Unlike in movies, most smart people aren't good in chess.
Unlike in movies, most smart people aren't good in chess.
Sure, playing chess needs intelligence, dedication, and good chess players are smarter than an average person. But it's waaaay exaggerated in movies. I'm a math researcher, and in any movie, my department will be full of chess geniuses. But in reality, only about 10% of them even play chess.
Being skilled at a game has little bearing on your intelligence beyond maybe "above average". Intelligence is often best reflected in learning speed.
If you want to beat all of your friends at chess:
learn how to mate in endgames with a few different combinations of pieces.
Castle early and on the same side of your opponent.
Learn to defend scholars mate.
Focus on piece development early on, get you back rank pieces out (bishops knights)
Fight for the center
When attacking a square, just count how many other pieces are attacking and defending that square and see if you have more than your opponent, this is a great way to quickly analyze an attacks value.
Trade when you have a piece advantage, this is like taking a math question and simplyifing the terms. It greatly simplifies the game and brings it in to the the end game with an advantage.
Learn any one opening system just a few branches that can consistently bring you into tactics (static analysis of the board state) even or with a slight advantage.
These tips can be accomplished in a week and will dominate anyone who 'just knows the rules'
I also think it’s a generational thing.
Back then, since chess was associated with intelligence, a lot of academic types tried to play it and get good at it.
I would say once we had computers, there was another much more practical thing you could get good at.
But seriously, chess sets used to be part of the house decor.
Chess is mostly a memorisation game for gambits / openers and subsequent sets of follow-on moves.
After that, it’s mentally simulating the board state a few moves ahead, varying pieces and guesstimating probability of what move the opponent will make. A lot of that you start to memorise, especially since other chess enthusiasts will often play well-known gambits / strategies.
Intelligence often correlates with memory but they’re not one and the same. I grew up knowing a competitive chess player and remember the time they referred to their “hambag” (handbag). English was their mother tongue…
Chess requires dedication, conviction, and patience. Anyone with average intelligence can learn the game to the point of competence in 30 minutes.
It requires much more time to become an expert, or master.
And most people don't have that much time to expend on it. That's not something to be ashamed of.
Disclaimer: not calling myself smart or anything.
I always found chess boring, for some reason. Like, not because it is too complex, but because it isn't complex enough, in a way. As an example, the first time I tried my hand at Medieval II: Total War, I fell in love with all things strategy.
I still can't do chess, though... It's like my mind goes to its happy place halfway through a match and I start making moves just to progress the game and be done with it. Gimme a 4X game, and I'd need reminders to pee every 12 hours.
One of the daftest people I ever met managed to beat 3 of us at once at chess. Would routinely kick my ass every time and it wasn't even close.
The kind of person who absolutely would have injected bleach to cure covid.
So... disclaimer first! I have played chess but only a year or so; I got into chess during the pandemic and had a peak ELO of ~1600+ on chess.com and 1900+ on Lichess; probably translates to a classical ELO of ~1200 (competition is tough in classical...). Obviously I'm not remotely a good player, but I can hold my ground. I also had to do a neuropsych evaluation recently for mental health reasons, so I spent the last month of my free time looking into research of intelligence (g factor, IQ tests, the disturbing history, etc...) for my own curiosity. So I might have a bit of knowledge on this... but:
For the most part chess is its own unique skills and is unrelated to "smartness". Nevertheless, I think chess might be related to probably just one or two specific narrow fields of intelligence. Being good at chess requires one to be knowledgeable of various chess openings (memorization, working memory), extremely strong pattern recognition (Magnus Carlsen is really good at this; AlphaZero was literally all pattern recognition due to the way it works), and being able to see 5, 10, or even 15 steps ahead and consider all the rational options (again, working memory)
I just took the WAIS-V test two weeks ago for my psych eval, and they do indeed test for working memory and pattern recognition in specific sub-tasks. However the difference is... IQ tests are never meant to be practiced as they measure a type of "potential" if you may, but chess is all about what you actually play on the board. Sure maybe if ppl were literally just given the rules and had no prior exposure then a smarter person might spot a forced checkmate faster, but ppl do pratice for the game... In fact, the advice people used to give to get better at chess is... to do more puzzles
Sooo... methinks an intelligent person might have a slight edge training themselves to do the above, but there is probably otherwise very little association. After a certain point intelligence itself probably has no influence on chess performance whatsoever, and realistically it's more about "grit", or how much time/effort someone puts into the game
Aaand... case in point. Apparently Kasparov went through a 3-day intensive intelligence test, but had a really "spiky" profile that is more commonly seen in neurodivergent individuals; scored really high on some categories and abysmally low on others. I saw this random Reddit post which says that Carlsen scored 115(+1SD) on AGCT (a fairly quick and accurate online test), which is not low but not impressive by any means either. Nakamura allegedly got 102 on Mensa Norway's trial test, which is not as accurate as AGCT but should be fairly good too; 102 is like dead-average
„The ability to play chess is the sign of a gentleman. The ability to play chess well is the sign of a wasted life.“
Aha. That's because they all play go!
