Chess and IQ, chess and checkers

  • Thread starter SystemTV
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Chess Iq
In summary, there is a discussion on a message board about the role of schemata in games such as Go, Gomoku, Chess, Checkers, and Othello. The original poster argues that these games have formulated patterns of moves that allow for victory regardless of IQ or analytical skills. This is seen clearly in Gomoku and Checkers, and the difference between Chess and Gomoku is only a difference of degree, not a fundamental principle. However, the response argues that there is more to these games than just schemata and that practice plays a significant role. They also mention that there are other games, such as Bridge, Mastermind, and Supermind, that are free from these weaknesses and truly test IQ and analytical
  • #1
SystemTV
7
0
on some message board I found this text:
"Such games as Go, Gomoku, Chess, Checkers, Othello have a character of schematic games - this means that exist formulated patterns of moves which make possible attainment of the victory in spite of even a lot lower IQ and analytical skills. It is visible very clearly on the example of Gomoku or Checkers, and a difference between Chess and Gomoku is only a difference of degree but not a principle - what is often not sighted and many people treat attainments in chess as indicator of intellectual level, what is very delusive.
There exist also games that are free from such weaknesses and can really corelate with real IQ and analitical skills, some card games like Bridge, also board games like Mastermind or Supermind. In each from such games, important part play randomness.

Correlation between Chess and IQ is very often negative, exists for example the schema of the game, which made possible obtainment of title of world champion, it relies on the so called ′game with pawns′ or 'checkers style', such technique used R.Fischer
how works this pattern can be seen using the program Chessmaster 10th edition, one ought to place: white-Fischer, time-blitz 5 minutes, opponent can be about 1800 elo and the time at least 20 minutes, in this simulator it is visible very pellucidly on what relies this schema
on this solution are leaning most effective at present chess engines such as Shreeder, Fritz, Hiarcs etc.
of course Russian chess players always were and are using schemata of game"

what do you think about it ?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #2
There is some truth in that statement, but overall I find it short-sighted.

SystemTV said:
on some message board I found this text:
"Such games as Go, Gomoku, Chess, Checkers, Othello have a character of schematic games - this means that exist formulated patterns of moves which make possible attainment of the victory in spite of even a lot lower IQ and analytical skills.
That gives the wrong impression. Despite there being simple chess-rules like "an open bishop line is good", all these schematic rules are very imprecise, say only some guideline in a few situations and you never know which of these pro and cons is stronger and which is weaker.

The so called scheme is also very complex. It takes years of practice and for high IQ people this the time learning the "scheme" might shorten significantly.

However, there in chess is indeed a lot about practice (not a scheme!) and less about intelligence. See:
Nature 12.Dec 2002 "Chess and GO no-brainers?"
The board games chess and GO take practice, not intellect, brain scans of players suggest [1,2]. Intelligence areas appear inactive when people puzzle over game strategy.
Amateur chess and GO players do not use an area that is believed to house general intelligence, sometimes called 'g', US and Chinese researchers have found. "It's a provocative claim," admits team member Sheng He, who is based at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis.
...

SystemTV said:
It is visible very clearly on the example of Gomoku or Checkers, and a difference between Chess and Gomoku is only a difference of degree but not a principle - what is often not sighted and many people treat attainments in chess as indicator of intellectual level, what is very delusive.
Well, of course some problems are easy once someone tells you the solution. But it's not possible to formulate a scheme in chess. If you do, then it will only be accessible to brute force computer search.

SystemTV said:
There exist also games that are free from such weaknesses and can really corelate with real IQ and analitical skills, some card games like Bridge, also board games like Mastermind or Supermind. In each from such games, important part play randomness.
I don't know these games that well, but the author must be a bridge lover and board game hater. My personal opinion is that chess is much more of an "IQ game".
And anyway, which game doesn't have a considerable amount of scheme?

SystemTV said:
Correlation between Chess and IQ is very often negative, exists for example the schema of the game, which made possible obtainment of title of world champion, it relies on the so called ′game with pawns′ or 'checkers style', such technique used R.Fischer
I wouldn't take this seriously. The rest of the paragraph sounds like crack-pottery to me.

