Chess: Helpful in Improving Working Memory/Fluid Intelligence or No?

[Sheldon Cooper]

Chess is often hailed as a game for intellects. It has even found its way into some classrooms, (in some cases) used to teach math and enhance problem solving. But does it actually work? Could playing intensive chess improve working memory and fluid intelligence?

I like playing chess, but I have better things to do if keeping my game up isn't going to help up my IQ.

[Gwern Branwen]

On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 9:09 PM, Sheldon Cooper <angus....@gmail.com> wrote:
> But does it actually work? Could playing intensive chess improve working
> memory and fluid intelligence?

The usual results for these things is that initial efforts are loaded
highly on fluid intelligence and then peter out as memorization and
domain knowledge takes over. Chess has plenty of results on the latter
like working memory studies indicating that masters do not have better
general memories but game-specific memories which work only on
plausible board arrangements and not randomized ones. I looked at the
studies cited in Wikipedia once, and they were the usual very weak
stuff and wishful thinking.

If you want to improve your chess, however, I can highly recommend
playing intensive chess.

--
gwern
http://www.gwern.net

[Michael]

(Ctrl F) Key:

- Anatoly Sharansky

- Chess

- Imagination

- Book: The brain that changes itself by Norman Doidge.

 

http://unlockinglearningpotential.com/2012/11/03/the-brain-that-changes-itself-by-norman-doidge-m-d-chapter-8-imagination-how-thinking-makes-it-so/

[whoisbambam]

imo, chess will not significantly affect your IQ

but playing well may affect relationships with family members......

[hippocampus]

I would like to know if there are any specific studies about this connection (also with other games or activities like go or other games) with IQ or WM, because I'm writing an article about this.

[Solipsistic Dreams]

gwern, you are an classic case of: A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. I realize that after merely learning the legal movement of the pieces and reading one or two Wiki articles, you all of the sudden "think" you know something about chess. But I can assure you that you do not. Do you have a national or FIDE rating? Have you ever played so much as a single game in a rated, nationally sanctioned chess event? Unrated weak casual players like you like to make sweeping generalizations, as you have done here, without knowing what you are talking about. While memorization and pattern recognition are certainly aspects of competitive chess, they are minor components compared to the ability to perform high-level reasoning and problem-solving. A deep understanding of psychology and the ability to understand and get into the head of your opponent is also a tremendous factor.

In a chess game, after only seven moves, there are already more than TEN MILLION possible legal positions that can result. No human who ever existed can memorize even a tiny fraction of that. And that's still in the early opening of the game. An average chess game lasts between 30-50 moves. To say that after initial efforts, memorization and domain knowledge takes over, not only shows that you understand nothing at all about chess, it proves that  you're a simpleton across the board. Pardon the pun.

SD

[Gwern Branwen]

On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Solipsistic Dreams <jaso...@gmail.com> wrote:
> gwern, you are an classic case of: A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous
> thing. I realize that after merely learning the legal movement of the pieces
> and reading one or two Wiki articles, you all of the sudden "think" you know
> something about chess. But I can assure you that you do not. Do you have a
> national or FIDE rating? Have you ever played so much as a single game in a
> rated, nationally sanctioned chess event? Unrated weak casual players like
> you like to make sweeping generalizations, as you have done here, without
> knowing what you are talking about. While memorization and pattern
> recognition are certainly aspects of competitive chess, they are minor
> components compared to the ability to perform high-level reasoning and
> problem-solving. A deep understanding of psychology and the ability to
> understand and get into the head of your opponent is also a tremendous
> factor.

I'm seeing a lot of bluster here, and a striking dearth of citations
showing transfer. May I suggest you read up on the literature? I
recall the _Cambridge Handbook Expertise And Expert Performance_ as
having some papers touching on the topic.

--
gwern
http://www.gwern.net

[Solipsistic Dreams]

Where are YOUR citations? In the post that I responded to you didn't mention a single one. Go look up the word hypocrite. You may see your own picture. And it's interesting how you didn't try to refute, or even respond to the many valid points I made, proving that your memorization claim is complete nonsense.

I'm a FIDE CHESS MASTER. I've played and defeated grandmasters and other titled players in high-level events and have been a regional champion many times over. I also teach and have written many essays on various chess topics,  including published work. Unlike you, I actually know what I'm talking about and have the experience and proven accomplishments to back it up. You're just a wannabe and pseudo-intellectual I'm not interested in your handbook that you quote to try to impress people. It's a complete non-sequitur. You may recall we were discussing CHESS. You probably won't find a single competitive chess player who has even hard of that book. Also, I love how you simply copy & paste the title from the file in which you illegally downloaded it, as the underscores connecting the title words indicate.

[Gwern Branwen]

On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 4:12 PM, Solipsistic Dreams <jaso...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Where are YOUR citations?

We have been discussing lack of transfer on this mailing list for the
past 5 years or so. I'm not going to go back and dig it all up just
for you, especially since you have already scorned to look at the
reference I did supply.

The presumption for any activity is that it will not
transfer, and the burden of proof is on anyone who claims a particular
activity is the singular unique exception.

> Also, I'm a FIDE CHESS MASTER. I've played and defeated grandmasters and other titled players in high-level events and have been a regional champion many times over.

That's nice, but I don't see how it qualifies you to discuss how
playing chess transfers to, say, working memory or fluid intelligence.

--
gwern
http://www.gwern.net

[Solipsistic Dreams]

You didn't supply any reference that was relevant even in the least to what was being discussed. All you seem to be able to do is mindlessly copy & paste and repeat what others have said. It appears as though your attention span is too short to recall that I refuted your assertion about chess being primarily a game of memory with an example that even someone like you should be able to look up and confirm for yourself. I'm still waiting for you to acknowledge that and provide a refutation instead of the ad hominem drivel you are posting in its place.

I could have also added the countless examples of young players, who have not yet had the time to memorize a significant amount of chess theory, yet are already capable of defeating much more experienced players with huge tomes of theoretical knowledge at their disposal. If you actually understood a bit about chess, you would know that it is the ability to assess a position and correleate ideas from it to positions that are similar to it that is of essence. Without the ability to connect ideas and to assess and appreciate dynamic subtleties in a position and how to maneuver and create practical problems for your opponent, you have nothing.

[Solipsistic Dreams]

As a Fide chess master with proven expertise, I'm a lot more qualified than you are to discuss the subject matter. Your only "qualification" is the ability to copy and paste.