Right?
From my experience most smart people learned and played chess at some point but few get the point of memorizing stuff. Especially if they are not good memorizes. Its a great game to teach and play with kids as it does stimulate the mind with the way the pieces move and having to think about the changing board and next move. That being said I was not even aware of en passant until I met a guy in college who actually went to competitions. Heck I rarely could remember how to castle due to how rare it was to get into a position to do so. Really though any type of stimulating activity is helpful. Someone mentioned rubicks cubes and like suduko and crosswords and really any gaming. They all have limitations. I often say crosswords is more about knowing the crossword author than anything else. They all have favorites and biases in their puzzles.
I don't have the patience to learn how to play chess well. I don't think more than one move ahead. My favourite game is Catan.
Same with rubiks cube
Folk always seem to underestimate the effect of training and experience. In a match between two unpracticed players, sure, the more analytically inclined of the two will have an edge. This is true of any game with a strategic component. General intelligence helps but specialist knowledge is better.
Guess I'll start with the same disclaimer: I don't think I'm too smart for chess or anything.
I always thought chess is kinda boring. Don't get me wrong, it's fun enough as a novice. It's probably also fun for people who mastered it, I'm not denying that.
However, for everything inbetween, it's mostly about memorizing stuff. You just learn hundreds of openings and how to counter them. From what I've seen, a lot of intermediate players fall apart once they go off-script. It takes years until you're good enough to strategize properly on your own, like a novice would, without some going "That's the 'double helix chin twister'" and beating you.
It's kinda like the problem multiplayer games often have for me. There's a set meta and you either learn it or lose. To experiment yourself successfully, you have to invest a massive amount of time. Experimenting myself is the fun part. I'm don't want to invest hundreds if not thousands of hours before I get to have fun.
I'm dumb as rocks at night but I won 3rd in a competition once. My brain does that thing the DVD logo does on your TV when you're not watching anything but I can get a bunch of bullshit into the middle of the board really fast.
Can confirm, my brothers are both very good at chess. One is smart, the other is dumb as rocks
The pared-down nature of chess really puts me off. I'm sure there's some elegant simplicity in it but I mostly find it dull. I like an element of randomness in my games.
Chess doesn't feel like a gateway to other, more fun games, and if it's not a fun game for me, why would I pursue it? I'm fairly sure it doesn't build skills that translate to anything else.
I also get that there are layers to it, although I'm adding that as apparently that's not so self-evident as to be taken as read. I can see where the path leads and find it no more appealing than the obnoxiously boring gambling machines in casinos, or Dota2, or athletics. Learn the meta, build an understanding of the underlying concepts in order to be able to build more complex strategies based on a combination of instinctive statistical analysis and assessment of your opponent, etc. etc.. I get it, I'm just not interested.
Edit: oh that's interesting, some of you have gone into my profile and systematically downvoted my older comments. That's what I get for not just blocking a Lemmy.ml user as soon as they chimed in.
I consider myself reasonably intelligent but I also have ADHD so … I completely suck at chess.
Yeah... everytime I see it in movies I kinda cringe. However it still is an effective narrative tool to say that the person is a stategist or is in a higher tax bracket ( or honestly any quality that the common viewer doesn't have). Even so, I wish writers would stop doing this.
True, but 10% is probably higher average than usual.
This got me wondering about lionising Go in films. I think I need to start a such a movement amongst directors or screen writers.
I'm hilariously bad at chess. I learned the fools gambit and never progressed.