Main Date: 13 Oct 2006 20:46:49 From: Zero Subject: Does Kramnik have a high IQ ? Since Kramnik is the world chess champion, does that mean that he is a genius and have a high IQ? Could he be a member of Mensa ?   Date: 23 Nov 2006 22:13:27 From: Subject: Re: Does Kramnik have a high IQ ? David Richerby wrote: > alexmagnus <[email protected]> wrote: > > IMO people with high chess ratings tend to have high IQs but the > > reversal is wrong, i.e., high IQ doesn't automatically (in average) > > mean chess talent. > > That's a reasonable hypothesis. > I concur. Every great chess player is going to be several standard deviations above average with respect to many (but not all) other intellectual activities, but I bet many great mathematicians and thinkers would never become great at chess no matter how much they tried (and vice versa). In other words, the correlation is highly positive but far from being 100%.   Date: From: Martin Brown Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess     Date: 30 Oct 2006 19:30:15 From: Johannes Seppi Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess On 30 Oct 2006 00:27:12 -0800, "tin Brown" <   Date: 26 Oct 2006 11:48:43 From: Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess Chess One wrote: > <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... > > Chess One wrote: > >> <[email protected]> wrote in message > >> news:[email protected]... > >> > >> >> Okay, but I think this neds more definition. For example, even though > >> >> the > >> >> puzzle is intellectual, is it solved intellectually, or by rote > >> >> memory? > >> >> > >> > > >> > How many puzzles do you know that require large memory? I suspect the > >> > very dfinition of a "poser" or a "puzzle" is something that can be > >> > solved through thinking not memorization. > >> > >> It is a fair question. But what is the answer? :) > >> > > > > The answer is ttat I have never seen an IQ or any other puzzle that > > requires an unusual amount of memory. Have you? > > Unusual, no. But the questions are often of a pattern. If I take several > tests my scores get better, since I recognise the same patterns from > previous questions. This is a factor of memory. > No, it's not. It's a matter of you learning a new skill. > > A second point is that if my initial pattern recognition is something I > discovered for myself, or a memory of what someone else explained to me. I > think this has been the main difficulty with standard IQ testing, and other > similar tests. It is unclear what is memory and what is insight. > > The same is true on the chessboard, no? > Sure. That's how you improve in chess: by learning new patterns. > > Did you ever meet a player who > 'knows everything' - who knows more about every line of play than you do, > but when the clock is ticking and against a real opponent, can't play very > good chess? And sometimes can't even play the line they could remember when > it was jsut talking of chess? > Sure. He is a very learned player but not a very st one. His IQ may also be lower than yours. Or maybe he is very absent-minded... > > >> Does the concert pianist use logical thinking and problem solving to > >> achieve > >> this virtuoso feat? > >> > > > > Somewhat, when it comes to preparing for his concert. > > > > No, while giving this concert. > > If we disagree, I suggest we find a concert pianist and ask how it really > is. The issue really is that while IQ tests can measure mathematical ability > mathematicians cannot remember a series of 10,000 numbers - yet musicians > can. > No, they can't. I have heard of only one musician who had a perfect photographic memory, and he wasn't really a musician but a music historian. Musicians don't memorize music as a sequence of unrelated numbers. Good music is not random. It has a lot of patterns, good classical music has a melody. > > My inquiry asks first to note that this actually occurs! And secondly, > that it is not explained by measuring IQ. > What occurs? That all professional musicians can memorize a random sequence of 10,000 numbers?! Look, sing to oyurself your favorite song. Can you?If so - you have just recalled a sequence of maybe 1,000 notes. But is it a random sequence? Does the fact that all of us can sing songs from memory prove that we all can memorize 10,000 random numbers? > > I think it is good you propose logic &c, and maybe it has some part in the > answer, but I do not feel this is enough to explain most of this phenomena. > Look, as I said, I ahve never seen an iQ test that measures all aspects of intelligence. And all standardized IQ tests have a porblem that by practixing them many timnes, I can improve my score. Yet, IQ scores do correlate significantly with one's abilities towards intellectual activities like chess, math, science, etc. > >> > >> If the answer is no, then how does IQ contribute to our > >> understanding of what he does? > >> > > > > Why should IQ contribute to our understanding of what he does? > > Quite! If what he does is 'intelligent' then we admit that the intlligenece > test does not measure it. > I have never heard of musicians being selected on the basis of IQ tests. > > >> Since it is also pattern recognition - but in music, a very different > >> sort > >> of pattern which also invokes memory. Is this musical pattern measured by > >> IQ? > >> > > > > Nothing, except the ability for taking IQ tests, is directly measured > > by IQ. However, the ability to take IQ tests does positively correlate > > with musical skills. > > Say more - is the correlation to do with memorization or with logical > sequencing? Both? How do we know this? > I have nothing insightful to add. > > >> correct! 90% was intended. 90% of chess players fall into what range of > >> IQ? > >> Is there an answer which is known? > >> > > > > Which 90%? Top? Bottom? Middle? > > At random for all chess players - is there significant deviation from normal > IQ among chess players to the average distribution of IQ. > But how do you define "a chess player"? Anybody who knows the moves? Anybody who spends at least 5 hours per week? Only professional chess players? > ---------- > > >> >> And he himself used a musical metaphor - the same I offer you above - > >> >> ie, > >> >> how does the concert pianist play all those notes in the right > >> >> sequence > >> >> and > >> >> at the 10,000th note know the exact pressure to exert on the key? > >> >> > >> > > >> > Because he can hear the music in his head. > >> > >> In his head? Yes! > >> But this is something that no mathematician could do - to sequence 10,000 > >> numbers. So it is not the same thing as trying to memorise numbers, yes? > >> It > >> is as if it were a different factor, in fact a different intelligence. > >> > > > > I still don't understand your point about the ability to memorize > > 10,000 randomly generated numbers. > > I didn't say random. The musical notes are not random, but to a > fixed-patterned. The mathematical ones can be as well! And it is not just > the quantity of datum memorized, they also have specific weight - as in the > example, where the 10,000th note may be required to be played very softly. > In addition, the musical pattern also varies in speed, and to reproduce the > music this also has to be accommodated. > > > None of the people - IQ test takers, > > mathematicians or pianists - need such ability. They need > > understanding, nor memorization of random sequences of numbers. > > ----------- > > >> >> The mind googles! But Adorjan by not agreeing to this visual metaphor > >> >> also > >> >> concludes with this Dutch researcher de Groot, that for 'master' play > >> >> there > >> >> is no visual dependency. > >> >> > >> > > >> > And there is fairly little visual dependency in most IQ tests. The last > >> > one I saw had 1 such question out of 48. > >> > >> What distributed dependencies are there? > >> > > > > What do you ,mean by distributed dependencies? > > How many images are presented in the whole set of questions? images :: > visuals > I don't remember. Does it matter? These are simple geometrical/color pictures with simple patterns in them. > >> > >> Of course, all are presented as > >> texts, plus some visuals, but aural sensibilities are entirely missing, > >> and > >> much other somatic experiences. > >> > > > > Do you need "aural sensibilities" to play chess? > > I already said Adorjan used this illustration as a metaphor - and to > contradict the usual metaphor of 'seeing'. > > So, these inquiries reveal two things - that chess at master level is not to > do with concrete visualisation, and it is more like the form of intelligence > of the concert pianist. What is measured in IQ is not the same activity as > that of a master painter or musician. > Of course not. But they are positively correlated. > > NOW. Here it is - de Groot said what chess players do is even stranger! The > master chess player has an intelligence of forces in motion, which are not > dependent of seeing the pieces, but sensation of such forces. It is not the > concrete visualisation such as of a great painter, but the another spatial > awareness, not dependent on any imaging. > This is called professional intuition and it plays a major role in math, music and science as well. > > This is so far from anything attempted in IQ [which as I say does not even > measure musical appreciation, nor any but perfunctory patterning] that to > correlate IQ with chess ability makes as much sense as to correlate liking > cheese with chess. The entire field of inquiry is so new that only recently > did we even give these 'intelligences' names. > As I said, I have never heard of musicians being selected on the basis of IQ tests or any other math or word puzzles. > >> > >> But I think there really tend to be more diagrammatic representation in > >> IQ > >> tests than the approximate 1% you cite. > >> > > > > So? > > > >> > >> Are there not more diagrams than > >> that? > >> > > > > The particular test - PARR? - that I saw was all about simple > > geometrical/diagram analogies. What's your point? > > That these represent concrete visual presentations on usually geometric > themes, and these are not anything to do with chess players activity. > The PARR test is geometric but the ones that I saw many years ago had almost no geometry at all. PARR didn't impress me. > > Anyway - I know we have different points of view, and we do not agree much - > and I am conscious in my own writing of not being able to make stronger > statements or refer to data sets, since the entire subject is understudied. > What I have tried to do is to say that some things do NOT contribute to > these intelligences, whereas previously it was thought they did. There may > or may not be correlation among strong players and IQ, but in the main I see > no evidence that most players have significant variation, and there does not > appear to be any causality. > My take is this: Not every brilliant person can become a great ches player. Most science or math geniuses will never become such, no matter how much they practice. And vice versa. However, to become great at chess, science, or math, you need to have a well-working mind.And this means that the average IQ (as measured on good tests and taken without pre-practice) of great chess players, mathematicians and scientists is probably above 140. However, a higher IQ doesn't necessarily mean a better talent for chess. > > I thank you for joining the subject and discussing it with me, even if we do > not agree or conclude very much together. > Mutually. > Cordially, Phil Innes     Date: 27 Oct 2006 10:02:52 From: alexmagnus Subject: Re: Does Kramnik have a high IQ ? For me, the question if chess talent and IQ are related is answered b my own results in both. My IQ is 131. I work very hard on my chess bu my rating never exceeded 1485. If chess and IQ were related, i wouldn't happen - either I would be a master in chess or a retard in I tests -- alexmagnus       Date: 31 Oct 2006 12:01:45 From: David Richerby Subject: Re: Does Kramnik have a high IQ ? alexmagnus <[email protected] > wrote: > For me, the question if chess talent and IQ are related is answered > by my own results in both. My IQ is 131. I work very hard on my > chess but my rating never exceeded 1485. That proves nothing. Firstly, any statement that IQ and skill at chess are related is to be understood as being averaged over a large population. Even if, in general, high IQ goes with being good at chess, there can still be plenty of people who are good at chess but have low IQs and plenty of people who are bad at chess but have high IQs. Secondly, perhaps you're not working on chess in an effective way. To pick a silly example, if all your chess practice was devoted to making sure that you place the pieces exactly in the centre of the squares, it wouldn't be surprising that your rating isn't so high. Dave. -- David Richerby Dangerous Old-Fashioned Radio (TM): www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a radio but it's perfect for your grandparents and it could explode at any minute!         