Of course there might be bizarre tricks that surprise a middle class player. But once he knows them, they are worthless.
 
  • #3
tha author of the citation could answer to you:
There is some truth in your post, but overall I find it short-sighted.

I will try to be an advocate of ideas presented in first post
However, there in chess is indeed a lot about practice ... and less about intelligence

that's true and it is basing on schemata
But it's not possible to formulate a scheme in chess.

if it is possible to formulate a schema in gomoku, the same you can do in chess, I see that you didn't get a clue of adduced analysis, you should rethink it again: "a difference between Chess and Gomoku is only a difference of degree but not a principle" and a principle is: "Many board games have a character of schematic games - this means that exist formulated patterns of moves which make possible attainment of the victory"
I don't know these games that well, but the author must be a bridge lover and board game hater

but Mastermind and Supermind are board games
And anyway, which game doesn't have a considerable amount of scheme?
ok, but previously you have written:
But it's not possible to formulate a scheme in chess

it is a contradiction
nota bene in such games like Mastermind, Super Mastermind and Supermind, schemata don't have any application
I wouldn't take this seriously. The rest of the paragraph sounds like crack-pottery to me...
Of course there might be bizarre tricks that surprise a middle class player. But once he knows them, they are worthless.

again you didn't get a clue, if masters of gomoku use schemata the same are doing masters of chess and engines, you just simply didn't know that; these 'bizarre tricks' are absolutely fundamental methods to get win in such games like chess, gomoku or checkers
(let's take for example theory of debuts so set of very precise schemata)
 
Last edited:
  • #4
SystemTV said:
that's true and it is basing on schemata
My notion of "schemes" is that it is something that one can explain. Practice however teaches you something that one cannot explain - the brain has it's secret workings which the human kind doesn't understand. So there is no way to skip practice - and high IQ people might learn from practice faster?!
I challenge you to find out the scheme of chess, login into a chess server and play the very good players. I can guarantee you that if you ever manage to win, you will understand that there is no "explicable scheme".
Or what is your definition of scheme then? How would you proof that something is a scheme? Can anyone learn GO within a short time? Can you learn it? Go on and check that online.
I am sure that not anyone can become a great chess/go player. So basically some people are more skilled than others, which is equivalent to being more intelligent in that area.

SystemTV said:
if it is possible to formulate a scheme in gomoku, the same you can do in chess, I see that you didn't get a clue of adduced analysis
And a similar analysis would indicate "because the grass is green you must be wrong"?!
You cannot compare different things for no reason. A scientific article always has references which point to scientific studies and no claim is unjustified.
I gave you a reference which supports a claim similar to yours by saying that chess is practice. However practice doesn't mean it's a scheme.

In the last sentences you seem to repeat yourself, make unsupported claims and disqualify my statements without giving arguments.

The only solution that I can suggest is that you try out yourself playing Chess and Go against great player after reading the mysterious "scheme". I and I suppose many others can assure you that will not be able to win. How else do you explain the a single chess grand master always wins against a mob of average people? They can be as many as they want, they can use any resources and any schemes. And yet they always lose.
 
  • #5
I gave you a reference which supports a claim similar to yours by saying that chess is practice. However practice doesn't mean it's a scheme.
practice means exactly a schema
I challenge you to find out the scheme of chess, login into a chess server and play the very good players

I can know some important facts about Chess, and I don't have to win with masters or experts - as same as I can know some important facts about Gomoku (like fact that Gomoku is basing on patterns, and I can even know some patterns), and I don't have to win with masters or experts of Gomoku

it is similar situation like in case of Rubik's cube, I and many people know very well that there exist schemata to solve Rubik's cube but most from them wouldn't be able to solve it -
(because they have no time to learn these schemata)
 
Last edited:
  • #6
SystemTV said:
practice means exactly a schema
So it seems it's just a question of definition. In my opinion, if only selected people are able to learn a task within a given time (or say lifetime), then these people are more intelligent. And indeed only selected people are able to learn fast enough from practice. Some people might practice for years and not learn anything new.

