From what I've read, IBM was hiring crossword players, chess players, anything that seemed to indicate intelligence. I agree it's better to hire for talent (or

From what I've read, IBM was hiring crossword players, chess players, anything that seemed to indicate intelligence. I agree it's better to hire for talent (or aptitude or intelligence) over experience, but sadly in the United States these days that is pretty much illegal. So how much of "hiring for experience" is HR departments not knowing any better, and how much is it their better knowledge of employment law and not wanting to be sued?