Date: 31 Oct 2006 15:00:40 From: Ed Seedhouse Subject: Re: Does Kramnik have a high IQ ? On 31 Oct 2006 12:01:45 +0000 (GMT), David Richerby <[email protected] > wrote: >alexmagnus <[email protected]> wrote: >> For me, the question if chess talent and IQ are related is answered >> by my own results in both. My IQ is 131. I work very hard on my >> chess but my rating never exceeded 1485. >That proves nothing. But it certainly is evidence. >Firstly, any statement that IQ and skill at chess are related is to be >understood as being averaged over a large population. Even if, in >general, high IQ goes with being good at chess, there can still be >plenty of people who are good at chess but have low IQs and plenty of >people who are bad at chess but have high IQs. But of course any claim so qualified amounts to a claim of nothing masquerading as a claim about IQ. >Secondly, perhaps you're not working on chess in an effective way. To >pick a silly example, if all your chess practice was devoted to making >sure that you place the pieces exactly in the centre of the squares, >it wouldn't be surprising that your rating isn't so high. But if the right kind of work can improve one's chess then chess skill is to that precise extent unrelated to IQ. The poster has shown no evidence (other than the mere claim) that there is such a relationship and then gone on to make claims that, if true, form in fact evidence to the contrary.           Date: 01 Nov 2006 10:15:22 From: David Richerby Subject: Re: Does Kramnik have a high IQ ? Ed Seedhouse <[email protected] > wrote: > David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote: >> alexmagnus <[email protected]> wrote: >>> For me, the question if chess talent and IQ are related is >>> answered by my own results in both. My IQ is 131. I work very hard >>> on my chess but my rating never exceeded 1485. >> >> That proves nothing. > > But it certainly is evidence. It's a single datapoint. It tells you nothing about the population as a whole because we don't know if Alex is typical of the population or if he's a freak. >> Firstly, any statement that IQ and skill at chess are related is to >> be understood as being averaged over a large population. Even if, >> in general, high IQ goes with being good at chess, there can still >> be plenty of people who are good at chess but have low IQs and >> plenty of people who are bad at chess but have high IQs. > > But of course any claim so qualified amounts to a claim of nothing > masquerading as a claim about IQ. Nonsense. A claim so qualified is exactly what it says it is: a claim that IQ and ability at chess are correlated. Indeed, by stating that a claim of correlation is a claim of nothing at all, you've just dismissed the entirety of statistics and experimental science in one sweeping sentence. Well done. > The poster has shown no evidence (other than the mere claim) that > there is such a relationship And I'm just pointing out that Alex's post doesn't give sufficient evidence to judge the claim one way or another. Dave. -- David Richerby Transparent Gerbil (TM): it's like a www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ children's pet but you can see right through it!             Date: 01 Nov 2006 15:55:39 From: alexmagnus Subject: Re: Does Kramnik have a high IQ ? David Richerby Wrote: > Ed Seedhouse [email protected] wrote:- > David Richerby [email protected] wrote:- > alexmagnus [email protected] wrote:- > For me, the question if chess talent and IQ are related is > answered by my own results in both. My IQ is 131. I work very hard > on my chess but my rating never exceeded 1485.- > > That proves nothing.- > > But it certainly is evidence.- > > It's a single datapoint. It tells you nothing about the population as > a whole because we don't know if Alex is typical of the population or > if he's a freak. A "freak"? What do you mean -- alexmagnus             Date: 01 Nov 2006 14:21:52 From: Ed Seedhouse Subject: Re: Does Kramnik have a high IQ ? On 01 Nov 2006 10:15:22 +0000 (GMT), David Richerby <[email protected] > wrote: >Ed Seedhouse <[email protected]> wrote: >>> That proves nothing. >> But it certainly is evidence. >It's a single datapoint. Yes. And evidence about that single datapoint and very weak evidence, but nevertheless still evidence about the population as a whole, namely that it contains at least one member with the given characteristics. If you claim a given population is in general left handed and I provide a single instance of right-handidness in that population I am not providing evdence that refutes your claim, but nevertheless I am providing evidence that at least one member of the population is right-handed. >>> Firstly, any statement that IQ and skill at chess are related is to >>> be understood as being averaged over a large population. Even if, >>> in general, high IQ goes with being good at chess, there can still >>> be plenty of people who are good at chess but have low IQs and >>> plenty of people who are bad at chess but have high IQs. >> But of course any claim so qualified amounts to a claim of nothing >> masquerading as a claim about IQ. >Nonsense. A claim so qualified is exactly what it says it is: a claim >that IQ and ability at chess are correlated. It is not even a claim of that. Re-read it. >> The poster has shown no evidence (other than the mere claim) that >> there is such a relationship >And I'm just pointing out that Alex's post doesn't give sufficient >evidence to judge the claim one way or another. Why the need to point out the blindingly obvious? Alex didnt' claim it was such in the first place, if I recall correctly.               Date: 06 Nov 2006 11:42:42 From: David Richerby Subject: Re: Does Kramnik have a high IQ ? Ed Seedhouse <[email protected] > wrote: > David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote: >> Ed Seedhouse <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> That proves nothing. >>> >>> But it certainly is evidence. >> >> It's a single datapoint. > > Yes. And evidence about that single datapoint and very weak > evidence, but nevertheless still evidence about the population as a > whole, namely that it contains at least one member with the given > characteristics. OK, yes. If that's all your claiming, fine. >>> The poster has shown no evidence (other than the mere claim) that >>> there is such a relationship >> >> And I'm just pointing out that Alex's post doesn't give sufficient >> evidence to judge the claim one way or another. > > Why the need to point out the blindingly obvious? Alex didnt' claim it > was such in the first place, if I recall correctly. Alex's entire post, in which he gave no context by quoting text was: ``For me, the question if chess talent and IQ are related is answered by my own results in both. My IQ is 131. I work very hard on my chess but my rating never exceeded 1485. If chess and IQ were related, it wouldn't happen - either I would be a master in chess or a retard in IQ tests.'' So, I'm pointing out the blindingly obvious because it doesn't seem to be all that obvious to the original poster. Dave. -- David Richerby Pointy-Haired T-Shirt (TM): it's like www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a fashion statement that's completely clueless!                 Date: 18 Nov 2006 01:43:33 From: alexmagnus Subject: Re: Does Kramnik have a high IQ ? David Richerby Wrote: > Ed Seedhouse [email protected] wrote:- > David Richerby [email protected] wrote:- > Ed Seedhouse [email protected] wrote:- > That proves nothing. > > But it certainly is evidence.- > > It's a single datapoint. - > > Yes. And evidence about that single datapoint and very weak > evidence, but nevertheless still evidence about the population as a > whole, namely that it contains at least one member with the given > characteristics.- > > OK, yes. If that's all your claiming, fine. > > --- > The poster has shown no evidence (other than the mere claim) that > there is such a relationship- > > And I'm just pointing out that Alex's post doesn't give sufficient > evidence to judge the claim one way or another.- > > Why the need to point out the blindingly obvious? Alex didnt' clai > it > was such in the first place, if I recall correctly.- > > Alex's entire post, in which he gave no context by quoting text was: > ``For me, the question if chess talent and IQ are related is answered > by my own results in both. My IQ is 131. I work very hard on my chess > but my rating never exceeded 1485. If chess and IQ were related, it > wouldn't happen - either I would be a master in chess or a retard in > IQ tests.'' > > So, I'm pointing out the blindingly obvious because it doesn't seem to > be all that obvious to the original poster. > > > Dave. > > -- > David Richerby Pointy-Haired T-Shirt (TM) > it's like > www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a fashion statement that' > completely > clueless! If you mean myself as the original poster than I have to explai something. I know that there may be excpetions. But there must be som border of deviation between an average person and someone at the edge Anyway, even in an exceptional case it can't be that a completel opposite thing happens -- alexmagnus                   Date: 20 Nov 2006 09:38:52 From: David Richerby Subject: Re: Does Kramnik have a high IQ ? alexmagnus <[email protected] > wrote: > David Richerby Wrote: >> So, I'm pointing out the blindingly obvious because it doesn't seem >> to be all that obvious to the original poster. > > If you mean myself as the original poster I did, yes. > than I have to explain something. I know that there may be > excpetions. But there must be some border of deviation between an > average person and someone at the edge. Not true. There is no limit to how far out the outliers can be; it just gets increasingly improbable that there will be people further and further from the expected value. > Anyway, even in an exceptional case it can't be that a completely > opposite thing happens. Not true. And, furthermore, your phrasing suggests to me that you really don't understand the difference between a single datapoint and a correlation. The `thing' that we're talking about is a suggestion that `people with high IQs tend to be have high chess ratings'. The `opposite thing', then, is `people with high IQs tend to have low chess ratings'. Or, perhaps, `there is no link between IQ and chess ratings'. But certainly not, `there is at least one person who has a high IQ and a not-so-high chess rating', which is all that you have demonstrated. Dave. -- David Richerby Psychotic Book (TM): it's like www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a romantic novel but it wants to kill you!                     Date: 22 Nov 2006 12:00:02 From: alexmagnus Subject: Re: Does Kramnik have a high IQ ? David Richerby Wrote: > alexmagnus [email protected] wrote:- > David Richerby Wrote: - > So, I'm pointing out the blindingly obvious because it doesn't seem > to be all that obvious to the original poster.- > > If you mean myself as the original poster- > > I did, yes. > > - > than I have to explain something. I know that there may be > excpetions. But there must be some border of deviation between an > average person and someone at the edge.- > > Not true. There is no limit to how far out the outliers can be; it > just gets increasingly improbable that there will be people further > and further from the expected value. > > - > Anyway, even in an exceptional case it can't be that a completely > opposite thing happens.- > > Not true. And, furthermore, your phrasing suggests to me that you > really don't understand the difference between a single datapoint and > a correlation. The `thing' that we're talking about is a suggestion > that `people with high IQs tend to be have high chess ratings'. The > `opposite thing', then, is `people with high IQs tend to have low > chess ratings'. Or, perhaps, `there is no link between IQ and chess > ratings'. But certainly not, `there is at least one person who has a > high IQ and a not-so-high chess rating', which is all that you have > demonstrated. > > > Dave. > > -- > David Richerby Psychotic Book (TM): it' > like > www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a romantic novel but i > wants to > kill you! IMO people with high chess ratings tend to have high IQs but th reversal is wrong, i.e., high IQ doesn't automatically (in average mean chess talent -- alexmagnus                       Date: 22 Nov 2006 12:28:26 From: David Richerby Subject: Re: Does Kramnik have a high IQ ? alexmagnus <[email protected] > wrote: > IMO people with high chess ratings tend to have high IQs but the > reversal is wrong, i.e., high IQ doesn't automatically (in average) > mean chess talent. That's a reasonable hypothesis. Dave. -- David Richerby Hilarious T-Shirt (TM): it's like a www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ fashion statement but it's a bundle of laughs!                         Date: 22 Nov 2006 13:41:43 From: Ed Seedhouse Subject: Re: Does Kramnik have a high IQ ? On 22 Nov 2006 12:28:26 +0000 (GMT), David Richerby <[email protected] > wrote: >alexmagnus <[email protected]> wrote: >> IMO people with high chess ratings tend to have high IQs but the >> reversal is wrong, i.e., high IQ doesn't automatically (in average) >> mean chess talent. > >That's a reasonable hypothesis. For which there is no evidence.   