SystemTV said:
and I don't have to win with masters or experts of Gomoku
OK, so what is your point about saying "it's only a scheme"? You (and also me) will never be able to beat these grand masters no matter how many schemes we learn and no matter how much we practice (because only grand master can practice fast enough). So these grand masters are more intelligent in that area? Or what else is your definition of intelligence.

SystemTV said:
it is similar situation like in case of Rubik's cube, I and many people know very well that there exist schemata to solve Rubik's cube but most from them wouldn't be able to solve it -
(because they have no time to learn these schemata)
Rubik's cube is completely different. For the cube a precise formulation of rules exist that guarantees success (apart from motoric skills in being fast). For chess such a definite rule doesn't exist.
 
  • #7
SystemTV said:
I can know some important facts about Chess, and I don't have to win with masters or experts - as same as I can know some important facts about Gomoku (like fact that Gomoku is basing on patterns, and I can even know some patterns), and I don't have to win with masters or experts of Gomoku

it is similar situation like in case of Rubik's cube, I and many people know very well that there exist schemata to solve Rubik's cube but most from them wouldn't be able to solve it -
(because they have no time to learn these schemata)

Is it really impossible to beat a Grandmaster, or is it just highly unlikely? If you dedicated the time you could probably get very good at chess. That is what the Grandmasters did. They weren't born amazing at chess, and they were not developed in a test tube. They just dedicated the time and discovered the natural talents that they possessed.

Any person willing to take the time to figure out a Rubik's cube can figure one out. I haven't played with one in a while, but I have observed that when this color needs to be in a particular spot a certain set of moves is required to place it in the correct spot without messing up the other squares. Of course there is a mathematical method to solving it, but I bet you that the majority of the solved Rubik's cubes in the world were solved by people taking the time to learn the patterns, not by people working out the math.
 
  • #8
Pattonias said:
If you dedicated the time you could probably get very good at chess. That is what the Grandmasters did. They weren't born amazing at chess, and they were not developed in a test tube. They just dedicated the time and discovered the natural talents that they possessed.
The talent bit is what I want to emphasize. Some people just don't have the talent. So by definition the others are more intelligent in the area.

Pattonias said:
Any person willing to take the time to figure out a Rubik's cube can figure one out.
Then you are not aware of what people do in Rubik competitions. It's about time and not everyone can develop the fast fingers needed.
I know that just solving the cube is easy. I once learned a mid-level algorithm and was able to solve the cube in 80sec. I didn't want to learn the more professional patterns, since I knew it just takes some time learn and I'll be able to do that in less time. However I suppose even with the most professional pattern my finger skills wouldn't allow me to get below 50sec or so. And some people can do rubik in 20sec or even one-handed in 40sec! It is not about solving the cube. It is about doing it fast or even blind-folded.
 
  • #9
SystemTV said:
There exist also games that are free from such weaknesses and can really corelate with real IQ and analitical skills, some card games like Bridge, also board games like Mastermind or Supermind. In each from such games, important part play randomness.
Mastermind? Really? :confused:
 
  • #10
Pattonias said:
If you dedicated the time you could probably get very good at chess. That is what the Grandmasters did. They weren't born amazing at chess, and they were not developed in a test tube.
exactly as you have said but
They just dedicated the time and discovered the natural talents that they possessed.
no, they didn't discovered any talent for that, because there is no talent to learn unintelligent schemata - they were just enough stupid to do it
Any person willing to take the time to figure out a Rubik's cube can figure one out.
exactly
Gerenuk said:
I know that just solving the cube is easy
?
I once learned a mid-level algorithm and was able to solve the cube in 80sec
It is one from hardest puzzles - if you play it as you should, but if you use solution it isn't a game or puzzle only chopping of wood
Hurkyl said:
Mastermind? Really?
as far as I know, yes
 
Last edited:
  • #11
SystemTV said:
as far as I know, yes
I suggest you do some googling for "mastermind strategy". Also, try "static mastermind".