[Gwern Branwen]

On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Solipsistic Dreams <jaso...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You didn't supply any reference that was relevant even in the least to what
> was being discussed. All you seem to be able to do is mindlessly copy &
> paste and repeat what others have said. It appears as though your attention
> span is too short to recall that I refuted your assertion about chess being
> primarily a game of memory with an example that even someone like you should
> be able to look up and confirm for yourself. I'm still waiting for you to
> acknowledge that and provide a refutation instead of the ad hominem drivel
> you are posting in its place.

SD, perhaps you should take a step back, calm yourself down, and
review the thread.

I have mentioned specific well-known research on the psychology of
chess, I have given you an excellent starting point for understanding
the research (which you still continue to ignore), and I have pointed
out that while whatever your attainments in playing chess, that does
not give you much meaningful basis to discuss the raw psychological
basis of performance (the introspective paradigm of psychology was
abandoned over a century ago for the simple reason that introspection
doesn't work) and specified the almost universal finding of
no-transfer which means that a priori we expect zero far transfer from
chess to anything else even in the complete absence of any research on
chess in particular. And this can be verified by looking through the
past 5 years of the mailing list history, where we discuss the lack of
transfer of DNB, of WM training, of taxi driving, of Go, of early
childhood education, to name just a few examples off the top of my
head.

In return, you have vented angrily about my 'ad hominem drivel' and
how I 'mindlessly copy & paste and repeat what others have said'
because I have 'too short' a retention span to recall a groundless
assertion you made (incidentally, I understand your claim perfectly
well, I just ignored it because the research disagrees strongly, which
you would know if you had bothered to investigate anything I'd said).

Given that this is apparently the first thread you have contributed to
and *this* is how you've decided to act, I don't think you're worth my
time. I'm glad you enjoy your hobby of chess enough to become a
master, but that doesn't give you license to bloviate and bluster and
ignore people as you insult them. I would rather discuss actual
research, or improvements to my dual n-back meta-analysis, or
something like that. Not try to patiently bear insults I do not
deserve.

> As a Fide chess master with proven expertise

Expertise in *playing chess*, not in the psychology of chess. They're
not the same. Someone may be able to throw a ball really fast but not
understand Newton's Principia or solve calculus problems.

--
gwern
http://www.gwern.net

[Solipsistic Dreams]

No, it's pretty clear that you're the one who needs to calm down. Your panties are in knots because I've proven you to be a fool! YOU review the thread. Specifically, review the posts that I made where I clearly refuted everything you said. You have yet to even acknowledge any of my claims, let alone try to refute them. The fact is, you don't know what you're talking about. You're a simpleton who just copies and pastes text without understanding anything. You know nothing about chess, or probably anything else for that matter. You are in NO POSITION to be commenting on what mental attributes are required to be a strong chess player. All you're doing is posting random drivel that has absolutely nothing at all to do with what is being discussed. Go back and RE-READ my posts until this is clear to you. Get someone to read them to you if that would be helpful for you. I'm not going to keep repeating myself when the information is all there and clearly accessible. At this point I'm wondering in earnest who turned the computer on for you. The same person who helped you to tie your shoelaces?

Expertise in playing chess IS expertise in the psychology of chess, you hapless imbecile. This is what I tried to teach you earlier, that chess is indeed a game of psychology, as much as its a game of objective theory. It is a sporting contest between two human opponents. The world's number one player, who happens to be the highest rated player in the history of the game, Magnus Carlsen, would tell you the same thing himself. So would Bobby Fischer who publicly stated that in order to be a great chess player you must be a "master psychologist". You don't understand this because, as i've said before, YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING AT ALL ABOUT CHESS. All you're doing is making a mindless reference to some obscure superficial studies done decades ago in which the "researcher" posted many errors, including the suggestion that Ruslan Ponomariov was a "world champion" in 2002 when at the time he wasn't even in the world's top 5! The studies also don't make any conclusive point whatsoever and are subject to lack of trail data and interpretation ambiguity. A more authoritative reference is someone who has demonstrated a high level of skill and understanding in chess. As I said, you're an idiot who can do nothing more than mindlessly copy/paste, and repeat what someone else says without understanding anything. You are a perfect example of someone who lacks the intelligence required to learn how to play chess, or any other intellectual pursuit, at a reasonable level.

You're completely deserving of everything I said about you. And quite a bit more! All you are is a wannabe poser. You lack the ability to THINK!

[Solipsistic Dreams]

 A new analysis rebuts the claim that there is no link between general intelligence and expertise in a specific arena such as chess.

Chess players: You can reclaim your intellectual superiority. It appears that you—or at least those of you who play the game well—are unusually smart after all.

Over the past couple of decades, a line of research has suggested there is little or no link between a person’s general intelligence level and their success at the classic board game. Chess bloggers have warily picked up on the disconnect between these findings and the popular perception of chess players as brainiacs.

“You are all sworn to secrecy – I mean it!” one wrote in 2007. “If word ever gets out it will be the end of one of the few perks we chess players have.”

Well, your smart-aleck status has been reinstated. A newly published analysis reports that, while the evidence isn’t absolutely conclusive, it seems clear that “chess expertise does not stand in isolation from intelligence.”

“Several studies employing psychometric tests of intelligence have revealed that expert chess players display significantly higher intelligence than controls, and that their playing strength is related to their intelligence level.”

“There are now findings that expert chess players display above-average intelligence, that their playing strength is related to their individual intelligence level, and that their performance in expertise-related tasks is also a function of intelligence,” writes University of Göttingen psychologist Roland Grabner. His study is published—where else?—in the journal Intelligence.

Thanks in large part to the research of psychologist K. Anders Ericsson, and the popularization of his findings by writer Malcolm Gladwell, conventional wisdom regarding superior ability has shifted in recent years. According to their school of thought, practice, practice, practice—10,000 hours, to be precise—really will get you to Carnegie Hall, or the World Chess Championship. Years of long-term focused attention, they argue, play a larger role than innate intelligence.

“Individual differences in general cognitive abilities such as intelligence have been frequently regarded to be entirely negligible for expert performance,” Grabner notes. But a close examination of recent research, he writes, disproves that notion.

“Several studies employing psychometric tests of intelligence have revealed that expert chess players display significantly higher intelligence than controls, and that their playing strength is related to their intelligence level,” he writes.

While there are several studies showing that playing strength in chess can be best predicted by the amount of time spent practicing, the assumption that expertise is developed “independent of any influence of cognitive potential is quite implausible,” he adds. “There is growing data suggesting that some individuals require more, and others less, deliberate practice to attain the same expert performance levels in chess.”

