Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Chess and IQ, chess and checkers

  1. Dec 4, 2009 #1
    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 ?
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 4, 2009 #2
    There is some truth in that statement, but overall I find it short-sighted.

    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?"
    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.

    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?

    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.
  4. Dec 6, 2009 #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
    that's true and it is basing on schemata
    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"
    but Mastermind and Supermind are board games
    ok, but previously you have written:
    it is a contradiction
    nota bene in such games like Mastermind, Super Mastermind and Supermind, schemata don't have any application
    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: Dec 6, 2009
  5. Dec 6, 2009 #4
    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.

    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.
  6. Dec 9, 2009 #5
    practice means exactly a schema
    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: Dec 9, 2009
  7. Dec 9, 2009 #6
    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.

    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.

    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.
  8. Dec 9, 2009 #7
    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.
  9. Dec 9, 2009 #8
    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.

    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.
  10. Dec 9, 2009 #9


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Mastermind? Really? :confused:
  11. Dec 9, 2009 #10
    exactly as you have said but
    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
    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
    as far as I know, yes
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2009
  12. Dec 9, 2009 #11


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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: Dec 9, 2009
  13. Dec 9, 2009 #12
    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!
  14. Dec 9, 2009 #13
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 24, 2017
  15. Dec 11, 2009 #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.
  16. Dec 11, 2009 #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.
  17. Dec 22, 2009 #16
    Mastermind is basing on aleatory combination, Chess is starting with always the same initial position, there is no randomness in this game
    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.
  18. Dec 22, 2009 #17


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.

    Study and strategy = cheating? :confused:
    Last edited: Dec 22, 2009
  19. Dec 23, 2009 #18
    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.
  20. Dec 23, 2009 #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?
  21. Dec 23, 2009 #20
    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.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Similar Discussions: Chess and IQ, chess and checkers
  1. Chess and Matrices (Replies: 33)

  2. Chess puzzle (Replies: 25)

  3. Chess Moves (Replies: 8)

  4. Is chess a futile game? (Replies: 27)

  5. Chess problem (Replies: 13)