P.S. Mastermind is no more random than Chess. It's not very hard to put Mastermind into the same category of two-player perfect information games. The codebreaker's moves are to make a guess. The codemaker's moves are to place pegs in a way consistent with the previous plays. The codebreaker wins when the codemaker is forced to play the 4 black pegs move. The codemaker wins if the game goes through 10 turns without the breaker winning.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
SystemTV said:
no, they didn't discovered any talent for that, because there is no talent to learn unintelligent schemata - they were just enough stupid to do it
Do you realize how *** it is to claim you could win just any game that other people play if you only somone told you the "secret scheme"? I'm not sure why you are so desperate to prove that these people are stupid and just wasted time.
Maybe you shouldn't accuse so much, but actually start one of these games yourself and try to beat the best. Be don't be disappointed if you cannot manage to learn that "unintelligent schemata". Good luck!
 
  • #13
PForums actually has https://www.physicsforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=197" games under Brain Teasers. I'm sure that some of the better players would be willing to match wits/talents/stupid with you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #14
Chess, like checkers, like tic-tac-toe, is an iterated deterministic game. There exists, somewhere in game-space, a best time history of moves by player 1, in complement to player 2's best time history of moves, from beginning to end.

The starting point, should be able to take into consideration any starting board configuration.

The problem is that, unlike tic-tac-toe, the space in which you would have to search for this best response for chess is factorially larger. We couldn't fit the complete decision tree on any amount of earthly computer storage media if we wanted to. So instead, we play the game by attempted anticipation of our opponents moves, ect.
 
  • #15
I believe I read that checkers has been solved completely. Chinook or so has a complete database?

As you say, the brute force approach is not feasible to the human mind, so a human player has to take other approaches based in pattern recognition. This pattern detection is very complex.
 
  • #16
Hurkyl said:
Mastermind is no more random than Chess
?
Mastermind is basing on aleatory combination, Chess is starting with always the same initial position, there is no randomness in this game
MadRocketSci2 said:
unlike tic-tac-toe, the space in which you would have to search for this best response for chess is factorially larger
even that such space is larger, there exist many primitive recipes-patterns in chess like mentioned in first post "checkers style" used by Fischer on which are basing most of present chess programs, so game is honest only to some level (about 1900 elo and under condition that both players are playing fair without using recipes), if somebody is playing on level 2000 elo or more it is sure that he is using some skeleton key-pattern or patterns

each of grandmasters is an ordinary cheat, only this can explain fact that according to Levitt equation, person playing on level 1700 elo very often have the same IQ as grandmaster.
 
  • #17
SystemTV said:
?
Mastermind is basing on aleatory combination,
No, Mastermind follows completely deterministically from the choices made by the players.

And, as I mentioned, it is an easy exercise to convert it into a game that is obviously a standard two player perfect information game: don't make the codemaker select a fixed code beforehand, just have him assign pegs to the guesses consistently.

As far as the codebreaker is concerned, the two forms of the game are identical.


Also, I mentioned static mastermind -- as the codebreaker, it's easy enough to simply play a fixed combination of moves every single time, and then work out what the code must be.



if somebody is playing on level 2000 elo or more it is sure that he is using some skeleton key-pattern or patterns

each of grandmasters is an ordinary cheat,
Study and strategy = cheating? :confused:
 
Last edited:
  • #18
Hurkyl said:
Study and strategy = cheating? :confused:
I just believe SystemTV has some personally issues with someone who beat him at chess. He clearly doesn't know much about this game, the way he writes.
 
  • #19
At what point did IQ become the determining factor in a chess game?

Or better yet, when was IQ ever decided to be a game of competing IQ?
 
  • #20
Pattonias said:
At what point did IQ become the determining factor in a chess game?
Or better yet, when was IQ ever decided to be a game of competing IQ?
Did you mean who said chess measures IQ?
I think chess and IQ are different dimensions, even though there might be some correlations. But in any case chess is a game that requires skills that not many people can achieve. And whoever thinks otherwise is welcome to prove us wrong, by actually trying to play that game.
 
  • #21
Just practice won't let your brain decide and and foresee moves in advance. Most grandmasters look at every possibility on both sides up to many many moves in advance. As far as I'm concerned, no amount of practice would allow my brain to see that far ahead.
 