Date: 25 Oct 2006 20:50:38 From: help bot Subject: Re: Does Kramnik have a high IQ ? [email protected] wrote: > I have a 147 I.Q. and a rating of 1821. What does it all mean, Basil? Perhaps it shows that you lack the killer instinct. When you sit down to play, do you desire to rip your opponent's eyes out, make his blood boil, and watch him squirm? If not, your 147 IQ is not getting translated fully into positive results OTB. "Basil", as in Rathbone -- an actor who portrayed detective Sherlock Holmes. Also good sprinkled on Italian foods. -- help bot   Date: 25 Oct 2006 03:52:05 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: Does Kramnik have a high IQ ? help bot wrote: > [email protected] wrote: > > [email protected] wrote: > > "The Levitt > > > Equation". This formula calculates an Elo rating which expresses > > > one's potential chess strength (talent) as being equal to ten times > > > one's IQ, plus 1000 points. Thus, he claims that Bobby Fischer > > > once scored 187 on an IQ test so, applying The Levitt Equation, > > > Bobby's potential chess strength would be equal to a rating of > > > about 2870 if he reached his peak talent. (187 x 10 = 1870 + 1000 > > > = 2870)" > > ====================== > > Umm... I took my rating of 1954 and solved it for IQ. It came out to > > 94.5. > > Would Levitt claim all 1900 level players are slightly below average in > > IQ? > > > > Old Haasie > > > Looks like your math skills are little better than mine. > > Your rating (1954) minus 1000 = 954. Divide that by 10 > and I get *95.4*, which means somebody screwed up the > equation. Obviously, since few players make it to 1954, > you ought to have ended up among those with a high > chess-IQ score, certainly not below 100. > > Also note that when Fischer allegedly scored 187 on > an IQ test, he was just a kid, still in school. He's gotten > a "lot more dumber" since then. :>D > > -- help bot I have a 147 I.Q. and a rating of 1821. What does it all mean, Basil? http://chess-training.blogspot.com     Date: 25 Oct 2006 14:56:16 From: Kenneth Sloan Subject: Re: Does Kramnik have a high IQ ? [email protected] wrote: > help bot wrote: >> [email protected] wrote: >>> [email protected] wrote: >>> "The Levitt >>>> Equation". This formula calculates an Elo rating which expresses >>>> one's potential chess strength (talent) as being equal to ten times >>>> one's IQ, plus 1000 points. Thus, he claims that Bobby Fischer >>>> once scored 187 on an IQ test so, applying The Levitt Equation, >>>> Bobby's potential chess strength would be equal to a rating of >>>> about 2870 if he reached his peak talent. (187 x 10 = 1870 + 1000 >>>> = 2870)" >>> ====================== >>> Umm... I took my rating of 1954 and solved it for IQ. It came out to >>> 94.5. >>> Would Levitt claim all 1900 level players are slightly below average in >>> IQ? >>> >>> Old Haasie >> >> Looks like your math skills are little better than mine. >> >> Your rating (1954) minus 1000 = 954. Divide that by 10 >> and I get *95.4*, which means somebody screwed up the >> equation. Obviously, since few players make it to 1954, >> you ought to have ended up among those with a high >> chess-IQ score, certainly not below 100. >> >> Also note that when Fischer allegedly scored 187 on >> an IQ test, he was just a kid, still in school. He's gotten >> a "lot more dumber" since then. :>D >> >> -- help bot > > I have a 147 I.Q. and a rating of 1821. What does it all mean, Basil? > > http://chess-training.blogspot.com > Perhaps it means you have not reached your full chess *potential*? -- Kenneth Sloan [email protected] Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213 University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473 Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/       Date: 25 Oct 2006 08:09:12 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: Does Kramnik have a high IQ ? On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:56:16 GMT, Kenneth Sloan <[email protected] > wrote: >[email protected] wrote: >> I have a 147 I.Q. and a rating of 1821. What does it all mean, Basil? >> http://chess-training.blogspot.com >Perhaps it means you have not reached your full chess *potential*? Time for a dose of Ginko and Fritz.   Date: 24 Oct 2006 19:30:11 From: Nick Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess tin Brown wrote: > Nick wrote: > > tin Brown wrote: > > > I don't see much point in using the original combined IQ test now. > > > But there is a point in considering scores in the separated tests that > > > cover mathermatical, linguistic, visuo-spatial reasoning etc. If people > > > know what their strengths are they can make better use of them. > > > > > > I have yet to meet any strong chess player that didn't have > > > powerful innate pattern matching and abstract reasoning ability. I suspect that there's a high correlation between chess strength and visuo-spatial pattern recognition but much less of a correlation between chess strength and abstract reasoning ability in general. > > I doubt that a strong chess player necessarily has > > 'powerful' 'abstract reasoning ability' in every field. > > I agree entirely. But I suspect that you could still concoct a test > that would detect some of the required innate skills. One simple > candidate test that I think might just work is that strong chess > players can often read a newspaper up side down. Try it and see... Should it be equally difficult to read a Chinese newspaper upside down as to read an English newspaper upside down? :-) > The papers that purport to show no correlation of visuospatial > memory and chess appear to me to have asked the wrong question. > Memory is the part we all have to work at. > > It is the pattern matching to see the whole board as a subset > of motifs and their long range possibilities that is the key. Sometimes when teaching chess to novice players, I have forgotten that they tend to perceive the chessboard in terms of 32 (or fewer) individual pieces scattered around 64 squares, while I perceive the chessboard in conceptual 'chunks' (e.g. 'Black has a slightly weakened fianchettoed kingside'). > Combine that with some decent tactical skill... I was surprised to read comments by some writers here (not in this thread) to the effect that they needed many months or even years of experience playing chess before they could stop often leaving their pieces en prise. Even as a beginning player who never had read a chess book, I experienced no problem with leaving my pieces en prise. > > Kasparov apparently has spent considerable time thinking > > about history, and he has come to some absurd conclusions > > with regard to his support of the 'New Chronology'. > > As for Bobby Fischer's 'abstract reasoning ability', well... > > Worth noting here that mental illness seems to afflict top > mathematicians and chess players to a greater extent than > in the general population. I doubt that Kasparov's absurd conclusions about history could be explained by an incipient mental illness (and I am not saying that's what tin Brown was saying). > > > And anecdotally mathematicians are often also strong chess players > > > > I know some mathematicians who say they are weak chess players. > > For whatever it's worth, most of these mathematicians are women. > > Perhaps they understate their skill level for social reasons. I doubt that's true among my women mathematician acquaintances. I suppose that a female chess player could understate her strength if she's romantically interested in a male chess player and hopes that he will become romantically interested in her (he may be too insecure to ask her out if he knows that she's a stronger player), but I don't know how common that would be. > My comment was based on the fact that I met a lot of my school > chess team opposite numbers later at university and most of them > were reading mathematics. There were a few notable exceptions. >From what I have observed, some introverted people tend to be attracted toward pursuits like chess and mathematics because those pursuits usually involve less direct social interaction, which tends to make them uncomfortable. --Nick   Date: 24 Oct 2006 16:20:27 From: Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess Chess One wrote: > <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... > > >> Okay, but I think this neds more definition. For example, even though the > >> puzzle is intellectual, is it solved intellectually, or by rote memory? > >> > > > > How many puzzles do you know that require large memory? I suspect the > > very dfinition of a "poser" or a "puzzle" is something that can be > > solved through thinking not memorization. > > It is a fair question. But what is the answer? :) > The answer is ttat I have never seen an IQ or any other puzzle that requires an unusual amount of memory. Have you? > --------- > >> Yes. This is a sociology. Its also true that people who go to college > >> have > >> typically higher IQ range than those who do not. But please consider the > >> concert piano player again - the question is how much pressure to apply > >> to > >> the 10,000th note with the little finger of the left hand, and this is > >> resolved not by 'logical thinking and problem solving'. > >> > > > > What do you want to discuss about him? > > Does the concert pianist use logical thinking and problem solving to achieve > this virtuoso feat? > Somewhat, when it comes to preparing for his concert. No, while giving this concert. > > If the answer is no, then how does IQ contribute to our > understanding of what he does? > Why should IQ contribute to our understanding of what he does? > >> How many mathematicians could cite a string of 10,000 numbers? :0 > >> > > > > What for? > > Since it is also pattern recognition - but in music, a very different sort > of pattern which also invokes memory. Is this musical pattern measured by > IQ? > Nothing, except the ability for taking IQ tests, is directly measured by IQ. However, the ability to take IQ tests does positively correlate with musical skills. > > > How amny IQ puzzles do you know that require you to recite a string of > > 10,000 numbers? > > None. Not even by calculation, which is possible, as if calculting pi to > 3.142 etc. > My point is that IQ measures some pattern recognition, not all. > Correct. IQ doesn't measure musical abilities. But it positively correlates with them. > >> > >> But this is only to address part of the question - the other part is the > >> /level/ at which people play chess, and if there is any correlation with > >> IQ. > >> > > > > Well, if you admit that there is a positive correlation between > > different intelectual activities - then why not? > > Because by rote learning perhaps everyone can attain 1300 ratings. Beyond > that, memorisation is joined by other factors. It is not implicated that > anything taught or memorised can make you a master player. Therefore the > quality or extent of skill achieved is also a factor. > > Maybe all high IQ people try chess - but how many are good at chess, and how > do we address the those who cannot progress beyond 1300? > ------ > > >> Okay! Its interesting to specualte on the range of IQs among chess > >> players. > >> Here is another speculation [guess]: that very strong players will have > >> higher IQs, but most chess players [say 90 of them] > >> > > > > What does that mean? Why 90 and not 10,000? And how did you select > > them? > > correct! 90% was intended. 90% of chess players fall into what range of IQ? > Is there an answer which is known? > Which 90%? Top? Bottom? Middle? How do you define the sample space of chess players? Am I one of them? > > >> will not vary > >> significantly from their social group, and those who do not play chess. > >> > > > > You have to define the sampling porcedure more precisely. > > yes, to prove my point you are correct, but also to challenge variance to my > point, I could say the same, unproved. > > ------- > > >> I was interviewing Adorjan, and [I think I made this a formal question to > >> him, anyway, we wrote thousands of words to each other on the subject], > >> and > >> to provoke a response on this 'high dimensional intelligence', to use > >> your > >> phrase, I asked him something like if seeing ahead in the position was > >> like > >> having a movie camera in you mind, on fast-forward? > >> > > > > To clarify: by high dimensions of intelligence I meant that > > intelligence has lots of facets, not that it involves seeing > > multi-dimensional pictures in one's mind. > > Adorjan says there are no 'pictures'. It is not a visula phenomena, and any > talk of 'pictures' is a false metaphor. > > And yes, though intelligence has many facets, there is no implication that > to achieve one, is to achieve another! > > >> > >> He replied mysteriously, and said, "I do not see the baord, I do nto see > >> the > >> pieces." :)) > >> > >> And he himself used a musical metaphor - the same I offer you above - ie, > >> how does the concert pianist play all those notes in the right sequence > >> and > >> at the 10,000th note know the exact pressure to exert on the key? > >> > > > > Because he can hear the music in his head. > > In his head? Yes! > But this is something that no mathematician could do - to sequence 10,000 > numbers. So it is not the same thing as trying to memorise numbers, yes? It > is as if it were a different factor, in fact a different intelligence. > I still don't understand your point about the ability to memorize 10,000 randomly generated numbers. None of the people - IQ test takers, mathematicians or pianists - need such ability. They need understanding, nor memorization of random sequences o fnumbers. > >> This of course is consciously a counter metaphor from him, and not really > >> a > >> suggestion that high level chess is like playing music, as much as to say > >> that it is NOT like 'seeing ahead', or some description of what is > >> concretely visual. > >> > >> The mind googles! But Adorjan by not agreeing to this visual metaphor > >> also > >> concludes with this Dutch researcher de Groot, that for 'master' play > >> there > >> is no visual dependency. > >> > > > > And there is fairly little visual dependency in most IQ tests. The last > > one I saw had 1 such question out of 48. > > What distributed dependencies are there? > What do you ,mean by distributed dependencies? > > Of course, all are presented as > texts, plus some visuals, but aural sensibilities are entirely missing, and > much other somatic experiences. > Do you need "aural sensibilities" to play chess? > > But I think there really tend to be more diagrammatic representation in IQ > tests than the approximate 1% you cite. > So? > > Are there not more diagrams than > that? > The particular test - PARR? - that I saw was all about simple geometrical/diagram analogies. What's your point?     