf 6y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23888814 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23888814 > GM Hikaru Nakamura famously took the Mensa online IQ test and scored a very average 102 His elo peak rating is 2816. Just one example for an extraordinary strong player with average IQ (there are many other examples). I don't think that a high IQ is required to become a decent chess player (like 2000). It may help though.
- mantap 6y ago
  If anything, top level chess players are likely to have missed some non-chess education when they were young due to being a chess prodigy, which would contribute to a lower IQ in adulthood.
  - edanm 6y ago
    I'm pretty sure IQ tests aren't supposed to work that way. At least theoretically, they're measuring intelligence, not education.
    - gameswithgo 6y ago
      that is the goal but at the extremes i imagine it fails. imagine you are a chess prodigy that was homeschooled and never had a sit down exam before. don’t know if hikaru fits the description.
    - IggleSniggle 6y ago
      1) They are a measure of a very specific kind of intelligence: the kind of intelligence required to score high on IQ tests. I score pretty high on IQ tests but I can say without a shadow of a doubt that my intelligence in other areas is, at least as it appears to me, below average. 2) intelligence does have some elasticity. When you think of intelligence has a culmination of pathways/heuristics/low-level-techniques, it’s easy to see how many pathways are self-reinforcing and not easily taught or measured. You can be predisposed to a particular kind of intelligence, and not everything is attainable by everyone, but what we call intelligence is close to what we call talent: seems like an innate quality, but actually reflects long-term hard practice with countless hours dedicated.

gautamcgoel 6y ago

Don't you mean overestimating?

mroset 6y ago
I think the parent comment does mean underestimating the _range_, but overestimating the IQ, as you point out.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

paulpauper 6y ago

Garry Kasparov is smart but we're not talking Feynman levels of intelligence The correlation between chess ability and IQ is positive but not that high. not as high as it is with physics and math abiltiy.

globular-toast 6y ago
That's because physics and maths ability is included in the IQ test. If you included lots of chess or chess-like problems than Kasparov would magically rank a lot higher.
mpol 6y ago
Chess is mainly about memory and recognizing patterns and implementing those patterns at that exact moment at the chessboard. So I would definitely think there is correlation between chess and memory. There was a really good documentary about memory called How Does Your Memory Work. Highly recommended, you get to see a glimpse of the workings of Susan Polgar's brain. I might also confuse it with My Brilliant Brain from National Geographic :) I remember seeing a live post-mortem analysis by Anish Giri. It was just astonishing how fast he can see combinations, yet also how deep those combinations are. And then on top of that throw in a sentence like "Oh, it is not new, it was played in 2006 as well, in that game between him and him". So really, fast thinking, slow thinking, and picking deep into your memory, all at once, seemingly without any effort. That is 2760 ELO for you :)
mgamache 6y ago
Funny that you bring up Feynman, he stated he only had an IQ of 125. High, but probably lower than Kasparov.

globular-toast 6y ago

Once again HN readers revealing how sheltered they are in their little bubbles. If you pay attention to it you'll see how far removed from reality a lot of the readers here are. It's quite worrying really.

ZephyrBlu 6y ago
Can you elaborate instead of just dropping a sharp comment? I'm curious about what you mean.
- globular-toast 6y ago
  Sure. I see it almost every time I visit HN. I've encountered many people with a slightly warped sense of reality but none more so that on this website. There are two broad patterns I often see: The first is where they think everyone on the planet is somewhat like them. You'll see comments like "everyone should be able to program" or even "everyone should program". I've even seen people claim that ability to program should be considered a fundamental life skill. In general it's hugely overestimating not only the IQ but the interests and mindset of the general public. The comment I replied to here is an example of this type. The other one is where their perception of a baseline standard of living is far higher than that of average people even within their own country. It's usually that they think some luxury item is absolutely essential despite people around the world living healthy and happy lives without it. They seem to be completely unaware that these other people exist. My theory is that these people have been fed through schools in affluent areas, through university and straight into ridiculously high paying jobs and have simply never had (and probably never will have) any contact with people from other walks of life.
  - ZephyrBlu 6y ago
    I agree with what you're saying but it seems like you might have replied to the wrong comment. The parent comment is making the same point as you about IQ: "I don't think the average IQ 100 individual could ever reach an ELO of 2000 regardless of how much they practice, and half the population has IQs of less than 100."

tutfbhuf 6y ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23888814 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23888814 > GM Hikaru Nakamura famously took the Mensa online IQ test and scored a very average 102 His elo peak rating is 2816. Just one example for an extraordinary strong player with average IQ (there are many other examples). I don't think that a high IQ is required to become a decent chess player (like 2000). It may help though.

mantap 6y ago
If anything, top level chess players are likely to have missed some non-chess education when they were young due to being a chess prodigy, which would contribute to a lower IQ in adulthood.
- edanm 6y ago
  I'm pretty sure IQ tests aren't supposed to work that way. At least theoretically, they're measuring intelligence, not education.
  - gameswithgo 6y ago
    that is the goal but at the extremes i imagine it fails. imagine you are a chess prodigy that was homeschooled and never had a sit down exam before. don’t know if hikaru fits the description.
  - IggleSniggle 6y ago
    1) They are a measure of a very specific kind of intelligence: the kind of intelligence required to score high on IQ tests. I score pretty high on IQ tests but I can say without a shadow of a doubt that my intelligence in other areas is, at least as it appears to me, below average. 2) intelligence does have some elasticity. When you think of intelligence has a culmination of pathways/heuristics/low-level-techniques, it’s easy to see how many pathways are self-reinforcing and not easily taught or measured. You can be predisposed to a particular kind of intelligence, and not everything is attainable by everyone, but what we call intelligence is close to what we call talent: seems like an innate quality, but actually reflects long-term hard practice with countless hours dedicated.