I contend the following: In chess, raw intellect is the most important attribute, such that no amount of training, experience, or study of the game can make up for it. In a match between two players, the more intelligent one will win, regardless of other factors, and only in cases where intelligence is very close, will other factors come into play.

True/False?

False.

Why? Does it not stand to reason that the ability to calculate as many possible options, and their results, in the short period of time available is the main attribute determining victory?

I should probably add that I do not know how to play chess.

it's not raw intelligence. it's pattern recognition+visualization+memory, which is not all intelligence is comprised of

No. That's how computers play chess.

I contend the following: In basketball, raw height is the most important attribute, such that no amount of pace, strength, experience or technique can make up for it. In a match between two teams, the taller one will win, regardless of other factors, and only in cases where height is very close, will other factors come into play.

True/False?

Also you don't need to be "smart" to be good at chess.

I think GM John Fedorowicz said that in some interview... but don't quote me on that.

To be honest, I think most of us figured this already.

But to try to actually address the issue at hand, intelligence won't make anyone immediately great at nearly any game (I'm sure there are exceptions I won't try to think of right now). Intelligence may make it easier to learn the game, but experience will be what guides your thoughts. Experience tells you what you're looking for in a position and what moves to consider.

Let's take a poker example. I tried playing some 2-7 TDL a while ago. My intelligence is at least above average and I've played other forms of poker for 6 years. But I have no idea what's a good hand before the 1st draw. I can reason out the hands in the extreme ranges, but only experience or studying will tell me about the hands closer to the gray zone. Same thing for understanding the relative strength of hands -- how do I know when to raise instead of call otherwise?

If you're really interested in this then check this out: http://books.google.com/books?id=YyZVmJNpIcQC&pg=PA156

It's The Exceptional Brain, chapter 7. That chapter is exclusively about chess and details a number of studies on the impact of intelligence in chess with everything from idiot savants to studies on results before/after severe brain damage. The book's a bit outdated, but even then the data were still tending to show the same result: intelligence/'talent' don't really mean that much for success at chess.

"This is a nonsensical thread that is not of high quality."

- official All-inMcLovin quote.

+1

Gold.

Cheese, epic 2nd post (sarcasm).
Define raw intellect.
Isn't most "intellect" is acquired?
IMO, the fact that you're posting this proves to me that you lack "intellect".

edit: false.

sick trolling

Chess is IMO approximately but maybe not the exact following order a game where the following factors play a (significant) role: knowledge, experience, talent, abstract intelectual abilities like spatial vision, memory and power of concentration, starting age, invested number of hours. Chess is by no means a measure of "intelligence", although not being a mouthbreather does help, of course.

Chess is hard wasted

Talent/intelligence or whatever you want to call it gives you the opporunity to reach a certain level, for instance maybe your talent allows you to reach a max of 2600 if you work as hard as you can at the game. That does not mean someone with higher potential will win in a game of chess against someone with lower potential.. There are people out there who never play the game in their life who might have higher potential than a 2400 player, but they've just never play so how would they ever win a game against the 2400?

So to sum up, talent/intelligence limits how far you can go but hard work/training will get you there.

So going with RoundTower's example, if talent limits your capacity in chess. Then surely height limits your capacity in basketball. That is, if you're unfortunate enough to be 5'6" you're pretty much never going to go far at basketball no matter how hard you try. Agree?

It's my opinion that talent is simple an excuse for the lazy. The number of 1200's I hear saying they just can't get much better since they don't have the talent is just comical. Of course this isn't only for chess. The concept that there is some sort of abstract internal limiting factor outside of their control works to sooth the conscience of countless failures in countless fields.

Talent is VASTLY overrated in pretty much any field.. I would say it's around 95% of hard work and 5% of talent, while a lot of people seem to believe that is almost 50-50 or so, which is absolutely crazy IMO.

Yup, that's the standard excuse...

In my opinion talent is what enables a player to improve more easily, in case he puts in the amount of work required to get better. But it's perfectly possible to become a strong player by working hard, even if you're not an idiot savant...

I know a IM player who doesn't really have much talent. But this guy is incredibly diligent. He told me that he put in a tremendous amount of work when he was around 18 because he simply wanted to become good. And now he is still working on his game in order to maintain his level of play.

Spud Webb — Height: 5 FT 6 in (1.68 M)











and Yes I agree hard work to talent ratio is probably 95-5 or at best 90-10.

Spud Webb is a hilarious non-example of hard work overcoming a lack of talent. DUCY?

People use their "lack of talent" as an excuse, and it's likely that any adult with an IQ of at least 100 could achieve a master's rating with enough work, but it's utter rubbish to ignore the fact that people unequivocally have a certain, limited capacity for whatever it is that they wish to do. Otherwise those who worked the hardest would be the best at everything, but this is just not true.

False.