Date: 26 Oct 2006 13:31:06 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > Chess One wrote: >> <[email protected]> wrote in message >> news:[email protected]... >> >> >> Okay, but I think this neds more definition. For example, even though >> >> the >> >> puzzle is intellectual, is it solved intellectually, or by rote >> >> memory? >> >> >> > >> > How many puzzles do you know that require large memory? I suspect the >> > very dfinition of a "poser" or a "puzzle" is something that can be >> > solved through thinking not memorization. >> >> It is a fair question. But what is the answer? :) >> > > The answer is ttat I have never seen an IQ or any other puzzle that > requires an unusual amount of memory. Have you? Unusual, no. But the questions are often of a pattern. If I take several tests my scores get better, since I recognise the same patterns from previous questions. This is a factor of memory. A second point is that if my initial pattern recognition is something I discovered for myself, or a memory of what someone else explained to me. I think this has been the main difficulty with standard IQ testing, and other similar tests. It is unclear what is memory and what is insight. The same is true on the chessboard, no? Did you ever meet a player who 'knows everything' - who knows more about every line of play than you do, but when the clock is ticking and against a real opponent, can't play very good chess? And sometimes can't even play the line they could remember when it was jsut talking of chess? >> --------- >> Does the concert pianist use logical thinking and problem solving to >> achieve >> this virtuoso feat? >> > > Somewhat, when it comes to preparing for his concert. > > No, while giving this concert. If we disagree, I suggest we find a concert pianist and ask how it really is. The issue really is that while IQ tests can measure mathematical ability mathematicians cannot remember a series of 10,000 numbers - yet musicians can. My inquiry asks first to note that this actually occurs! And secondly, that it is not explained by measuring IQ. I think it is good you propose logic &c, and maybe it has some part in the answer, but I do not feel this is enough to explain most of this phenomena. >> >> If the answer is no, then how does IQ contribute to our >> understanding of what he does? >> > > Why should IQ contribute to our understanding of what he does? Quite! If what he does is 'intelligent' then we admit that the intlligenece test does not measure it. ---- >> Since it is also pattern recognition - but in music, a very different >> sort >> of pattern which also invokes memory. Is this musical pattern measured by >> IQ? >> > > Nothing, except the ability for taking IQ tests, is directly measured > by IQ. However, the ability to take IQ tests does positively correlate > with musical skills. Say more - is the correlation to do with memorization or with logical sequencing? Both? How do we know this? >> correct! 90% was intended. 90% of chess players fall into what range of >> IQ? >> Is there an answer which is known? >> > > Which 90%? Top? Bottom? Middle? At random for all chess players - is there significant deviation from normal IQ among chess players to the average distribution of IQ. ---------- >> >> And he himself used a musical metaphor - the same I offer you above - >> >> ie, >> >> how does the concert pianist play all those notes in the right >> >> sequence >> >> and >> >> at the 10,000th note know the exact pressure to exert on the key? >> >> >> > >> > Because he can hear the music in his head. >> >> In his head? Yes! >> But this is something that no mathematician could do - to sequence 10,000 >> numbers. So it is not the same thing as trying to memorise numbers, yes? >> It >> is as if it were a different factor, in fact a different intelligence. >> > > I still don't understand your point about the ability to memorize > 10,000 randomly generated numbers. I didn't say random. The musical notes are not random, but to a fixed-patterned. The mathematical ones can be as well! And it is not just the quantity of datum memorized, they also have specific weight - as in the example, where the 10,000th note may be required to be played very softly. In addition, the musical pattern also varies in speed, and to reproduce the music this also has to be accommodated. > None of the people - IQ test takers, > mathematicians or pianists - need such ability. They need > understanding, nor memorization of random sequences o fnumbers. ----------- >> >> The mind googles! But Adorjan by not agreeing to this visual metaphor >> >> also >> >> concludes with this Dutch researcher de Groot, that for 'master' play >> >> there >> >> is no visual dependency. >> >> >> > >> > And there is fairly little visual dependency in most IQ tests. The last >> > one I saw had 1 such question out of 48. >> >> What distributed dependencies are there? >> > > What do you ,mean by distributed dependencies? How many images are presented in the whole set of questions? images :: visuals >> >> Of course, all are presented as >> texts, plus some visuals, but aural sensibilities are entirely missing, >> and >> much other somatic experiences. >> > > Do you need "aural sensibilities" to play chess? I already said Adorjan used this illustration as a metaphor - and to contradict the usual metaphor of 'seeing'. So, these inquiries reveal two things - that chess at master level is not to do with concrete visualisation, and it is more like the form of intelligence of the concert pianist. What is measured in IQ is not the same activity as that of a master painter or musician. NOW. Here it is - de Groot said what chess players do is even stranger! The master chess player has an intelligence of forces in motion, which are not dependent of seeing the pieces, but sensation of such forces. It is not the concrete visualisation such as of a great painter, but the another spatial awareness, not dependent on any imaging. This is so far from anything attempted in IQ [which as I say does not even measure musical appreciation, nor any but perfunctory patterning] that to correlate IQ with chess ability makes as much sense as to correlate liking cheese with chess. The entire field of inquiry is so new that only recently did we even give these 'intelligences' names. >> >> But I think there really tend to be more diagrammatic representation in >> IQ >> tests than the approximate 1% you cite. >> > > So? > >> >> Are there not more diagrams than >> that? >> > > The particular test - PARR? - that I saw was all about simple > geometrical/diagram analogies. What's your point? That these represent concrete visual presentations on usually geometric themes, and these are not anything to do with chess players activity. Anyway - I know we have different points of view, and we do not agree much - and I am conscious in my own writing of not being able to make stronger statements or refer to data sets, since the entire subject is understudied. What I have tried to do is to say that some things do NOT contribute to these intelligences, whereas previously it was thought they did. There may or may not be correlation among strong players and IQ, but in the main I see no evidence that most players have significant variation, and there does not appear to be any causality. I thank you for joining the subject and discussing it with me, even if we do not agree or conclude very much together. Cordially, Phil Innes       Date: 26 Oct 2006 15:35:00 From: Dr A. N. Walker Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess In article <uM20h.7859$PA3.445@trndny04 >, Chess One <[email protected]> wrote: > [...] The issue really is that while IQ tests can measure mathematical ability >mathematicians cannot remember a series of 10,000 numbers - yet musicians >can. Part of the reason why a concert pianist can remember all [or at least a very high proportion!] of the notes in a long piece/recital is surely the same reason that a strong chess player can remember chess positions [but not random piece placements]. The human brain is very good at spotting groupings. The GM spots very quickly the fianchettoed bishop, the blocked pawns, the well-placed knight, and assembles these into a logical structure that is much easier to remember than "Bg2, Pf2, Pg3, Ph2, ...". Similarly, the puzzler solving a Rubik's Cube or [Peg] Solitaire problem can usually do so much more easily by assembling the "block" moves that "chunk up" a solution than by looking at individual moves. And a pianist assembles notes into chords, bars, themes and variations that make much more sense than the individual notes. I wonder whether concert pianists, mathematicians, chess GMs and/or Cubers are any better than others [of comparable intelligence, measured however you like] at "Simon Says"? Few mathematicians know the first 10000 digits of pi, or e or sqrt_2. But many of us could memorise the first 10000 terms in the continued-fraction expansion of e, or in the decimal expansion of [say] 1/81, as these have patterns that make sense. But it's not *just* patterns; structure is a good substitute when it come to remembering things. The "periodic table" is not really a pattern of the chemical elements; but it has sufficient structure that it is easy to remember the "shape" of the table, and why some elements are in particular columns, enabling people to fill in enough to make it possible to interpolate the others. It certainly makes it much easier to remember the elements than if all we had was a list. -- Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK. [email protected]         Date: 27 Oct 2006 12:36:12 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess "Dr A. N. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > In article <uM20h.7859$PA3.445@trndny04>, Chess One <[email protected]> > wrote: >> [...] The issue really is that while IQ tests can measure mathematical >> ability >>mathematicians cannot remember a series of 10,000 numbers - yet musicians >>can. > > Part of the reason why a concert pianist can remember all [or at > least a very high proportion!] of the notes in a long piece/recital is > surely the same reason that a strong chess player can remember chess > positions [but not random piece placements]. quite so - the pattern has to be systemically meaningful for memory to operate beyond any normative measure [is this similar to relating the part to the whole?] > The human brain is very > good at spotting groupings. The GM spots very quickly the fianchettoed > bishop, the blocked pawns, the well-placed knight, and assembles these > into a logical structure that is much easier to remember than "Bg2, Pf2, > Pg3, Ph2, ...". Similarly, the puzzler solving a Rubik's Cube or [Peg] > Solitaire problem can usually do so much more easily by assembling the > "block" moves that "chunk up" a solution than by looking at individual > moves. And a pianist assembles notes into chords, bars, themes and > variations that make much more sense than the individual notes. yes, as analogy, this seems to be on the right track according to all reports > I wonder whether concert pianists, mathematicians, chess GMs > and/or Cubers are any better than others [of comparable intelligence, > measured however you like] at "Simon Says"? unfortunately i do not have gm taimanov's permit to address that perspective from his p.o.v., but in him there is a combination of virtuoso musician and gm i think what might be avoided in these conversations is an assumtion of generality of them, since there is often an implication that whatever skill there is is transferrable, whereas i don't know that this is truly substantiated - that is, a particular skill seems not to be transferable to another and differing activity, although from a philosophical level, some people [older!] are able to understand very well great expertise from another field of creativity or intelligence, by the process of abstraction :: transference i think it follows from what we know that whatever pattern there is must be within something meaningful in the normal course of the game, and a difference at a certain level of skill is that there is also a considerable increment in memorization to understand this factor what de groot said - and which seems little appreciated - is that the pattern recognition of chess players is achieved //unconsciously//, or to use more general language, without effort or volition. it is something which happens of its own by expending effort playing chess, and in fact he cited 75,000 patterns acquired by the 'master player' [nb: patterns not positons] i further suppose that this statistic is one not much cited by chess authors and publishers, since it may in fact be much more important to ones chess than anything consciously acquired from a book, or acquired