  • #22
Hurkyl said:
Mastermind follows completely deterministically
Mastermind, Super Mastermind, and also Supermind - https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=364304"
are basing on randomness, chess not
Gerenuk said:
I just believe SystemTV has some personally issues with someone who beat him at chess. He clearly doesn't know much about this game, the way he writes.
no I haven't, for many years I was a fan of chess, I had even some achievements on that field, and I know much more than you about this game, taking the way I write - you should read again first post and rethink it because you didn't get a clue at all (you only repeat commonplace opinions about chess).
Chess it is the same what checkers, exactly the same !
At what point did IQ become the determining factor in a chess game?
taking Levitt equation: Elo ~ (10 x IQ) + 1000, player with elo 1700 can have higher IQ than player with 2500 elo - and taking also fact that chess is so schematic there exist rather some form of negative correlation between chess and IQ (in other words normal people don't have time to master brainless patterns which are needed to achive level above class A in chess, only persons with specific narrow minded personality think that such thing is worth so many time)
Gerenuk said:
But in any case chess is a game that requires skills that not many people can achieve
bassplayer142 said:
Just practice won't let your brain decide and and foresee moves in advance. Most grandmasters look at every possibility on both sides up to many many moves in advance. As far as I'm concerned, no amount of practice would allow my brain to see that far ahead.
myths
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #23
SystemTV said:
no I haven't, for many years I was a fan of chess, I had even some achievements on that field, and I know much more than you about this game, taking the way I write - you should read again first post and rethink it because you didn't get a clue at all (you only repeat commonplace opinions about chess).
I'm surprised you write all that including the first post. I suppose you thought chess is all about learning the secret schematical trick, but after a few successes against weaker players you got stuck and were frustrated that it isn't that easy. If you don't want or can't learn chess, then you can learn another game. But there is no point disqualifying that game by saying "I can't beat the better players, but this game is useless anyway and if you told me the secret trick I could beat you." Don't you think that sounds ridiculous?

SystemTV said:
Chess it is the same what checkers, exactly the same !
Obviously the rules are different and I can asure you that a world class chess player would have to learn checkers anew.

SystemTV said:
(in other words normal people don't have time to master brainless patterns which are needed to achive level above class A in chess, only persons with specific narrow minded personality think that such thing is worth so many time)
Don't make a fool out of yourself by saying "I'm too intelligent to learn chess. And if only I had time I would be world champion". That sounds like an 11 year old.
My advice again: Just go and learn a game of your choice to prove your intelligence. And before you have succeed stop claiming you could do everything if only you wanted.
 
  • #24
Gerenuk said:
I suppose you thought chess is all about learning the secret schematical trick, but after a few successes against weaker players you got stuck and were frustrated that it isn't that easy
you didn't get a clue
 
  • #25
IQ is not a scientific quantity. Do something useful.
 
  • #26
I'm going to close this thread before it gets (more) heated. Two reminders for all involved:

(1) We don't accept insults here
(2) We don't accept oracles here
 

1. Does playing chess improve IQ?

There is some evidence that playing chess can improve certain types of cognitive abilities, such as problem-solving, critical thinking, and spatial reasoning. However, it is not a guarantee that playing chess will directly increase one's overall IQ score.

2. Is there a correlation between chess and intelligence?

Studies have shown that there is a positive correlation between playing chess and measures of intelligence, such as IQ tests. However, this does not mean that playing chess is the sole determinant of one's intelligence.

3. Can playing checkers improve cognitive abilities?

Similar to chess, playing checkers can also improve cognitive abilities such as problem-solving and critical thinking. However, the effects may not be as significant as playing chess.

4. Are chess and checkers equally beneficial for intelligence?

While both games can improve cognitive abilities, chess has been found to have a more significant impact on intelligence than checkers. This is due to the complex and strategic nature of chess compared to the simpler rules of checkers.

5. Can playing chess or checkers at a young age improve intelligence in the long term?

There is evidence that playing chess or checkers at a young age can have long-term benefits for cognitive abilities and intelligence. However, this is not a guarantee and other factors such as genetics and environment also play a role in intelligence development.

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
4K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
18
Views
5K
Back
Top