For the non-chess player, this research is interesting in that it informs the ongoing debate over whether expertise is essentially a matter of practice. As Gladwell, the best-selling author, recently wrote in the New Yorker: “The closer psychologists look at the careers of the gifted, the smaller the role innate talent seems to play and the bigger the role preparation seems to play. In cognitively demanding fields, there are no naturals.”

Gladwell points to chess as a good example of that purported truism. But chess blogger Arne Moll, who has some sympathy for Gladwell’s views, notes that his argument is undercut by his apparent confusion about the various levels of chess expertise and accomplishment.

He criticizes Gladwell’s use of the famous Polgar sisters (three of whom became chess masters) as proof of the preeminence of practice, noting that although they all went through the same rigorous regimen, their skill levels ultimately differed significantly.

Grabner cites those same siblings as evidence of the importance of innate intelligence. “Even a reanalysis of the famous Polgar sisters case, which is often cited as proof that only practice matters, revealed that despite the engagement in similarly intensive practice, the three sisters displayed quite different trajectories of expertise development, and attained different levels of playing strength,” he writes.

In addition, Grabner adds, “comparing experts with notices of different intelligence levels, it has been found that both expertise and intelligence impact on the performance in expertise-related tasks. These studies suggest that expert chess play does not stand in isolation from intelligence.”

So it appears that (a) expertise is the result of a combination of innate ability and hard work, and (b) chess masters have a lot going for them intellectually. Some cliches, it turns out, are true.

By Tom Jacobs • September 05, 2013

[Brandon Woodson]

And here they somnolently lie for an eternity, any unridden doubts that might have once stirred in mind about my chances of making it as a titled chess player... :)

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to brain-t...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Josh]

Sorry I couldn't help but answer that one ..  Some of us remember the joke " how do u get to Carnegie Hall"  the punch line was "practice practice practice ".  .. I remember reading about the difference between knowing all the tactical patterns that develop during a game vs. being able recognize them as they appear during play .. Repetitions is the key ... 

Sent from my iPhone

[Brandon Woodson]

That should definitely say: "... any "unridded" doubts ..."

Guess I should proofread before I poke fun, eh? ;)


Skewered,

Brandon

[jotaro]

this is ridiculous, you see maybe chess players show higher intellegence

but only during play,this is non transfer.

and if it correlates with intellegence then

are you suggesting that 1000 rating and 2000 have intellegence difference of 2X?

[T. Lavon Lawrence]

I'm still waiting to see where playing chess equates to far transfer - for example, how does chess make one increasingly intelligent in the ability to perceive the ACTUAL point of an debate?  How does it make one more emotionally intelligent so that one doesn't self-implode in a discussion of ideas and go on childish, vicious rants in a Google Group when challenged to provide legitimate evidence to support a claim of far transfer?

Anytime any chess player or master wants to provide the references to peer-reviewed scientific research supporting the claim that chess actually INCREASES intelligence (rather than research that says smarter people are more successful at chess as well as some other activities - because they're smarter) then I'd be happy to see it, because I know tons of other people who are waiting, also.

“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.” ---Socrates

T. Lavon Lawrence
Author, NEURO-SCULPTING!© Brain Fitness System
Mental Fitness Trainer & Training Author
tra...@neuro-sculpting.com
www.neuro-sculpting.com

[whoisbambam]

Some of these posts were way too 'aggressive' and I do not understand its necessity, ntm illogical approach as change surely would not be effected.

[Amaury M]

@Solipsistic Dreams: if you are that much into chess you'll certainly know that Kasparov was tested at his peak by a team of psychologists and that he scored in the 130s (i think it was 135). This is good but not nearly as exceptional as his chess skills.

You don't need an exceptional IQ to be an exceptional chess player.

[Solipsistic Dreams]

I think you meant to say "solemnly". I normally don't pick on someone for trivial spelling errors, but really "somnolenty"? I would expect a better attempt from a four-year old who suffers from Down's Syndrome. Forget about becoming a titled player. You don't even have the brain power to make it to C-class (1400-1599)

[Solipsistic Dreams]

Your very description of "tactical patterns" indicates that you don't really understand what tactics are. There are tremendous differences between the tactical capabilities even between grandmasters. Compare Ivanchuk to Tyomkin, for example. Nobody "knows all the tactical patterns".

 Also, in chess, the subdividing of the game into various dichotomies and parts, such as tactics vs strategy, or opening/middle game/endgame, are illusory. They are artificial divisions used to purposefully break the game down into more manageable parts for the purpose of learning. A strong player will be thinking about and trying to obtain certain endgame features, right from the opening. For example, as someone who often plays the French Defense for black, against 1.e4, I know that the endgames that result will often contain the pawn skeleton e6-d5-c4 etc, especially against the Advance Variation. So i will take that into consideration when deciding on things like piece exchanges.

Chess is much more complex than you realize, Brandon. A lifetime of practice will not result in any significant improvement if you lack the intellectual capabilities to be able to develop skill. This is why in my very first nationally rated event, even before having read a single chess book, i scored 2.5/5, beating two veterans who both had over a decade of tournament experience and likely read over a dozen chess books each, not to mention the many hundreds of hours of study and practice. And i'm not anywhere near the level of ability as a Carlsen or an Aronian, etc.

[Solipsistic Dreams]

No, you're the one being ridiculous. You're just talking out of your ass. There is tremendous evidence pointing to the fact that strong chess players are performing at a greatly above-average level in other intellectual activities. Throughout history, many of the top players were also famous intellectuals with great achievements in the sciences, law, medicine. Look up Lasker and Tarrasche, just to name a couple. Today many chess masters are getting into poker, for the money, and doing extremely well. Chess and poker have scarcely recognizable similarities, but the strong chess player's superior intellect, discipline, and organizational abilities are transferring over with great effect!

The 2X comment shows your utter stupidity and lack of comprehension. Nobody proposed a direct proportionality between an IQ scale number and a difference in ELO chess rating. A more meaningful idea would be to look at the comparative standard-deviation of the two activities. For example, in my case, I'm in the top 1 percentile of all tournament chess players, and in the top 1-2% of the pop where IQ is concerned, based on my results on the Standord-Binet intelligence test. I've also tended to be in the top 1-5% in school, etc. So there is definitely some consistency there. Anyway, read the article I pasted and research findings that point in this direction.