vicariously, so to speak. the exceptions in chess books are those which emulate pattern recognition - such as the stalwart titles of the Russian school, like Combinative Motifs, /M. Blokh > Few mathematicians know the first 10000 digits of pi, or e or > sqrt_2. But many of us could memorise the first 10000 terms in the > continued-fraction expansion of e, or in the decimal expansion of > [say] 1/81, as these have patterns that make sense. That's an interesting claim. I think there are world records for such things - but I wonder if its true that 10,000 correctly sequenced iterations of pi can be remembered, rather than calculated? I suppose another differentiation is the relative speed of the calculating mathematician and the piano player - can the mathematico be pizzicato? > But it's not > *just* patterns; structure is a good substitute when it come to > remembering things. The "periodic table" is not really a pattern > of the chemical elements; but it has sufficient structure that it > is easy to remember the "shape" of the table, and why some elements > are in particular columns, enabling people to fill in enough to make > it possible to interpolate the others. It certainly makes it much > easier to remember the elements than if all we had was a list. very good - though it is evident that the chess player must consult a sort of inner periodic table, and one that is in motion, since it is not just patterning that is invoked here, but dynamic patterning, where the pieces themselves chabge in value, in force or in potency, and also operate as constellations interesting post! cordially, phil innes > -- > Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK. > [email protected]           Date: 27 Oct 2006 15:25:18 From: Dr A. N. Walker Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess In article <03n0h.10597$gZ2.8423@trndny07 >, Chess One <[email protected] > wrote: > [...] I think there are world records for such >things - but I wonder if its true that 10,000 correctly sequenced iterations >of pi can be remembered, rather than calculated? "http://pi-world-ranking-list.com/lists/memo" records 13 people who have recited pi from memory to at least 10000 places; and there is a recent report that Akira Haraguchi set a world record of 100000 just over three weeks ago. I wonder what the longest ever [in terms of number of notes rather than mere time!] correct piano recital has been? 100000 notes would be at any rate several hours, even of quite complex concertos or sonatas, unless you just played "Islamey" over and over. -- Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK. [email protected]             Date: 27 Oct 2006 16:38:18 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess "Dr A. N. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > In article <03n0h.10597$gZ2.8423@trndny07>, > Chess One <[email protected]> wrote: >> [...] I think there are world records for such >>things - but I wonder if its true that 10,000 correctly sequenced >>iterations >>of pi can be remembered, rather than calculated? > > "http://pi-world-ranking-list.com/lists/memo" records 13 people > who have recited pi from memory to at least 10000 places; and there is > a recent report that Akira Haraguchi set a world record of 100000 just > over three weeks ago. I wonder what the longest ever [in terms of > number of notes rather than mere time!] rekable! my wild guess might be something from Rachmaninoff > correct piano recital has been? > 100000 notes would be at any rate several hours, even of quite complex > concertos or sonatas, unless you just played "Islamey" over and over. although we should continue to note [!] that the pianist has more to do than recite a linear sequence, since each and every note is of certain and specific duration, weight, and speed, etc. but not to finish on that note - it is extraordinary to me that 100k sequenced datum, which are non-musical could be undertaken - I must suppose that he calculated the next in sequence [rather than any feat of memory] and wonder how long it took him to do this overall as well as the typical interval from one digit to the next? phil > -- > Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK. > [email protected]               Date: 27 Oct 2006 17:00:51 From: Dr A. N. Walker Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess In article <_Bq0h.22$gf5.1@trndny01 >, Chess One <[email protected]> wrote: > [...] - it is extraordinary to me that 100k >sequenced datum, which are non-musical could be undertaken - I must suppose >that he calculated the next in sequence [rather than any feat of memory] and >wonder how long it took him to do this overall as well as the typical >interval from one digit to the next? No, not a chance. There are humanly-computable ways of finding specific digits in a hexadecimal expansion [and so in binary or octal] of pi, so you could plausibly ask a skilled mathematician to tell you [eg] the 1234567th such digit; but no known way of doing it in decimal. If there were, I'd guess it would take hours, even with a calculator, to get each digit. Calculating pi to even a few hundred places of decimals without computer assistance is years of work. We can safely assume that Akira Haraguchi simply has a somewhat unusual memory. -- Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK. [email protected]                 Date: 27 Oct 2006 19:37:25 From: Johannes Seppi Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess On 27 Oct 2006 17:00:51 GMT, [email protected] (Dr A. N. Walker) wrote: >In article <_Bq0h.22$gf5.1@trndny01>, Chess One <[email protected]> wrote: >> [...] - it is extraordinary to me that 100k >>sequenced datum, which are non-musical could be undertaken - I must suppose >>that he calculated the next in sequence [rather than any feat of memory] and >>wonder how long it took him to do this overall as well as the typical >>interval from one digit to the next? > > No, not a chance. There are humanly-computable ways of finding >specific digits in a hexadecimal expansion [and so in binary or octal] >of pi, so you could plausibly ask a skilled mathematician to tell you [eg] >the 1234567th such digit; but no known way of doing it in decimal. If >there were, I'd guess it would take hours, even with a calculator, to >get each digit. Calculating pi to even a few hundred places of decimals >without computer assistance is years of work. > There is no easy way of computing the n-th place of pi in any base, be it binary, hexadecimal or decimal. There is also no repeating pattern in this number, regardless od base. > We can safely assume that Akira Haraguchi simply has a somewhat >unusual memory. Yes, that we can. Johannes                   Date: 28 Oct 2006 11:50:24 From: alexmagnus Subject: Re: Does Kramnik have a high IQ ? Well, there are some methodics to remember relatively big numbers (th biggest I ever could remember had 257 digits, but there are surel better methods). How I do it: to every number I have a letter: 1: t,d(t contains 1 vertical line, d sounds similarly) 2:n (2 vertical lines) 3:m (3 vertical lines) 4:r (as fouR) 5:l (L ist Roman number 50) 6:j,soft ch,dg,soft g (mirrored 6) 7:k,hard g,ng,qu,hard ch (the K looks like two 7's) 8:f,v (f written by hand looks loke 8) 9:b,p (mirrored 9) 0:z,s,soft c (as Zero) Now you can just compose words from these letters (e.g. 465=Rachel). It's surely much easier to remember a word or a long phrase than a exact number (because by remembering the word you don't have t remember each letter of it, just how it sounds). If you imagnine word like pictures, it gets even easier. Of course, this method is bad fo remembering 10000 digits but probably there are some more perfec methods -- alexmagnus   Date: From: Martin Brown Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess   Date: 23 Oct 2006 20:17:50 From: Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess tin Brown wrote: > Chess One wrote: > > "Sanny" <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news:[email protected]... > > > > > > When I gave IQ Test when I was in School I got an IQ of "125". In that > > > I was asked What is capital of Australia. Where is Effile Tower > > > Situated, Where is Panama Canal etc. > > > > Is true! For example I would have to guess Panama Canal was in Panama, if I > > never went there to know by personal experience or never read geography. But > > the question is not completely crazy, since what is being tested? > > > > It could be logic, ie, Panama canal is named for the place, Panama. > > It could be memory, if you remember where canal is. > > But if you didn't read geography then its not always possible to answer this > > type of question - ie, where is Lake Champlain? Because the Lake is named > > for a person, not a place. > > > > Therefore, is this part of IQ test a measure of geographical knowledge > > remembered? > > I don't see much point in using the original combined IQ test now. But > there is a point in considering scores in the separated tests that > cover mathermatical, linguistic, visuo-spatial reasoning etc. If people > know what their strengths are they can make better use of them. > > I have yet to meet any strong chess player that didn't have powerful > innate pattern matching and abstract reasoning ability. And anecdotally > mathematicians are often also strong chess players > It's not just anecdotal. In the Soviet national chess championships between schools (for age 13 and under), all top places always went to math schools. My own math school won 10 national championships in a row. My own class produced a grandmaster (Akhsharumova) and several international masters. And Gulko was only a couple of years ahead of us. Imagine how it felt for other teams of 13-year-olds to see such power facing them across the board. On the other hand, on average, the best chess players in our school tended to be just barely above average among us in mathematics and physics, and average in all other subjects. > > (although aptitude > for mathematics in other strong chess players may not have been > translated into academic acheivement for a host of other reasons). eg > > http://web.usna.navy.mil/~wdj/math_chess.htm > > > Other questions are self-inferential, either singly or as a group, > > > > When was the War of 1812? > > Who wrote Beethoven's 5th symphony. > > > If the "I" in IQ is taken to mean [is generally understood to mean] > > 'logical' intelligence [a left-brain process] then what you describe is not > > a measure of that, but of memory alone [and which hemisphere is that?]. How > > much of IQ testing is a measure of memory alone? > > A good intelligence test should not depend signifacntly on memory. > Although it does have to rely on some basic foundations (like knowing > the alphabet, language, upto 4 letter words, logic and numbers and > numerical sequences). > > The purest intelligence tests are the visuo-spatial symbol and pattern > matching tests. > Which one of these is the same but rotated ? etc. They are truly > language independent. Sudoku is another pure reasoning test. > > But still there is a problem. In cultures that live in very harsh > environments (arctic or deserts) you can die if you make a mistake. > This can mean that someone stops at the first question where they > cannot see the answer - leading to massive cultural bias. > > A corollary is that teaching students the exam technique of never to > spending more than a certain time on any question (and then go back to > tricky ones later) boosts scores. > > > For example, on IQ tests only one answer was permitted for the following:- > > > > Complete the series: 2, 4, 8, .... > > > > How many correct answers are there? Of all correct answers justify which one > > you would choose to complete the series. > > This is a classic. Anyone with common sense would choose what the > testers were obviously looking for, but common sense and IQ tend to be > anti-correlated. And in this case the sequence is far too short so that > there are multiple ambiguous answers all equally likely. > > 16 = 2^n and 14 = 2+n(n+1) are both very plausible testers answers. > Question is flawed. > > Same with make two new 4 letter words from S( _ _ _ )L by putting a 3 > letter word in the gap. > > One problem for IQ tests is that they are only valid for a range of IQs > and if the test is used on someone with an IQ beyond anything the > testers expect (and no common sense) it gives a totally anomolous > score. I knew someone at university who was extremely dyslexic in > language but had a mathematical and logical reasoning IQ around the 260 > k. He also had a framed certificate showing that his IQ was 60 > (since he always chose the non-obvious unintended phantom answers in > such tests). > > Another favourite "obvious" series being > > 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, [31] > > The encylopedia of series will give you a nice selection of other > alternatives to the "obvious" 32 that the test setter had almost > certainly intended. The solution would probably be unique if a term > beyond the unknown one was also provided. (2,4,8 gives far too many > alternatives) > > http://www.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/?q=1%2C2%2C4%2C8%2C16 > > I think spatial and math IQ probably does set an upper limit on chess > performance, and I strongly suspect that the age at which you first > start playing chess is also an important factor. > > Regards, > tin Brown   Date: 23 Oct 2006 20:04:43 From: Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess Chess One wrote: > <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... > > <..