I am on such an ICC binge today it's ridiculous. I think I played more chess today than in the entire year prior (pure game wise for sure, but I think hour-wise too). I missed this excitement about chess so much recently

on an unrelated note - does ICC have some sort of a formula that titled players are more likely to play each other in the pool? I swear ICC was trolling me today. My ratings are really fairly low in all the pools, and I kept playing IM's and GM's, just one after another. Normally they would be 100-200 points higher than me in that specific pool. The peak of that was when I entered the 5min pool, my rating about 2100 at the time, and I get INSTA paired with some Egorxxxxxxx dude (cant remember full name), a GM, whose 5min pool rating is 2550!!! Like seriously, wtf is this? Of course I had my fair share of opponents lower rated than me, but the rating differences were normally 50-100 points in that case.. when I was paired "up", 100-200 at least, every time.

TL;DR - not sure how ICC pools pair people

You just got lucky.

Clearly we understand word 'lucky' differently.

hi,

I was recently wondering what would be expected rating for an adult of average intelligence with pretty much zero chess experience (meaning learnt the rules when he was a kid but barely played since).

Obv Im just asking for rough guess. Also, would higher intelligence (IQ) mean better rating straight away, or would that just help the person to improve faster?

thanks

700 and neither

Hmm. 700 seems low, but I have no sense for ratings at that range. I feel like an adult who has the patience to not drop pieces (that it, put them en prise) would be rated higher than that though. But maybe 700 is already above that level?

But otherwise, IQ is not of any help for the initial rating, although "being able to learn things faster" should apply to chess as much as anything else. Being disciplined is probably more important than raw intelligence in the early stages of improvement, though.

Not putting pieces en prise is really, really hard when you've just learned the rules. I've actually played a couple of 700s this year, and "just learned the rules" pretty much describes them.

There's probably some connection between IQ and learning speed, but it's slight. Determination, discipline and time spent >>>>> IQ in terms of learning speed.

Yeah, you're right about the en prise thing. I was thinking of a game I played with a friend a couple of years ago while socializing, but it was untimed, and he was regularly taking 5 minutes per move or so (probably just to avoid dropping a piece--hence the "patience" comment), but that's not a good comparison to a rated game.

Time spent studying of course a huge factor -- had sort of thought that was given, but it's worth mentioning.

And obviously you're the one with expert opinion here.

I'm an expert at having a high IQ and getting absolutely nowhere in chess for decades.

Heh. Ridiculous improvement though, this year, though, and that high IQ isn't hurting.

It's definitely my opinion that one doesn't really get better at chess only by playing. Studying is the only way for me, at least.

The day I stopped telling myself "I'm smart, I should be able to do better just by thinking really hard about this" was the day that I started getting better. Studying and developing technique.

Somewhat related, I'm playing a bit on the FICS this week. The account was first registered in Oct. 1998, when I was 16. I had trouble breaking 1200 in any format.

How high is your IQ?

High enough

That tells ****. Do not be shy big boy.

102

Dude I want to laugh at you so just spit it out homeboy.

Hmmm, unless I've known and forgotten your age before, I've always incorrectly assumed you were younger than me.

I turn 30 in January.

("Low content" is probably generous for the last page or so at this point).

Sometimes Chess Low Content is that there's no chess content in the posts but we're chess players posting.

Is there some sort of Sicilian system where black intentionally delays castling deep, deep into the game? I think every 1500-1700 player I've faced the Sicilian against has just not castled as black. Is that just a thing or are they making it easier on me out of pity?

castling is scary because then white pushes his pawns

So Garry does remember how the pieces move after all. That guy is amazing.

http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7544

In lots of scheveningen-type sicilians the K is actually safer behind the d6-e6 pawn wall than on the K-side. Or at least black has to start his Q-side counterplay before castling because it is necessary to distract white from ripping open black's K.

For example, compare the two lines in the Najdorf:

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be3 e6

i) 7. f3 b5 8. Qd2 Nbd7 9. g4 Nb6 10. 0-0-0 Bb7 etc
ii) 7. f3 Be7 8. Qd2 0-0 9. g4 Nc6 followed by Nxd4 and b5.

as far as i know, i) is in much better theoretical shape at the moment and it's far less clear how to conduct white's attack.

I may have whined about composed puzzles in tactics trainer, but this was so pretty I'm willing to forgive:

White to play and draw.

Fischer v. Leonid Stein, 1967.

I just found this game especially fun to look over. The geometry of the piece play around the pawn structure is just fascinating.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044022