[Solipsistic Dreams]

I'll take an "aggressive" post with topical content over some random whiner's diatribe any day. Why don't you go and find something shiny to stare at while you drool

[T. Lavon Lawrence]

Thus far, the answer to whether playing chess boosts working memory and fluid intelligence is "No" - and remains so until there's research that says otherwise.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to brain-t...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Solipsistic Dreams]

No, actually, that 135 figure, which by the way is higher than the average PhD, and IS exceptional, was just something someone posted on a blog. It is not official in any way shape or form. Team of psychologists my ass. I'd like you to name the members of this so-called "team" and when and where it took place.  Some websites quote Kasparov as having an IQ as high as 190,and put him in the top ten in the world http://www.therichest.com/business/the-top-10-most-intelligent-people-in-the-world/ which I think it's closer to the truth, albeit higher than I would have expected. Fischer's IQ of 187 was confirmed by a high-school transcript. Those are two exceptional IQs. In fact, exceptional would be an understatement. World Class is more like it.

The reality is that chess is an extremely complex and intellectual game. It's just that people like you, with average to below-average intelligence don't want to face reality. You want to believe that anything is possible for you, so long as you put your mind to it. Unfortunately for you, reality won't budge. If you ever got the nerve to join a national chess organization and compete in tournaments, you would find out just how harsh that reality really is.

[Solipsistic Dreams]

Anytime any chess player or master wants to provide the references to peer-reviewed scientific research supporting the claim that chess actually INCREASES intelligence (rather than research that says smarter people are more successful at chess as well as some other activities - because they're smarter) then I'd be happy to see it, because I know tons of other people who are waiting, also.

Well here you're preaching to the choir. I highly doubt that simply playing chess will significantly increase one's intelligence. My position has always been that you need high intelligence in order to have the capacity to ever become a strong chess player. Only then will practice and study be of importance. In addition to playing chess, i also teach it. Usually I'm dealing with children, some of which are exceptional, some not so exceptional. Occasionally I get an adult who pays me to try to help them get better...usually for the wrong reasons. I'm constantly amazed at the multitude of incredibly dumb and obviously erroneous ideas and thoughts many of these "adult" players have. They spend an enormous amount of time and energy creating plans that a smarter person would have rejected in a few seconds. This is intelligence. The same kinds of thought processes that create decisions at the chess board are the same in any intellectual activity. The kind of mind that can competently connect ideas from different arenas and accurately assess subtleties of changes in position is the same person who will do well on any serious intelligence test.

There have, however, been numerous investigations into the effects of introducing chess to kids at an early age. Similar to learning how to play a musical instrument, many benefits have been observed. Higher grades, better concentration, etc.But just because they are playing chess, it doesn't mean they are all playing chess well. It's not a big stretch. It's like saying getting kids involved in sports and athletics increases their level of physical fitness, even for those who will never become professional athletes. Not exactly surprising results.

 

“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.” ---Socrates

Mindlessly copying and pasting the words of OTHER people is a sure sign of a someone who lacks the brainpower to be able to form a cogent argument in the first place. I like to throw around a bit of ad hominem ALONG WITH the valid points that I've presented here. In my opinion, dumb people should pay higher taxes. Unfortunately our archaic government is still treating you as though you were equal, so you're going to have to pay that price here. If you're too stupid to be able to comprehend what I've said, or refuse to acknowledge my posts because some of the comments hit a bit too close to home for you, and instead prefer to focus only on the ad hominem exclusively, then you're the one showing YOUR limitations.

[Solipsistic Dreams]

On Tuesday, 11 February 2014 11:26:39 UTC-6, T. Lavon Lawrence wrote:

Thus far, the answer to whether playing chess boosts working memory and fluid intelligence is "No" - and remains so until there's research that says otherwise.

Incorrect. The answer to that question remains undefined. You're making assumptions, which is exactly the kind of thing a person who lacks intelligence does on a regular basis, thus proving my point about you. And you're also rehashing an older topic because you're apparently incapable of understanding what it is that was being argued here. Go back and re-read my original post, until this is clear to you.

Start off by trying to learn some basic logic skills.

[Solipsistic Dreams]

Le vendredi 23 novembre 2012 03:09:18 UTC+1, Sheldon Cooper a écrit :

Chess is often hailed as a game for intellects. It has even found its way into some classrooms, (in some cases) used to teach math and enhance problem solving. But does it actually work? Could playing intensive chess improve working memory and fluid intelligence?

I like playing chess, but I have better things to do if keeping my game up isn't going to help up my IQ.

Nobody has ever used chess to teach math, or vice versa for that matter. There is no math per se in chess. There is calculation involved in chess and also in math. That is why they have formed "Chess and Math" organizations. In chess, you are not calculating with numbers.

Intelligent people enjoy doing things that require intelligence. Perhaps in your case you prefer to watch a lot of TV and attend Professional Wrestling events. Maybe those are "better things" for someone like you. I have a hard time believing that someone with at least average intelligence can't figure out that not every single post in a discussion thread is going to be a direct response to the thread title. Go back and re-read my original post in this thread to discover what my argument is.

For the record, I don't think anyone can significantly improve their level of intelligence, no more than they can make themselves taller. Of course you can learn to get better at taking IQ tests. But in that case all you've accomplished is negating the validity of the IQ test. You're no longer in the pool of individuals that the 100 number is based on. You're now an expert IQ test taker. It completely defeats the purpose.

[T. Lavon Lawrence]

SD, I'm not going to reread anything you posted because  you're boring me.

Playing chess does not boost intelligence, and all your ranting doesn't change that fact.

If you're what people have to go by as an example of the joys of chess, you can keep it, because you're a nasty, miserable human being.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to brain-t...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Solipsistic Dreams]

On Tuesday, 11 February 2014 14:00:15 UTC-6, T. Lavon Lawrence wrote:

SD, I'm not going to reread anything you posted because  you're boring me.

Your very post contradicts your words. How can you be so mindless and stupid to not realize that if I bored you, you wouldn't contiinue to read my posts, let alone both read AND RESPOND to them. Clearly you are not only very much interested in my posts, but they are having an emotional effect on you as well.
 

Playing chess does not boost intelligence, and all your ranting doesn't change that fact.

I've never once argued that playing chess boosts intelligence, you illiterate jackass. My argument has always been that IT REQUIRES INTELLIGENCE to get good at chess. You really need to go back and re-read my posts so that you don't continue to make a complete ass of yourself.
 

If you're what people have to go by as an example of the joys of chess, you can keep it, because you're a nasty, miserable human being.

