It is sometimes reported that in the first millennium, Indian princely army commanders were chosen or trained by playing chaturaj (a remarkably similar precursor to modern chess). I suspect that is apocryphal but certainly chess requires a number of skills (pattern recognition, logic) that form part of IQ tests.
When I was a chess team captain, I generally found that the best players were also high academic achievers and the weakest players were not. You certainly have to correct for things like experience; a person of average intelligence who’s played chess for a few hours will almost certainly beat a genius playing for the first time.
Not really, those pieces may be “covered” by another opponent piece, meaning you can’t take the piece that has the king in check. You can’t move a king into check, and there are lots of ways a king can be put in check.
There’s few simple rules in chess, but the position of the pieces on the board dictate whether you’re in safe.
FWIW, a disproportionate number of chess champions have been mathematicians (e.g. Lasker, Steinitz, Euwe, etc.). In my opinion, that is a sign of a correlation between chess ability and ‘high intelligence’.
He’s been sponsoring chess club for about 25 years now. He’s drawing his conclusions based on the students who’ve been in the club and the students who just drop by to play him, I’d guess. When he told me who some of his better players have been over the years, I saw how he could reach that conclusion.
It’s also good if the move that checks the king gives you some other advantage: Since your opponent is forced to use his move to respond to your check, you get that other advantage essentially for free. The simplest example of this is a fork. Suppose, for instance, that your king and your queen’s-side rook are both in their starting positions. There’s a spot on the board where a knight can threaten both of those positions at once. If you move your knight there, and your opponent can’t capture that knight right away, he has to spend his move on escaping with his king. Which means that he’s left his rook still vulnerable, and your knight can then capture his rook. Effectively, the two places the knight can attack are two tines of a fork, and you’re stabbing your opponent with both at once. In principle, rooks, bishops, and queens can also fork, but it’s usually easiest with a knight. And a fork also need not necessarily involve the king, just any two valuable pieces, but if it involves the king, the opponent doesn’t have any choice about which one to give up.
Of course, forks themselves are relatively rare in high-end play, since good players can see them coming and prevent them in advance. But the principle still applies of checking while gaining some other advantage. Oftentimes, the advantage is just something called “developing” a piece, which means moving it into a position (usually near the center of the board) where it has a lot of options. It might not directly threaten any particular other piece, but it has a lot of potential to respond to various moves your opponent might make.
Hi, I’m a retired chess coach. As a player, my highest ELO rating was 2390. (I’d be interested to hear how that compares to your teacher’s rating. )
Firstly this teacher is obviously drawing a conclusion from inadequate evidence (one chess club compared to millions of players world-wide.)
Using his simplistic standard - I taught chess for over 25 years at an English school. We won our National Schools Team Championship a couple of times and also many English Junior titles. Every single chess player went to university.
Secondly being a professional chess player these days is a full-time occupation. You need to use computers to study both your own games and to prepare against your rivals. You’ll need extensive knowledge of chess openings and the ability to concentrate continually for hours. You’ll have to cope with the pressure by yourself.
So these players need excellent analysing skill, a good memory and to be self-reliant.
They also tend to turn professional before going to University.
Tony Miles Maths, Sheffield; Chess Professional (d. 2001)
Ray Keene Modern Languages, Cambridge; Journalist, Author
Bill Hartston Maths, Cambridge; Journalist, Author
Michael Stean Maths, Cambridge; Tax Accountant
Jonathan Mestel Maths, Cambridge; University Professor
John Nunn Maths, Oxford (graduated at 18!); Author, Chess Professional
Jon Speelman Maths, Oxford; Author, Chess Professional
Nigel Short honorary degree, Bolton (GM title at 19); Chess Professional
William Watson Maths, Oxford; Tax Lawyer
Michael Adams (GM title at 17); Chess Professional
N.B. Cambridge and Oxford are the equivalent of Harvard and Yale.
What Chronos is talking about above is the concept of “tempo” which applies to a lot of games. If you make a move that advances your side, but forces the other guy to make a wasted move to counter it, you’ve gained tempo. You’re moving faster than the other guy, even though you both take turns making moves. Your moves advance your pieces, but his are wasted responding to your moves.
It seems to me that there are a some types of human endeavor that are correlated with high “general” intelligence, but not highly correlated. So you can have 10 year old music prodigies, or math prodigies, or chess prodigies, but you never have 10 year old biology prodigies.
So people who are generally smart turn out to be much better at chess and math than people who aren’t. But there are also people who are really good at chess, or math, or music, but not very good at other sorts of general intelligence. Those people probably aren’t going to be top performers, and the top performers are those that have the particular talent for whatever it is that makes you a chess prodigy combined with a high level of general intelligence, combined with a high desire to excel at the task.
I don’t think there’s anything unique about chess as a mental exercise. There are plenty of other games which would require the same kind of skills. If anything, chess as a mental exercise has been hurt by the game’s popularity. A person can acquire the techniques of chess by studying the vast literature of the game rather than through his own efforts.
I beg to differ. The potential complexity of a chess match is far beyond that of any other board game. At least, beyond that of any other game that does not involve luck.
AIUI (and who am I to pipe up when we have an actual chess teacher in the thread - but anyway), if you make a move that puts or leaves your King in check you must take the move back and play another, if you have one. Your opponent is not allowed to let the illegal move stand and take your King anyway. The exception is in five-minute chess with clocks (or even shorter time limits, I expect) in which it is legal to take the King if your opponent allows you to.
Now if I could play chess anything like as well as I understand the rules… :smack:
ISTM that being good at chess involves the sorts of analytical and problem-solving skills whose possession is a good part of what we mean when we talk about intelligence. So people who are good chess players are going to do better on IQ tests, on average, than random people off the street. How could it not be so?
Sure, just like solving Sudoku, or crossword puzzles. There is going to be a correlation between doing these sorts of puzzles and general intelligence.
But there are people who are idiots who are nonetheless good at chess, or sudoku. Would they be even better at chess if they weren’t idiots? Almost certainly. But they’re still idiots who are good at chess.
Which indicates to me that there are all sorts of facilities in the human brain, and you can be very good at some while being terrible at others. Some people can write a brilliant speech, but be unable to perform arithmetic without using their fingers. Others can calculate square roots in their head, but be unable to tie their shoes.
Thank you for such a wonderful and thoughtful post!
(BTW, it seems maths are, in fact, overrepresented)
(speaking of maths, did you know Hugh O’D Alexander?)
Are we talking idiots strictly in the IQ sense, or in the life-skills sense? Because while I suspect there’s some mild positive correlation between these two, that’s with emphasis on the mild. There have always been lots of geniuses who you wouldn’t trust to lead a two-car parade.
If we’re just talking about chess and IQ (which I was, at least - “people who are good chess players are going to do better on IQ tests, on average, than random people off the street”), I’d expect the number of talented chess players who are also idiots to be really pretty small. Nonzero, perhaps, but small. And certainly good chess players should do better on IQ tests, on average, than the general population.
)