> > > >> Would you like to say more about your idea? Did you mean a correlation > >> that > >> average IQ produces average chess players? Does average IQ produce > >> average > >> piano-players? Or does IQ not measure piano playing? How does IQ measure > >> the > >> abstract spatial sense that master chess players have - and which I > >> defined > >> [citing de Groot] previously? > >> > > > > OK. Let me elaborate. > > > > Intelligence is a high-dimensional phenomenon. If you take people with > > high ability for differential toplogy, you will find that their average > > ability to write poems is higher than overall average. But many > > individual topologists may have no poetic abilites whatsoever. > > Understood. > > > IQ tests are nothing more than a bunch of puzzles, chosen from a very > > small set of patterns. Because they are intellevtual puzzles, the > > ability to solve them is going to be significantly positively > > correlated with other intellectual abilities. > > Okay, but I think this neds more definition. For example, even though the > puzzle is intellectual, is it solved intellectually, or by rote memory? > How many puzzles do you know that require large memory? I suspect the very dfinition of a "poser" or a "puzzle" is something that can be solved through thinking not memorization. > > > But there is no magic nor > > much science to these IQ tests, and the ability to do well on them is > > certainly not the "cause" of intelligence. > > Agree. It correlates ONE aspect of what is generally termed intelligence, > with some [small] patterning knowledge, or pattern awareness. > > > So, returning to chess and IQ, the abilities towards them are also > > positively correlated. Especially since a lot of chess involves logical > > thinking and problem solving. > > Yes. This is a sociology. Its also true that people who go to college have > typically higher IQ range than those who do not. But please consider the > concert piano player again - the question is how much pressure to apply to > the 10,000th note with the little finger of the left hand, and this is > resolved not by 'logical thinking and problem solving'. > What do you want to discuss about him? > > How many mathematicians could cite a string of 10,000 numbers? :0 > What for? How amny IQ puzzles do you know that require you to recite a string of 10,000 numbers? > > But this is only to address part of the question - the other part is the > /level/ at which people play chess, and if there is any correlation with IQ. > Well, if you admit that there is a positive correlation between different intelectual activities - then why not? > > I would say there is, but again for sociological reasons or even > physiological ones! Isn't the chess player the same sort of person who stays > indoors and solves intellectual puzzles and reads for his college degree? > Rather than go mountain climbing, for example. Or perhaps rehearses a > sport - since that also requires study to develop a physiological > 'intelligence'. > > What this man Gardner has done is to state that there are all sorts of > intelligences, and lists 9 specific ones - which include linear processing & > math skill as a discrete intelligence. I think IQ is the best measure of > this particular intelligence, but others include the Kinesthetic [you use > Greek word for body, soma?], and also there is a musical intelligence which > is a very deeply patterned activity, quite beyond any calculus or > rationcination [Greek again, ratio = measure, or beyond normal 'thinking']. > > This is a bit boring, so I'll tell you in a minute what I insist a bit on > this music parallel. > > > That is, if you take a sample of great chess players and have them take > > an IQ test in their language (yes, there are IQ tests in Russian), > > I have Russian friend in Petersburg, also Moscow, and a local chess player > is for Baku. Anyway, I have much correspondance with Russians. > > > the > > average of their scores will be probably higher than 100 and even than, > > say, 130. But there will be some who will score as low as 105 and as > > high as 200 (these are just my guesses). This is purely a 2-dimensional > > probaility distribution whose components are positively but not > > perfectly correlated. > > Okay! Its interesting to specualte on the range of IQs among chess players. > Here is another speculation [guess]: that very strong players will have > higher IQs, but most chess players [say 90 of them] > What does that mean? Why 90 and not 10,000? And how did you select them? > > will not vary > significantly from their social group, and those who do not play chess. > You have to define the sampling porcedure more precisely. > > > To return to the question that started this thread: judging from the > > way Kramnik plays chess and the way he talks and the way he carries > > himself, I would estimate that his IQ score would be at least 170, if > > he ever took such a test. Probably, higher than 190. Ditto for Kasparov > > and probably Anand. Topalov? Probably somewhat lower: he seems to be of > > a single-track (chess) mind, as exemplified by his stupid following of > > his manager Danailov's advice. But still above 130. > > Oddly, I might agree with you that Topalov would score less on IQ than for > example Kramnik. But that is because I do not attribute IQ as a good measure > of creativity - which you see - is the other essential factor here. Kramnik > may have phenomenal logical processing skills, and I am sure he has, but how > do these massively complex positions which Topalov achieves come to him? I > don't think he has the same process. > Toplaiv is a very intense individual, more introvert than Kramnik. Kramnik has a more general intellect. > > Anyway - there's lots of guessing in what I wrote. But I wanted to share > something from another top player > --- > > I was interviewing Adorjan, and [I think I made this a formal question to > him, anyway, we wrote thousands of words to each other on the subject], and > to provoke a response on this 'high dimensional intelligence', to use your > phrase, I asked him something like if seeing ahead in the position was like > having a movie camera in you mind, on fast-forward? > To clarify: by high dimensions of intelligence I meant that intelligence has lots of facets, not that it involves seeing multi-dimensional pictures in one's mind. > > He replied mysteriously, and said, "I do not see the baord, I do nto see the > pieces." :)) > > And he himself used a musical metaphor - the same I offer you above - ie, > how does the concert pianist play all those notes in the right sequence and > at the 10,000th note know the exact pressure to exert on the key? > Because he can hear the music in his head. > > This of course is consciously a counter metaphor from him, and not really a > suggestion that high level chess is like playing music, as much as to say > that it is NOT like 'seeing ahead', or some description of what is > concretely visual. > > The mind googles! But Adorjan by not agreeing to this visual metaphor also > concludes with this Dutch researcher de Groot, that for 'master' play there > is no visual dependency. > And there is fairly little visual dependency in most IQ tests. The last one I saw had 1 such question out of 48. > > Cordially, Phil Innes     Date: 24 Oct 2006 20:23:53 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... >> Okay, but I think this neds more definition. For example, even though the >> puzzle is intellectual, is it solved intellectually, or by rote memory? >> > > How many puzzles do you know that require large memory? I suspect the > very dfinition of a "poser" or a "puzzle" is something that can be > solved through thinking not memorization. It is a fair question. But what is the answer? :) --------- >> Yes. This is a sociology. Its also true that people who go to college >> have >> typically higher IQ range than those who do not. But please consider the >> concert piano player again - the question is how much pressure to apply >> to >> the 10,000th note with the little finger of the left hand, and this is >> resolved not by 'logical thinking and problem solving'. >> > > What do you want to discuss about him? Does the concert pianist use logical thinking and problem solving to achieve this virtuoso feat? If the answer is no, then how does IQ contribute to our understanding of what he does? >> How many mathematicians could cite a string of 10,000 numbers? :0 >> > > What for? Since it is also pattern recognition - but in music, a very different sort of pattern which also invokes memory. Is this musical pattern measured by IQ? > How amny IQ puzzles do you know that require you to recite a string of > 10,000 numbers? None. Not even by calculation, which is possible, as if calculting pi to 3.142 etc. My point is that IQ measures some pattern recognition, not all. And how extensive of patterns is it? >> >> But this is only to address part of the question - the other part is the >> /level/ at which people play chess, and if there is any correlation with >> IQ. >> > > Well, if you admit that there is a positive correlation between > different intelectual activities - then why not? Because by rote learning perhaps everyone can attain 1300 ratings. Beyond that, memorisation is joined by other factors. It is not implicated that anything taught or memorised can make you a master player. Therefore the quality or extent of skill achieved is also a factor. Maybe all high IQ people try chess - but how many are good at chess, and how do we address the those who cannot progress beyond 1300? ------ >> Okay! Its interesting to specualte on the range of IQs among chess >> players. >> Here is another speculation [guess]: that very strong players will have >> higher IQs, but most chess players [say 90 of them] >> > > What does that mean? Why 90 and not 10,000? And how did you select > them? correct! 90% was intended. 90% of chess players fall into what range of IQ? Is there an answer which is known? >> will not vary >> significantly from their social group, and those who do not play chess. >> > > You have to define the sampling porcedure more precisely. yes, to prove my point you are correct, but also to challenge variance to my point, I could say the same, unproved. ------- >> I was interviewing Adorjan, and [I think I made this a formal question to >> him, anyway, we wrote thousands of words to each other on the subject], >> and >> to provoke a response on this 'high dimensional intelligence', to use >> your >> phrase, I asked him something like if seeing ahead in the position was >> like >> having a movie camera in you mind, on fast-forward? >> > > To clarify: by high dimensions of intelligence I meant that > intelligence has lots of facets, not that it involves seeing > multi-dimensional pictures in one's mind. Adorjan says there are no 'pictures'. It is not a visula phenomena, and any talk of 'pictures' is a false metaphor. And yes, though intelligence has many facets, there is no implication that to achieve one, is to achieve another! >> >> He replied mysteriously, and said, "I do not see the baord, I do nto see >> the >> pieces." :)) >> >> And he himself used a musical metaphor - the same I offer you above - ie, >> how does the concert pianist play all those notes in the right sequence >> and >> at the 10,000th note know the exact pressure to exert on the key? >> > > Because he can hear the music in his head. In his head? Yes! But this is something that no mathematician could do - to sequence 10,000 numbers. So it is not the same thing as trying to memorise numbers, yes? It is as if it were a different factor, in fact a different intelligence. >> This of course is consciously a counter metaphor from him, and not really >> a >> suggestion that high level chess is like playing music, as much as to say >> that it is NOT like 'seeing ahead', or some description of what is >> concretely visual. >> >> The mind googles! But Adorjan by not agreeing to this visual metaphor >> also >> concludes with this Dutch researcher de Groot, that for 'master' play >> there >> is no visual dependency. >> > > And there is fairly little visual dependency in most IQ tests. The last > one I saw had 1 such question out of 48. What distributed dependencies are there? Of course, all are presented as texts, plus some visuals, but aural sensibilities are entirely missing, and much other somatic experiences. But I think there really tend to be more diagrammatic representation in IQ tests than the approximate 1% you cite. Are there not more diagrams than that? Cordially, Phil   Date: 24 Oct 2006 11:09:24 From: michael adams Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess tin Brown wrote: .. > That is perhaps one of the key points here. Chess players (and also Go, > Draughts) are self selected in that one reason they play the game is > that they enjoy the challenge. So there is definitely more to it than > just the pattern matching, memory and reasoning skills. Unless you > enjoy the competitive aspects of chess as well you will not get very > far. > > And the same goes for F1-racing, athon running, basketball and > soccer. Some individuals are intrinsically better at hand-eye > coordination or stamina (or both). And no amount of diligent training > or hard work would ever turn me into a footballer like David Beckham or > a racing driver like Schumacker. ---Oh puleese! - what sort of Brit are ye tin, from the home counties, eh? or more close flung environs - hehe, 'ees a farflung Yorkshire dwarf! geek,geek, geeeeeeek!.. ps - Schumacher gotta a puncture in Brazil - poor baron de red, sob. .. pst. headers trimmed up somewhat..   