Of course you don't like me. I'm the guy who is exposing you for the simpleton you are. Intelligent people actually find me quite intriguing and enjoy my company. If I wanted you to like me I would just dumb myself down and start talking about television shows. But that's not my purpose here. Now instead of just spewing ad hominem rhetoric. why don't you at least try to refute one of my many valid points? Or is your only purpose here to spam the group with your garbage links?

[T. Lavon Lawrence]

I'm sorry, man, I couldn't read all that - all I was was blah, blah, blah.  You may have to resend it when I wake up from the snorefest you're throwing.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to brain-t...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Solipsistic Dreams]

Actually, I systematically proved that not only are you an idiot, but you're an idiot who directly contradicts yourself. Even within the very same sentence.

You're the one who is mindlessly blabbing here. You're just a troll spamming your own stupid links that NOBODY is interested in.

[T. Lavon Lawrence]

Are you still going to just bore me?

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Solipsistic Dreams <jaso...@gmail.com> wrote:

Actually, I systematically proved that not only are you an idiot, but you're an idiot who directly contradicts yourself. Even within the very same sentence.

You're the one who is mindlessly blabbing here. You're just a troll spamming your own stupid links that NOBODY is interested in.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to brain-t...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Solipsistic Dreams]

Wow, my comments about you must have really hit home. You're like a frustrated little child throwing a tantrum. You're not even trying to defend yourself.

I'm glad you keep posting. Now everyone will know what a fly-by-night retard you actually are.

[D Kong]

This goes without being said, but not every chess player is a dick and trying to troll. :)

I've played chess when I was younger quite competitively, not quite to the FM level like Mr. Master. I agree with much that has been said. 

1) It's not likely to improve your intelligence significantly in the ways we on the list discuss G, fluid intelligence, etc.

2) Most good chess players tend to be very intelligent.There are good chess players that aren't exceedingly intelligent, but they are not very imaginative and hit a wall quite soon.

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 3:23 PM, Solipsistic Dreams <jaso...@gmail.com> wrote:

Wow, my comments about you must have really hit home. You're like a frustrated little child throwing a tantrum. You're not even trying to defend yourself.

I'm glad you keep posting. Now everyone will know what a fly-by-night retard you actually are.

[Solipsistic Dreams]

On Tuesday, 11 February 2014 14:27:00 UTC-6, DK wrote:

This goes without being said, but not every chess player is a dick and trying to troll. :)

But you're the dickhead who is acting like a troll. You're even going so far as to change your identity to try to give the illusion of support. Go look up the definition of an online troll. You might see your own picture. You don't even have a position on any premise that anyone has put forward. You're too stupid to participate in this discussion, so you just post ad hominem drivel.

I've played chess when I was younger quite competitively, not quite to the FM level like Mr. Master. I agree with much that has been said. 

Competitively my ass. You're the kind of cretin who probably struggled with just trying to learn the legal movement of the pieces. Let's play a few online games somewhere and i'll prove it. I'll even let YOU pick the server that we play at. Could I be any more accommodating?

1) It's not likely to improve your intelligence significantly in the ways we on the list discuss G, fluid intelligence, etc.

As I've already tried to drill through your thick skull and into that tiny brain of yours, it's never been my position that playing chess will increase one's intelligence. Which word are you still stuck on?
 
I'm glad you at least stopped spamming the group with your useless fly-by-night links that nobody has ever clicked on. Keep using this pseudonym.

[D Kong]

... I was agreeing with you. 

I don't know what you're talking about this isn't a pseudonym. I've had this e-mail for years. 

I'm game. I haven't played in years, but that's fine as I'm a "cretin"... What server? Is FICS still operating these days? I assume no one uses ICC anymore? Name the place I'll register an account. 

I'm kind of curious what your kid-teaching persona is like. 

[T. Lavon Lawrence]

Oh he's probably a hit with the youngsters lol - the guy's got problems that chess can't fix.

[Solipsistic Dreams]

On Tuesday, 11 February 2014 14:44:16 UTC-6, DK wrote:

... I was agreeing with you. 

I have no interest in whether or not you agree with me. If I say the sky is blue and you say you agree with me, is that supposed to furnish you membership into my VIP club?

I don't know what you're talking about this isn't a pseudonym. I've had this e-mail for years. 

This is exactly the kind of mindless assumptive thinking that I was talking about. You might as well put up a sign saying "I'm dumb". Your brain isn't capable of grasping the essence of a concept. I didn't state a particular duration of time that you've had this email address. I stated that this is a pseudonym.for your "T. Lavon" account. Now stop embarrassing yourself.

I'm game. I haven't played in years, but that's fine as I'm a "cretin"... What server? Is FICS still operating these days? I assume no one uses ICC anymore? Name the place I'll register an account. 

Nice disclaimer. First you're a "competitive player", now all of the sudden you "haven't played in years". I wish you played poker. When a guy as dumb as you tries to tell a lie, you just give all of your money away.

Well for free servers there is chesscube.com, chess.com, playchess.com. You can start an account at any one of those sites within a couple of minutes. Just tell me which one and what your account name is.

I'm kind of curious what your kid-teaching persona is like. 

Pay me some cash and I'll be nice to you as well. I teach adults too, not just kids.

[Solipsistic Dreams]

On Tuesday, 11 February 2014 14:52:03 UTC-6, T. Lavon Lawrence wrote:

Oh he's probably a hit with the youngsters lol - the guy's got problems that chess can't fix.

Admitting that you've got problems is an understatement. Now you're even having a conversation WITH YOURSELF, lol.

[T. Lavon Lawrence]

SD, you're really losing it, bro.  Nobody's trolling you.  That's some paranoid kind of craziness right there.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to brain-t...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[T. Lavon Lawrence]

Wow.  This guy actually believes I'm two people.  What a nut job.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to brain-t...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Solipsistic Dreams]

On Tuesday, 11 February 2014 14:58:42 UTC-6, T. Lavon Lawrence wrote:

SD, you're really losing it, bro.

Yeah, you really are losing it. You're having conversations with me, with yourself, with your psychiatrist. I think you're starting to lose track of who you're talking to. So is this your version of a back down speech? Or did you actually want to have some chess games with me?

PS, I'm not your "bro", idiot.

 

[T. Lavon Lawrence]

Bro.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to brain-t...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[D Kong]

"I've played chess when I was younger quite competitively"

I was a competitive player when I was younger... in elementary school and middle school. As in, I haven't played in years. 

delirioustk on chesscube.com 

--

[Solipsistic Dreams]

On Tuesday, 11 February 2014 15:00:27 UTC-6, T. Lavon Lawrence wrote:

Wow.  This guy actually believes I'm two people.  What a nut job.

