I don't know why you use the term "intelligence" as your prerequisite. Don't you think someone could have a high level of general intelligence (as that somewhat vague term is usually understood), but maybe be missing out on something specific, like spatial visualization ability for example - and then this otherwise highly intelligent person wouldn't have the capacity to reach a high level in chess? It seems to me that the prerequisite should be chess specific potential, not general intelligence, even if there is a good deal of overlap between the two. I mean if you were trying to train an Olympic swimmer, wouldn't there be a specific set of physical characteristics you'd be looking for, rather than "general athletic ability"?

That objection aside, your "given a certain level of intelligence" statement could be trivially true if you set the bar high enough. Are you talking about the top 50%? Top 10%? Top 1%? Put the bar high enough and I might agree, but you'd have to put it really high. There's a range of genetic potential for any activity, not just chess, and the world's elite will be composed of those who started with outstanding potential and also put in the effort to develop that potential. The only way lesser potential would get the job done, would be if everyone with outstanding potential failed to develop it.

If there is no genetic predisposition to chess ability, explain why men are far better than women at chess.

Easy -- because far more men than women play tournament chess.

In regards to Judit Polgars father proving ****, im sure there were many other fathers who thought the same thing and failed because his kids were stupid, just saying. I think practice and upbringing and training is the much larger factor in what makes you good at chess, but the predispositioning may be what breaks the ties.

I dont think there have been many others who have trained and practiced as hard as Polgar and Fischer did.

Well, why aren't the top females as good as the top males then?

Noir_Desir explains here:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...8&postcount=11

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...1&postcount=13

Because there are not enough women playing. A recent statistical study based showed that 96 percent of the gender difference can be explained by the fact that there are more extreme values in a larger sample (men playing chess) than in a small one (women playing chess).
There was an article in Chessbase about it, the study itself can be found here: http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.o.../1161.abstract

I really would like to believe that men are simply smarter than women, but numbers don't lie...

Edit:
Too late...

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2009/02/mal...nd-science.php

Why would people participate in something they weren't very good at?

Also, male and females have different brains. A big part of chess is spatial recognition: www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman34.pdf

Guess what? Male brains are more suited for those traits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-rel...tial_cognition

I'm sure there have been at least a few. You just don't know who they are/were because they weren't as successful. Honestly I feel im on the side of the training camp. But if its 95-training/5-genetics, you can't change the genetics. So if 100 people in the history of the world have trained as hard as they possibly could to get good at chess, the best 5 or so would STILL be the 5 with the best genetics. But, none of these people are born naturals at chess and 99.999% of people who carry the genetic makeup to potentially be the best will never amount to anything, allz im saying.

With the female/male thing I honestly think it boils down to women being less obbsessive than men. The majority of people I meet who are rated 2400 or better are weirdos. They're weird and so all they can do is play a game forever and not think about anything else. Hell I've met men who are Class C and D players who are f'ing weird like this. I have nevet met a weirdo female at a tournament though. Usually they all are showered, social, and presentable. I think we all know this is the answer to this question but are just afraid to say it.


Please no one rated 2400 or over be offended, i didn't say youre ALL weird, just a lot of you.

I've also hear men have better spatial reasoning (in general) than women.

Girls have cooties

I've met a couple of 2400s this year and they're pretty sane. Granted, they're also young (I knew one beforehand) so that probably makes a difference. I've met weirdos of various ratings below that, though.

I've been to a tournament where someone rated 1900 played 1. d4 h6 vs me (and i did prepare for that). Judging by the people stopping by to watch our game there must be a southern german weirdo circle playing this kind of **** all the time. Played another one of these guys at a different tournament and beat him after 1. Nc3 c5, after the game he pulled out of his bag big files with printed game scores and ranted for 5 minutes how all these unimaginative bastards play c5 all the time and there is no room left for creativity in chess.

i stoped reading here. who is Bobby FISHER?

do u mean the lakers player i guess he is not called bobby