Date: 23 Oct 2006 16:32:26 From: Nick Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess tin Brown wrote: > Chess One wrote: > > "Sanny" <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news:[email protected]... > > > When I gave IQ Test when I was in School I got an IQ of "125". > > > In that I was asked What is capital of Australia. > > > Where is Effile Tower Situated, Where is Panama Canal etc. > > > > Is true! For example I would have to guess Panama Canal was in Panama, > > if I never went there to know by personal experience or never read geography. > > But the question is not completely crazy, since what is being tested? > > > > It could be logic, ie, Panama canal is named for the place, Panama. > > It could be memory, if you remember where canal is. > > But if you didn't read geography then its not always possible to answer this > > type of question - ie, where is Lake Champlain? Because the Lake is named > > for a person, not a place. > > > > Therefore, is this part of IQ test a measure of geographical knowledge > > remembered? > > I don't see much point in using the original combined IQ test now. > But there is a point in considering scores in the separated tests that > cover mathermatical, linguistic, visuo-spatial reasoning etc. If people > know what their strengths are they can make better use of them. > > I have yet to meet any strong chess player that didn't have > powerful innate pattern matching and abstract reasoning ability. I doubt that a strong chess player necessarily has 'powerful' 'abstract reasoning ability' in every field. For instance, Kasparov apparently has spent considerable time thinking about history, and he has come to some absurd conclusions with regard to his support of the 'New Chronology'. As for Bobby Fischer's 'abstract reasoning ability', well... > And anecdotally mathematicians are often also strong chess players I know some mathematicians who say they are weak chess players. For whatever it's worth, most of these mathematicians are women. Given that women are not usually expected to be strong chess players, I suspect that makes it easier for women to say openly that they are weak chess players. --Nick > (although aptitude for mathematics in other strong chess players > may not have been translated into academic acheivement for a > host of other reasons). eg > > http://web.usna.navy.mil/~wdj/math_chess.htm > > > Other questions are self-inferential, either singly or as a group, > > > > When was the War of 1812? > > Who wrote Beethoven's 5th symphony. > > > If the "I" in IQ is taken to mean [is generally understood to mean] > > 'logical' intelligence [a left-brain process] then what you describe is not > > a measure of that, but of memory alone [and which hemisphere is that?]. How > > much of IQ testing is a measure of memory alone? > > A good intelligence test should not depend signifacntly on memory. > Although it does have to rely on some basic foundations (like knowing > the alphabet, language, upto 4 letter words, logic and numbers and > numerical sequences). > > The purest intelligence tests are the visuo-spatial symbol and pattern > matching tests. Which one of these is the same but rotated ? etc. > They are truly language independent. Sudoku is another pure > reasoning test. > > But still there is a problem. In cultures that live in very harsh > environments (arctic or deserts) you can die if you make a mistake. > This can mean that someone stops at the first question where they > cannot see the answer - leading to massive cultural bias. > > A corollary is that teaching students the exam technique of never to > spending more than a certain time on any question (and then go back to > tricky ones later) boosts scores. > > > For example, on IQ tests only one answer was permitted for the following:- > > > > Complete the series: 2, 4, 8, .... > > > > How many correct answers are there? Of all correct answers justify which one > > you would choose to complete the series. > > This is a classic. Anyone with common sense would choose what the > testers were obviously looking for, but common sense and IQ tend to be > anti-correlated. And in this case the sequence is far too short so that > there are multiple ambiguous answers all equally likely. > > 16 = 2^n and 14 = 2+n(n+1) are both very plausible testers answers. > Question is flawed. > > Same with make two new 4 letter words from S( _ _ _ )L by putting a 3 > letter word in the gap. > > One problem for IQ tests is that they are only valid for a range of IQs > and if the test is used on someone with an IQ beyond anything the > testers expect (and no common sense) it gives a totally anomolous > score. I knew someone at university who was extremely dyslexic in > language but had a mathematical and logical reasoning IQ around the 260 > k. He also had a framed certificate showing that his IQ was 60 > (since he always chose the non-obvious unintended phantom answers in > such tests). > > Another favourite "obvious" series being > > 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, [31] > > The encylopedia of series will give you a nice selection of other > alternatives to the "obvious" 32 that the test setter had almost > certainly intended. The solution would probably be unique if a term > beyond the unknown one was also provided. (2,4,8 gives far too many > alternatives) > > http://www.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/?q=1%2C2%2C4%2C8%2C16 > > I think spatial and math IQ probably does set an upper limit on chess > performance, and I strongly suspect that the age at which you first > start playing chess is also an important factor. > > Regards, > tin Brown   Date: From: Martin Brown Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess   Date: From: Martin Brown Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess   Date: 22 Oct 2006 01:13:09 From: Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess Nick wrote: > [email protected] wrote: > > I know that I promised never to read your posts on the subject of IQs, > > but I did skim over your last post and want to set some points straight. > > So after he just called me a 'moron' and an 'idiot' and dismissed > everything that I write as 'drivel' that's obviously not worth reading, > VKarlamov feels that he has to respond. > > Is that because VKarlamov's not convinced that everyone else will > regard what I write as 'drivel' that's obviously not worth reading? > > Even Ed Seedhouse now has admitted that he attacked me > because he wrongly believed that I had written what VKarlamov > has written about 'The Bell Curve'. > Which of the numerous "attacks" on you by Ed are you talking about? The one when he wrote: > > However, the article actually presents evidence, which is what really has Nick > in a knot since he has none to offer for his own case. > Or the one when he wrote: > > You see that's how folks like Nick typically work. They make outrageous > claims and when someone rational points out they have provided no > evidence for their claims they attack that person for not providing > evidence that they haven't provided evidence. And so it goes. > > I think I'll just slap "Nick" in the old ignore file. He has nothing > interesting to say on the evidence of what he has said so far. > Are you accusng Ed of being a very confused individual? > > > Sorry that Nick is dragging me further and further away from chess. > > Given what VKarlamov has written in this thread (please read the > complete evidence) I regard VKarlamov with absolute disdain. > Thank god. "Tell me who your enemies are - and I'll tell you who you are". > > Nick wrote: > > > [email protected] wrote: > > > > Nick wrote: > > > > > [email protected] wrote: > > > > > > Ed Seedhouse wrote: > > > > > > > [email protected] wrote: > > > > > > > > > Nick wrote: > > >>> > > > > [email protected] wrote: > > >>> > > > >> I assure you that you are wrong. If you take any group of top > > >>> > > > >> performers in any intellectual activity - be it chess, math, science, > > >>> > > > >> poetry, management, law, etc - their average IQ score will be several > > >>> > > > >> standard deviations above 100. > > >>> > > > >> I am amazed that intelligent people can dispute this obvious fact. > > >>> > > > >> There must be some severe brain damage, caused by perverted political > > >>> > > > >> correctness, that is responsible for such blindness to the obvious. > > > > > >>> > > > >> Does VKarlamov approve of the 1994 book, 'The Bell Curve: Intelligence > > >>> > > > >> and Class Structure in American Life', by Richard Herrnstein and > > >>> > > > >> Charles Murray? > > > > Why do you speak to your conversation partners in the third person? > > Didn't your parents explain to you that it's highly rude? > > So VKarlamov feels completely qualified to give > a condescending lecture to me about rudeness. > > In his earlier post, VKarlamov called Ed Seedhouse and me 'idiots'. > Could you please remind me when I called Ed Seedhouse an 'idiot'? You wouldn't also be a patholoigical liar, would you? > > In his earlier post, VKarlamov wrote this nonsense about me: > > "You (Nick) are a moron. This is not an insult. > This is a statement of fact." > --VKarlamov > > Do his parents approve of VKarlamov's > extreme arrogance and hypocrisy? > My parents are extremely shocked by me calling you a moron. And ashamed of me. My dad told me: "After you called that retard a moron, my whole life has become a waste. Evidently, I haven't even taught you the proper language skills." > > > Or maybe you are Golem, our precious? > > VKarlamov has shown that he's an abusive troll who > warrants no more courtesy than what he has shown > other people, which is none. > > > >>> > > > 1. Is "The Bell Curve" is well-known pseudoscience? > > > > > > > > Are there no respectable scientists who support it? > > > > > > > > > > Does VKarlamov believe that if at least one 'respectable > > > > > scientist' can be found who supports 'The Bell Curve', then > > > > > it must not be pseudoscience even though nearly all 'respectable > > > > > scientists' (in related fields) regard it as pseudoscience? > > > > Why do you speak to your conversation partners in the third person? > > Didn't your parents explain to you that it's highly rude? Or maybe you > > are Golem, our precious? > > Do his parents approve of VKarlamov's > extreme arrogance and hypocrisy? > Whose parents? Who is "he"? Golem? > > > > > They do? How many exactly do so and how many don't? > > > > > > VKarlamov should read the books (though I doubt he will) > > > about 'The Bell Curve' that I already have cited in this thread. > > > > But the subject of race doesn't interest me enough to > > waste time on reading books on it. > > *Without reading the books*, VKarlamov presumes > that he already knows what they must be about. > No, I just don't want to read these books nor to find out what they are about. There are millions of other, more interesting books that I haven't read. > > > > > > If VKarlamov would like to read some older books > > > > > and articles, then he could find that many 'respectable > > > > > scientists', for their time and place, supported conclusions > > > > > such as the belief that white Europeans are intrinsically > > > > > superior in general intelligence to all other peoples. > > > > > > Does VKarlamov believe that white Europeans are intrinsically > > > superior in general intelligence to all other peoples? > > > > How do you define "general intelligence"? > > However VKarlamov may choose to define 'general intelligence' > (or simply 'intelligence'), does VKarlamov believe that white > Europeans are intrinsically superior in (general) intelligence > to all other peoples? > I have no idea. Never bothered with this idiotic question. Tell me what you think. > > > > > What does that have to do that you two idiots have badmouthed a > > > > scientific book without giving us a single example of errors in it? > > His calling us (Ed Seedhouse and I) 'two idiots' is an > example of VKarlamov's 'courtesy' toward other people. > Would VKarlamov's parents approve of that 'courtesy'? > > > > VKarlamov believes in his 'proof by name-calling'. > > > > > > There are many scientists (including the late Stephen Jay Gould) > > > who have pointed out many errors in 'The Bell Curve' and who > > > have denounced it as a pseudoscientific book. > > > > Yes, there are hundreds of thousands of good scientists in the World, > > and several dozens of them denounce this book for political reasons. > > Let the record show that VKarlamov evidently believes that > only a small minority of scientists in the world would object > to 'The Bell Curve' and that those scientists' criticisms are > motivated only by 'political reasons'. > Are you building a court case against me? Who is your lawyer? > > > However, read what encyclopedias write about it and see that the vast > > majority of scientists, who expressed their opinion on the subject of > > this book, came out in favor of its scientific quality, although > > everybody agrees that the implications are politically inconvenient. > > Start with Wiki: > > > > //////////////////////////////////////// > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve > > > > In response to the growing controversy surrounding The Bell Curve, the > > American Psychological