No, I both believe, as well as know, that you're one person. One lonely idiot who is pretending to be two people. And yes, we all already know that you're a not job. There was no need for you to admit that via projection. Now are we going to play chess or not? 

[Solipsistic Dreams]

On Tuesday, 11 February 2014 15:03:56 UTC-6, T. Lavon Lawrence wrote:

Bro.

I'm willing to wager that you haven't made enough money from your scam links to buy yourself a cup of coffee at Starbucks. Save it for your next appointment with your psychiatrist little fella.

[Solipsistic Dreams]

On Tuesday, 11 February 2014 15:04:12 UTC-6, DK wrote:

"I've played chess when I was younger quite competitively"

I was a competitive player when I was younger... in elementary school and middle school. As in, I haven't played in years. 

All you are is a competitive troll. I don't think you were any kind of player when you were younger. If you want to fool yourself into believing that you were, that's your business. If you knew even the first thing about competitive chess, you would know that we use a RATING SYSTEM to determine skill level. Anyone who actually was a competitive player would have mentioned their rating. 

delirioustk on chesscube.com 

I sent you a friend add request on chesscube.com, so we can arrange the games. My username is "Troll_Lavon". At least now we all know what the "T" stands for.

[Solipsistic Dreams]

On Tuesday, 11 February 2014 15:04:12 UTC-6, DK wrote:

"I've played chess when I was younger quite competitively"

I was a competitive player when I was younger... in elementary school and middle school. As in, I haven't played in years. 

delirioustk on chesscube.com 

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Solipsistic Dreams <jaso...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

So much for you being "competitive", lol. I kicked your ass three games in a row. None of them were competitive in the very least. You're a weak club player at best.

Now I know why you didn't mention a rating. You never had one, lol.

[D Kong]

Nice try trolling. I haven't played in years as I said. It's not exactly easy to get back into playing 2 minute bullet games. 

And I never claimed to be a master, you're the one claiming to be a Fide Master, and I'm not disbelieving you. I don't really care.  

In a blitz 5 minute game, I would've easily won both Game 1 and Game 2. Obviously, the same considerations don't occur, as I'm sure your move selection would be better, but I think I easily proved that I was a competitive player if you are a Fide Master LOL. 

Game 1

Move 19  Bxf1 I'm up a piece, and I blunder at move 29 letting you take my rook. Otherwise I would've easily won. 

Game 2 

I'm up a knight and a pawn. Soon to consolidate pieces and transition to end game. You're done. I lose to poor clock management. 

Game 3 

I blundered, mid-game, and resigned. Whoops

Shouldn't you be destroying me if I haven't played in a competitive tournament in 10 years?  

I'm not even trying to argue with you. I could care less. As I said I agreed with what you stated and most of what everyone else stated. I just wanted to let everyone know that obviously not everyone is disagreeable that plays chess. 

For anyone interested:

LOL if anyone plays chess, they can verify for themselves if he "kicked my ass". Hell, if I had a mouse I might've sped through time trouble and won. I'm on a fricken trackpad.  

"kicked your ass three games in a row. None of them were competitive in the very least. You're a weak club player at best." 

[Event "ChessCube Game"]

[Site "www.chesscube.com"]

[Date "2014.02.11"]

[Round "-"]

[White "troll...@chesscube.com"]

[Black "delir...@chesscube.com"]

[Result "1-0"]

[WhiteElo "1568"]

[BlackElo "1457"]

[Time "16:47:23"]

[TimeControl "120"]

1. f4  c5 2. Nf3  Nc6 3. e3  d6 4. Bb5  Bd7 5. b3  Nf6 6. Bb2  g6 7. O-O  Bg7 8. d3  a6 9. Bxc6  Bxc6 10. Nbd2  O-O 11. Qe2  e6 12. a3  Qe7 13. Rae1  b5 14. Ng5  h6 15. Ngf3  a5 16. Ra1  a4 17. bxa4  bxa4 18. Bc3  Rab8 19. Nc4  Bd5 20. Nfd2  Rfd8 21. e4  Bc6 22. Na5  Ba8 23. Rab1  Qc7 24. Nac4  d5 25. Be5   1-0

[Event "ChessCube Game"]

[Site "www.chesscube.com"]

[Date "2014.02.11"]

[Round "-"]

[White "delir...@chesscube.com"]

[Black "troll...@chesscube.com"]

[Result "0-1"]

[WhiteElo "1477"]

[BlackElo "1548"]

[Time "16:43:50"]

[TimeControl "120"]

1. e4  e6 2. d4  d5 3. Nd2  Nf6 4. e5  Nfd7 5. c3  c5 6. Ngf3  Nc6 7. Bd3  cxd4 8. cxd4  f6 9. Qe2  Be7 10. O-O  O-O 11. Nb3  fxe5 12. dxe5  b6 13. Re1  Bb7 14. Nbd4  Nxd4 15. Nxd4  Nc5 16. f4  Qd7 17. Bc2  a5 18. Bd2  Ba6 19. Qf2  Bd3 20. Qg3  Ne4 21. Qxd3  Rac8 22. Rad1  Bc5 23. Be3  g6 24. Qe2  b5 25. Bxe4  dxe4 26. Qf2  Qa7 27. Nxe6  Bxe3 28. Rxe3  Rfe8  0-1

[Event "ChessCube Game"]

[Site "www.chesscube.com"]

[Date "2014.02.11"]

[Round "-"]

[White "troll...@chesscube.com"]

[Black "delir...@chesscube.com"]

[Result "1-0"]

[WhiteElo "1525"]

[BlackElo "1500"]

[Time "16:39:38"]

[TimeControl "120"]

1. f4  e6 2. Nf3  Nf6 3. e3  d5 4. b3  c5 5. Bb2  Nc6 6. Bb5  Ne4 7. Bxc6+  bxc6 8. O-O  f6 9. d3  Nd6 10. Nbd2  Be7 11. Qe2  O-O 12. a4  Ba6 13. Rae1  Qc7 14. Kh1  Rab8 15. Nh4  c4 16. dxc4  dxc4 17. Qg4  cxb3 18. Qxe6+  Kh8 19. cxb3  Bxf1 20. Rxf1  Rfe8 21. Qg4  Qc8 22. Qg3  Nf5 23. Nxf5  Qxf5 24. e4  Qa5 25. Bc3  Bb4 26. Nc4  Qc5 27. Ba1  Rxe4 28. f5  Rxc4 29. Qxb8+  Qf8 30. Qxf8+  Bxf8 31. bxc4  Kg8 32. Bd4  a6 33. Bb6   1-0

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 4:53 PM, Solipsistic Dreams <jaso...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, 11 February 2014 15:04:12 UTC-6, DK wrote:

"I've played chess when I was younger quite competitively"

I was a competitive player when I was younger... in elementary school and middle school. As in, I haven't played in years. 

delirioustk on chesscube.com 

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Solipsistic Dreams <jaso...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

So much for you being "competitive", lol. I kicked your ass three games in a row. None of them were competitive in the very least. You're a weak club player at best.

