Topalov vs Anand Game 12

[frcha]

IQ tests may not be 100% reliable -- smart people can do badly if they are tired, disinterested etc.

But its very difficult for a person of low intelligence to score very highly in them ...

In the current climate - we are now only supposed to disregard IQ tests but also all scholastic achievements ---

IQ tests, other academic achievements all taken together are a very good indicator of intelligence

[michiguel]

IQ tests may not be 100% reliable -- smart people can do badly if they are tired, disinterested etc.

But its very difficult for a person of low intelligence to score very highly in them ...

That is a circular reasoning, because you assume that intelligence means high IQ (tested with puzzles).
They are 100% reliable at predicting how good you are at taking IQ tests.

Individually, they are as relevant as how well someone play an instrument. Or how well you are at learning a new language... Or how powerful your memory is with numbers, or how persuasive you are with people...

In the current climate - we are now only supposed to disregard IQ tests but also all scholastic achievements ---

Current climate? what are you talking about?

You are building a straw man. In fact, I know many good chess players with horrible academic records (and vice versa).

IQ tests, other academic achievements all taken together are a very good indicator of intelligence

Academic performance is not even a guarantee to predict scientific excellence.

Putting a number to intelligence is silly. You cannot characterize with a number something that has so many dimensions.

Miguel

[frcha]

So you think everyone is of equal intelligence ... ok then ...

I get an A in a subject with average study, someone else gets a C with same amount of study and that person is equal ?

IQ tests are for the most part very indicative of intelligence -- most people who test high on them tend to do well in other areas too.

So some dunce performs horrible in academics takes an iq test score just above retarded, drops out of school -- eventually winds up in prison -- plays chess there but is barely above beginner level
Are you saying this person can be a genius ?

I did agree that IQ tests alone, or academics alone will not be able to distinguish between people of close intelligence.
But an IQ test will easily distinguish between above intelligence and below average barring the "dis-interested/tired" cases I mentioned above.

[Terry McCracken]

So you think everyone is of equal intelligence ... ok then ...

I get an A in a subject with average study, someone else gets a C with same amount of study and that person is equal ?

IQ tests are for the most part very indicative of intelligence -- most people who test high on them tend to do well in other areas too.

So some dunce performs horrible in academics takes an iq test score just above retarded, drops out of school -- eventually winds up in prison -- plays chess there but is barely above beginner level
Are you saying this person can be a genius ?

I did agree that IQ tests alone, or academics alone will not be able to distinguish between people of close intelligence.
But an IQ test will easily distinguish between above intelligence and below average barring the "dis-interested/tired" cases I mentioned above.

Don't forget to factor in perceptual handi-caps, mental illness etc. This really isn't too intelligent posting back and forth on the subject of IQ in a thread covering the WCC in CCC.

The thread should be split and moved to CTF.

It's intersting to read the comments and opinions to a point but it has strayed too far off-topic.

[frcha]

yeah ... those should be factored in ...and this discussion continued elsewhere ....it is an interesting topic though.

[Terry McCracken]

yeah ... those should be factored in ...and this discussion continued elsewhere ....it is an interesting topic though.

I agree and more intersting then 95% of CTF content!

[michiguel]

So you think everyone is of equal intelligence ... ok then ...

Where did I say that?

I get an A in a subject with average study, someone else gets a C with same amount of study and that person is equal ?

No, you are better than that person in taking that particular format of exam, in that particular area. Let's say, that was history, multiple choice. Let's change it to physiology, oral examination. You could easily get a C and the other guy an A.

IQ tests are for the most part very indicative of intelligence -- most people who test high on them tend to do well in other areas too.

That is obviously wrong. Many people suck in some areas until they discover what they are good at.

So some dunce performs horrible in academics takes an iq test score just above retarded, drops out of school -- eventually winds up in prison -- plays chess there but is barely above beginner level
Are you saying this person can be a genius ?

I have no idea why you came up with this example, which has no relevance to what I am saying.

Miguel

I did agree that IQ tests alone, or academics alone will not be able to distinguish between people of close intelligence.
But an IQ test will easily distinguish between above intelligence and below average barring the "dis-interested/tired" cases I mentioned above.

[playjunior]

I don't know how do you measure how "smart" a person is. I know many chess-players, professional and not, and some scientists too. Under any reasonable measure of smartness I'd take scientists/academics over chess-players. Many GMs do not have a proper higher education. Some top GMs are very smart.

[Uri Blass]

Interesting match. Anand did not play well (judging from his blunders and missed opportunities) but Topalov played worse. Feel bad for Topalov's last game performance as a player of his caliber should be able to passively defend such positions to a draw (though this is a clear Topalov weakness).

Was also glad there was no toiletgate or other incidents from Danailov.

What are you talking? Anand played well- and so did Topa.
Anand played better.

In chess, there is no single best move. The moves vary as per the level of opponent as well, and sometimes, even the top players blunder, which is natural and "human" in a pressure cooker situation.

I am sure if Anand was to play Rybka, he would play a different type of game. If he played against a 2100 ELO rated player, his moves would be different ( probably more risky? Would he try to complicate the game?)
Against a 2800+ player, he played what he felt was the best.

GM have missed mate in one, so I do not see too much into how Anand or Topa played.

They are 2800 rated players for a reason, and both deserve to be there..
Now to the next biggie
Anand v/s Magnus

Hopefully Magnus is going to lose against Boris Gelfand.

I am clearly against Carlsen and hope Carlsen is going to lose not only against Gelfand after the following interview

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=6187

I do not like chess players who pretend to be relatively non intelligent and lazy players.

Uri

He did not say he is non intelligent. He does not correlate chess skills with intelligence. He did not say he is lazy, he said he "tends" to be. Knowing that, the training is adjusted to his chaotic character. The title has been obviously modified by the journalist, who seemed to ask the typical stupid questions: "What is your IQ?", "How many moves do you calculate ahead?" Gee...

MC is not being a false modest. He says he has a better intuition than Kasparov!

Sound like he is wise, and above all, "knows himself" as the old Greek proverb says.

Miguel

I agree with this. Magnus was giving honest answers, and indeed as an 18-19 years old he should be getting that "you don't work hard enough" from people like his dad or Garry when he was his trainer. When he will be 25 he will indeed work much more and be more disciplined, he knows this and honestly admits it. He also knows that he is an exceptional player, and pointing that he, at 18-19, has a better positional understanding than Garry Kasparov, is an indicator that he knows

Also, while chess players are not dumb, they are probably not extremely smart either, at least most of them. Let's take top-20 scientists in some discipline like biology or physics and compare their IQs to chess players' top-20. Anyone wanna bet on chess-players having higher?

I know many scientists that have a fairly high IQ and are not
very smart. It takes a lot more than IQ to be smart.
Most chess players i know have a above avg.IQ and are also
smart.
The young chess player Magus is very smart.

Often when some people excel in one subject they tend to
be dumb in a lot of other everyday subjects.

Best,
Gerold.

I do not understand what do you mean by being smart.

I can clearly see similiarity between IQ tests and chess.
People play chess well if they can get correct conclusions from their experience.
People can do well in an IQ test if they get correct conclusions from the data that they get in the IQ test questions.

Uri

[Albert Silver]

So some dunce performs horrible in academics takes an iq test score just above retarded, drops out of school -- eventually winds up in prison -- plays chess there but is barely above beginner level
Are you saying this person can be a genius ?

Well, that was a perfect profile of Bobby Fischer, except for the part on chess at the beginner level.