[T. Lavon Lawrence]

Did Jason actually create an account with my name it!?  LOL!  That's hilarious.

[T. Lavon Lawrence]

Now he's creating chess accounts using my name - this guy is something else.  Wow.

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 4:05 PM, D Kong <deliriou...@gmail.com> wrote:

[polar]

Ok guys, I've had enough of your argument. With measuring your... chess abilities you're largely off topic now, which means several of your posts now count as spam. So while I'm really looking forward to see your posts in more meaningful conversation, please stop spamming NOW. Thanks. Sincerely, your friendly neighborhood cognitive-training enthusiast.

Dne úterý, 11. února 2014 20:56:23 UTC+1 Solipsistic Dreams napsal(a):

[Solipsistic Dreams]

On Tuesday, 11 February 2014 16:05:38 UTC-6, DK wrote:

Nice try trolling. I haven't played in years as I said. It's not exactly easy to get back into playing 2 minute bullet games. 

Define 'trolling" there retard. It seems to me that you're the one acting like a troll. I've backed up everything I said. You're the one who got in my face bragging about being a hot shot chess player. We played, we played again, then we played again. I beat you easily all three games. I knew you were going to whine and cry and try to come up with some bullshiit excuses for why you lost. You think I've never come across that before? Try to be original for once in your pathetic troll life! Haven't played in years my arse. You just said that to try to mitigate the embarrassment in case you lost. And you LOST EVERY GAME TO ME. You probably play every day.

In a blitz 5 minute game, I would've easily won both Game 1 and Game 2.

Yes of course. You would have, you could have, and you should have. My beating you in EVERY GAME was pure luck, right? Only an idiot like you would assume that all the moves would be the same if different time controls were involved. It's the oldest and most pathetic excuse in the book. I chose speed games because I suspected you for a program cheater. If they were 5 minute games, or slower, I would have beat you even WORSE, you stupid twit. Adding time assists the STRONGER player, not the weaker one. My thinking is superior to yours. So if I get more time to think, it doesn't even matter that you get more time as well. You're sunk! At least in a fast casual game, where I"m screwing around and not taking things seriously, there is a chance I might make a mistake. Not that you're strong enough to capitalize on it, lol.

The fact is, you were dead lost in all three games. None of them were competitive. In game two, after crushing you like an insect in game one, even though I was horsing around, I still achieved an large advantage out of the opening. I dropped a clear piece due to mouse-slipping while I was talking on the phone. You're so weak I still beat you with no problems. Then in the third game you resigned before being checkmated to try to save further humiliation and embarrassment, lol.

 

Shouldn't you be destroying me if I haven't played in a competitive tournament in 10 years?  

 But I did in fact destroy you. I couldn't do better if I was playing against a German Sheppard. Winning every game is as good as Magnus Carlsen could have done. How can you be so pathetic? Also, i'm quite sure you play daily. That's why you were so quick to agree to play with me. You probably actually thought you were pretty good, after beating your grandma and a few of her bingo pals, lol. I'm glad I had the opportunity to set you straight. You're just making up this ten year BS to try to save face. Like I said, it's the oldest line in the book.  LMAO!!

For anyone interested:

LOL if anyone plays chess, they can verify for themselves if he "kicked my ass".

We played three games. I won all three. You lost all three. No draws. No adjournments. The jury has spoken. All you have is whining, crying, and bullshit excuses for why you lost. This is EXACTLY what I expected from you. In addition to lacking the intelligence required to get "competitive" at chess, you also lack the character.

[Solipsistic Dreams]

On Tuesday, 11 February 2014 16:12:10 UTC-6, T. Lavon Lawrence wrote:

Did Jason actually create an account with my name it!?  LOL!  That's hilarious.

You're still having conversations with yourself? Get a clue moron. Everyone knows that you're the same person.

[T. Lavon Lawrence]

Relax, Tin Foil - you're paranoia has you imagining strange things. 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to brain-t...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Bilder Berg]

So let me get this straight. Did he beat you all three games or not? You posted a lot of some kind of alphanumeric code or something, but who won the games?

[Brandon Woodson]

Now, now, I say. That's no spelling error; if I didn't use the intended word, which in all reality I did, that could at worse be chalked up as a hapless malapropism. Look the word up to rectify any exception you might take over its legitimacy.

When you spelled "somnolently" as "somnolenty", on the other hand... now *that* would be an actual "trivial spelling error". See the difference? ;)

Furthermore, I have absolutely no idea where you got any ballpark of an idea of my assessment of chess' complexity, nor do I wish for "us" to venture backwards, retracing that entanglement of disorientation to which we might owe your bemusement (as entertaining as it might prove, my schedule is awfully crammed, and I really don't have the time). I might, however, suggest you review earlier posts, so you can redirect what I am sure is a lovely argument to its appropriate addressee.



And with yet fortified hope of renouncing my patzer ways,

Brandon

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Solipsistic Dreams <jaso...@gmail.com> wrote:

I think you meant to say "solemnly". I normally don't pick on someone for trivial spelling errors, but really "somnolenty"? I would expect a better attempt from a four-year old who suffers from Down's Syndrome. Forget about becoming a titled player. You don't even have the brain power to make it to C-class (1400-1599)

On Friday, 7 February 2014 17:45:46 UTC-6, Brandon Woodson wrote:

And here they somnolently lie for an eternity, any unridden doubts that might have once stirred in mind about my chances of making it as a titled chess player... :)

On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Solipsistic Dreams <jaso...@gmail.com> wrote:

No, it's pretty clear that you're the one who needs to calm down. Your panties are in knots because I've proven you to be a fool! YOU review the thread. Specifically, review the posts that I made where I clearly refuted everything you said. You have yet to even acknowledge any of my claims, let alone try to refute them. The fact is, you don't know what you're talking about. You're a simpleton who just copies and pastes text without understanding anything. You know nothing about chess, or probably anything else for that matter. You are in NO POSITION to be commenting on what mental attributes are required to be a strong chess player. All you're doing is posting random drivel that has absolutely nothing at all to do with what is being discussed. Go back and RE-READ my posts until this is clear to you. Get someone to read them to you if that would be helpful for you. I'm not going to keep repeating myself when the information is all there and clearly accessible. At this point I'm wondering in earnest who turned the computer on for you. The same person who helped you to tie your shoelaces?

Expertise in playing chess IS expertise in the psychology of chess, you hapless imbecile. This is what I tried to teach you earlier, that chess is indeed a game of psychology, as much as its a game of objective theory. It is a sporting contest between two human opponents. The world's number one player, who happens to be the highest rated player in the history of the game, Magnus Carlsen, would tell you the same thing himself. So would Bobby Fischer who publicly stated that in order to be a great chess player you must be a "master psychologist". You don't understand this because, as i've said before, YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING AT ALL ABOUT CHESS. All you're doing is making a mindless reference to some obscure superficial studies done decades ago in which the "researcher" posted many errors, including the suggestion that Ruslan Ponomariov was a "world champion" in 2002 when at the time he wasn't even in the world's top 5! The studies also don't make any conclusive point whatsoever and are subject to lack of trail data and interpretation ambiguity. A more authoritative reference is someone who has demonstrated a high level of skill and understanding in chess. As I said, you're an idiot who can do nothing more than mindlessly copy/paste, and repeat what someone else says without understanding anything. You are a perfect example of someone who lacks the intelligence required to learn how to play chess, or any other intellectual pursuit, at a reasonable level.

You're completely deserving of everything I said about you. And quite a bit more! All you are is a wannabe poser. You lack the ability to THINK!

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to brain-t...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Brandon Woodson]

I don't want any miscommunications failing your ability to dig up the right comments. So to clarify:

Paragraphs 1 & 2 of my last post respond to your first post of today in this topic; Paragraph 3, to the last paragraph of your very next post, which accuses chess of being "much more complex than" I "realize". Fingers crossed.


--Brandon

[Amaury M]

"No, actually, that 135 figure, which by the way is higher than the average PhD, and IS exceptional, was just something someone posted on a blog. It is not official in any way shape or form"

The testing was financed by the major German magazine Der Spiegel in 1987, and you can find a reference to it (as well as the 135 figure) on their website:

http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-13526693.html

My IQ is in that range as well (~140). It's indeed a very good score and I'm quite happy with it (as well as with my academic achievements in my country), but I don't feel nowhere near "exceptional". I know i wouldn' stand a chance at getting the Fields Medal in Maths or the Nobel Prize in Physics for example, which is IMO a good comparison to what Kasparov achieved in chess.

Playing good chess requires special intellectual talents, i won't say the contrary.

But as i said: you don't need an exceptional IQ to be an exceptional chess player.

Le mardi 11 février 2014 20:06:45 UTC+1, Solipsistic Dreams a écrit :

No, actually, that 135 figure, which by the way is higher than the average PhD, and IS exceptional, was just something someone posted on a blog. It is not official in any way shape or form. Team of psychologists my ass. I'd like you to name the members of this so-called "team" and when and where it took place.  Some websites quote Kasparov as having an IQ as high as 190,and put him in the top ten in the world http://www.therichest.com/business/the-top-10-most-intelligent-people-in-the-world/ which I think it's closer to the truth, albeit higher than I would have expected. Fischer's IQ of 187 was confirmed by a high-school transcript. Those are two exceptional IQs. In fact, exceptional would be an understatement. World Class is more like it.

The reality is that chess is an extremely complex and intellectual game. It's just that people like you, with average to below-average intelligence don't want to face reality. You want to believe that anything is possible for you, so long as you put your mind to it. Unfortunately for you, reality won't budge. If you ever got the nerve to join a national chess organization and compete in tournaments, you would find out just how harsh that reality really is.

On Sunday, 9 February 2014 05:49:45 UTC-6, Amaury M wrote:

@Solipsistic Dreams: if you are that much into chess you'll certainly know that Kasparov was tested at his peak by a team of psychologists and that he scored in the 130s (i think it was 135). This is good but not nearly as exceptional as his chess skills.

You don't need an exceptional IQ to be an exceptional chess player.

[jotaro]

the guy is crazy, why do you keep feeding him?
maybe he is just a 14 year old mentality.

--

[polar]

Solipsistic dreams, you threats about "finding me and shutting me up permanently / me being not able to experience my next birtday", combined with some pretty sophisticated language :) were reported and deleted online before I could read them (thanks guys). Anyway, they made it to the newsletter - so let me say this:

Wooow! :) Its really amusing trying to understand, how you think this kind of lewd comments could intimidate me. It really needs a social... how do you say it? Simpleton? :) So let me help you understand some social stuff here: I dont want to be an arbiter, I was your reminder to follow very simple and meaningful rules of communication - namely, not to assault anybody just because you dont agree with him (or because he's plainly wrong). But its hard to give something we didnt get in our lives, am I right? In any case, when you shit in the middle of public square, I wont turn my face away, so I reported this thread to google and your account to the owner of the group. And now, I will give you a gift, so please enjoy it as much as you can: this is my last reaction to you in this thread.

Dne úterý, 11. února 2014 20:56:23 UTC+1 Solipsistic Dreams napsal(a):

Le vendredi 23 novembre 2012 03:09:18 UTC+1, Sheldon Cooper a écrit :

Chess is often hailed as a game for intellects. It has even found its way into some classrooms, (in some cases) used to teach math and enhance problem solving. But does it actually work? Could playing intensive chess improve working memory and fluid intelligence?

I like playing chess, but I have better things to do if keeping my game up isn't going to help up my IQ.

[Gwern Branwen]

On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 8:14 AM, polar <pol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Solipsistic dreams, you threats about "finding me and shutting me up
> permanently / me being not able to experience my next birtday", combined
> with some pretty sophisticated language :) were reported and deleted online
> before I could read them (thanks guys).

He has also been put on moderation by the list owner; the personal
threats were the final straw. Given the past quality of his emails and
his apparent inability to understand what research he did post, it's
unlikely you'll be seeing many more emails from him.

--
gwern
http://www.gwern.net

[whoisbambam]

It is about time.

:(

I am grateful for the moderation, as 'in moderation' was exceeded.