Association's Board of Scientific Affairs > > established a special task force to publish an investigative report on > > the research presented in the book. The final report, titled > > Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns, is available at a third-party > > website. [10] > > > > Many of the task force's findings supported or were consistent with > > statements from The Bell Curve. They agreed that: > > > > IQ scores have high predictive validity for individual differences in > > school achievement. > > > > IQ scores have predictive validity for adult occupational status, even > > when variables such as education and family background have been > > statistically controlled. > > > > Individual differences in intelligence are substantially influenced by > > genetics. > > > > Individual differences in intelligence are substantially influenced by > > environment as well. > > > > There is little evidence to show that childhood diet influences > > intelligence except in cases of severe malnutrition. > > > > There are no significant differences between the IQ scores of males and > > females. > > > > Perhaps most significantly, the APA task force stated: > > > > The differential between the mean intelligence test scores of Blacks > > and Whites (about one standard deviation, although it may be > > diminishing) does not result from any obvious biases in test > > construction and administration, nor does it simply reflect differences > > in socio-economic status. Explanations based on factors of caste and > > culture may be appropriate, but so far have little direct empirical > > support. There is certainly no such support for a genetic > > interpretation. At present, no one knows what causes this differential. > > ////////////////////////////////////////////////// > > > > > > VKarlamov's (apparently deliberate) ignorance of these many > > > diverse criticisms of 'The Bell Curve' does *not* mean that > > > these criticisms do *not* exist. These criticisms can be > > > easily looked up in books and articles in a university library. > > > > Good for you. While at the library, look up the criticisms of Darwin's > > evolution. I bet you will find 10000000 times more of it. So, should i > > also stop believing in evolution and convert to creationism? > > Evidently, VKarlamov regards criticising 'The Bell Curve' > as comparable to supporting creationism. > > I would hope that VKarlamov's nonsense and extreme bias > has become evident to most knowledgeable readers by now. > Methinks the whole reading world has been reading all your posts with baited(sic.) breath. > > > > > > > > > Please give precise quotes from that book, where > > > > > > > > the authors made scientific mistakes. If you know > > > > > > > > them of course. I will await your examples. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do some research on the internet. That's what it's for. > > > > > > > > > > For the record, I write independently of Ed Seedhouse. > > > > > > > > Congratulations. For you, that's an accomplishment. > > > > > > VKarlamov's condescension has been noted. > > > > > > I have cited books that discuss 'The Bell Curve' in detail. > > > > > > > > I haven't seen that post. > > > > > > It's earlier in this thread. VKarlamov is responsible for > > > his ignorance of the earlier related posts in this thread. > > > > > > As far as I can tell, VKarlamov seems disinclined > > > > > to make the effort to read them. > > > > > > > > I will gladly read them as soon as you read books > > > > that I will tell you to read. A deal? > > > > > > 1) VKarlamov apparently asked for sources of criticisms > > > of 'The Bell Curve'. > > > 2) I have cited books that discuss 'The Bell Curve' in detail. > > > 3) VKarlamov now prefers to make excuses about why he > > > should *not* be expected to read what he has asked for. > > > > > > So I have concluded that VKarlamov is *not sincerely > > > interested* in reading criticisms of 'The Bell Curve' > > > because VKarlamov strongly admires 'The Bell Curve' > > > and its conclusions (which many divrerse persons > > > have condemned, at least in part, as racist). > > > > Why do you think i admire it? Give quotes of mine that show it. > > Earlier in his post (to which I respond now), VKarlamov > has written comments denouncing and dismissing > criticisms of 'The Bell Curve'. VKarlamov also has compared > criticising 'The Bell Curve' to supporting creationism. > Give exact quotes where I show admiration for the "Bell Curve". > > > I read parts of it many-many years ago and found it reasonable. > Oh I see... Is that what you mean by "admiration"? > > VKarlamov has admitted that he regards the > conclusions of 'The Bell Curve' as 'reasonable'. > Wow. "Admitted"? Now that I have "admitted" my "crime", are you going to send the police after me for that? Will you also send the police to arrest the entire American Psychological Association's Board of Scientific Affairs too? Question to the rec.games.chess people? Who is this person wiht the nick of "Nick"? Is he a known troll or brand new? > > > Then I moved on to other, more important subjects. > > > > > > > > > I see. That's how you operate: you make a false statement, > > > > > > > > > > "'The Bell Curve' is well-known pseudoscience." > > > > > --Ed Seedhouse > > > > > > > > > > VKarlamov has *not* proven that it's a false statement. > > > > > > > > Ed made a claim about some book that it is "pseudoscience". > > > > But you don't expect him to substantiate his claim. Oh no. > > > > > > That's another false statement by VKarmalov, who > > > likes to misrepresent what I think. > > > > > > It's reasonable to expect Ed Seedhouse to make more of > > > an effort to support his statement than just to write, as he > > > did, "Do some research on the internet." If VKarlamov > > > would like to criticise Ed Seedhouse on account of that, > > > then I would believe that's fair enough. > > > > > > But I do *not* expect Ed Seedhouse to reproduce lengthy > > > selections from (presumably) copyrighted books and > > > articles to support his statement, which seems to be > > > what VKarlamov was asking for. > > > > > > > Instead you want me to go over each and every one of > > > > maybe 50,000 sentences in this book and give you 50,000 > > > > mathematical proofs that each one of them is "scientific"? > > > > > > That's more nonsense by VKarlamov. > > > > > > It's quite easy to look up scholarly criticisms of > > > 'The Bell Curve' among the books and articles in > > > a university library or even a good public library. > > > > > > > You wanted me to give a mathematical proof that the statement "'The > > Bell Curve' is well-known pseudoscience" is false: > > > > > > > > > > VKarlamov has *not* proven that it's a false statement. > > > > > > > How do you expect one to give such a mathematical proof, genius? > > > > > > > > > And now that we have established that, I will not read the rest > > > > of your drivel, because life's too short to waste it on idiots. > > > > > > > > > Given his abusive conduct ('proof by name-calling'), > > > > > > > "Abusive conduct"? LOL. > > > > > I suspect that VKarlamov has *no sincere interest* > > > in reading scholarly criticisms of 'The Bell Curve'. > > > > > > > That's correct. I have no interest in either re-reading Bell Curve nor > > reading its criticism nor criticism of criticism. I am not interested > > with your preoccupation with race and intelligence. > > > > Here at rec.chess we were having a nice conversation about chess and > > IQ, and then you came as a troll and tried to provoke me with: > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Does VKarlamov approve of the 1994 book, 'The Bell Curve: Intelligence > > >>> > > > >> and Class Structure in American Life', by Richard Herrnstein and > > >>> > > > >> Charles Murray? > > > > > > > This is rec.chess. Diverting conversations from chess IQ to race IQ is > > against the Usenet etiquette. If oyu want to discuss race and IQ, start > > a new thread in soc.culture.menza or whatever IQ-related groups exist > > in Usenet. > > > > You want to discuss chess and ethnicity? Fine. Read the Wiki article on > > Ashkenazi, that i have posted, and let's discuss why it happens that > > starting with the very first Chess Champion and his opponent, the > > majority of the greatest chess players have been Ashkenazis. > > > > But you are not going to troll me into a heated discusion of IQ vs, > > race: > > > > 1. I don't care about IQ. To me, it's a rather weak correlator with > > various mental abilities. > > > > 2. This is rec.chess not rec.IQ > > > > > > > > > You are a moron. This is not an insult. This is a statement of fact. > > > > > > Ah, well, I suspect that VKarlamov could determine for > > > himself the alleged 'fact' that I must be a 'moron' just by > > > looking at my racial appearance. Perhaps VKarlamov will > > > blame 'political correctness' to explain how a 'moron' like me > > > could have won mathematical problem-solving competitions. > > > > > > > Which ones? > > > > I doubt it very much: you lack logic and don't even understand the > > concept of "proof". > > > > > > > > Given the much abusive nonsense written here by VKarlamov, > > > I would submit that it's clear enough that VKarlamov's far from > > > sincerely interested in any serious discussion about 'The Bell > > > Curve', which he apparently strongly admires. > > > > > > Given his evident prejudices and abusive conduct, I regard > > > it as a waste of my time to treat VKarlamov as though he > > > were someone who warranted any respect in discussion. > > > > > > The more that VKarlamov writes, the more that emerges of > > > VKarlamov's prejudices > > > > > > > Prejudices against whom? Morons? Yes, that's true. Whom else? > > > > > > > > and his extremely base character. > > > I cannot be certain of the extent to which VKarlamov is a racist, > > > though it already seems substantial, > > > > > > > It is? Please give evidence. I don't recall evenmentioning any Blacks, > > Asians or Native Americans at all. > > > > And while at it, explain why the reader should ignore the substantial > > evidence of your own virulent antisemitism. > > > > I am certainle less of a racist than you are an anitsemite. > > > > > > > > but it's more than enough > > > for me to regard VKarlamov with absolute disdain. > > > > > > > > > > > Given his abusive conduct ('proof by name-calling'), > > > > > > > I am glad you yourself never try to insult or intimidate your > > opponents... > > > > > > > > > > VKarlamov's predisposition to believe it's a false statement > > > > > is not proof. > > > > > > > > > > > and when asked to justify it, you respond: "do > > > > > > your own research for me". > > > > > > > > > > My response to VKarlamov is: "I have cited books > > > > > that discuss 'The Bell Curve' in detail. If you are > > > > > too lazy to read them, then don't expect me to > > > > > reproduce their copyrighted material here for you." > > > > > > > > > > > So, you didn't have any evidence against that book, > > > > > > > > > > Can VKarlamov read Ed Seedhouse's mind? > > > > > How could VKarlamov know what evidence > > > > > Ed Seedhouse may have against 'The Bell Curve'? > > > > > > > > > > > yet you chose to badmouth it. Why? > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps Ed Seedhouse has read more criticisms > > > > > than VKarlamov of 'The Bell Curve'. > > > > > > > > > > > Because you are an ignorant anti-science knee-jerk > > > > > > moron, who like a parrot, repeats everything that his > > > > > > "political mentors" say. > > > > > > > > > > In contrast to VKarlamov, I don't know anything about > > > > > Ed Seedhouse's 'political mentors' or what they may > > > > > have ordered him to say. By the way, if VKarlamov > > > > > happens to know my 'political mentors' and what > > > > > they have ordered me to say, then could he please > > > > > pass on their orders to me--I have not received them. :-) > > > > > > > > > > As far as I can tell, VKarlamov seems strongly predisposed > > > > > to believe that 'The Bell Curve' must be good scientific work. > > > > > Perhaps VKarlamov should consider subscribing to > > > > > 'Mankind Quarterly' or making a donation to the > > > > > Pioneer Fund. > > > > > > > > > > VKarlamov could find favourable reviews of 'The Bell > > > > > Curve' in some right-wing American publications > > > > > > > You consider the American Psychological Association's Board of > > Scientific Affairs to be "right-wing"? > > > > > > > > > > (e.g. 'Commentary', which is published by the > > > > > American Jewish Committee), which support the > > > > > evident political agenda of the book's authors. > > > > > > > > > > If Stephen Jay Gould were alive today, then I > > > > > expect that he would note how 'scientific racism' > > > > > (as expressed in 'The Bell Curve') continues to > > > > > impress some people, particularly those people > > > > > with self-interests to be impressed. > > > > > > > > > > --Nick   Date: 21 Oct 2006 17:23:40 From: help bot Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess Henri H. Arsenault wrote: > > When I google the above text, I get 2.47 million hits. Now, > >how am I to know which .07 million to sift through? :>D > > > > > On MY Google, it is the first one in the list... I offer you 2.4 billion for your company -- cash on the barrelhead. Take it or leave it. Or, we can do a trade: my Yahoo! and ebay for your Google plus 5 million in gold bars. I'll even throw in the Brooklyn bridge. Hey, as I said, when I cut and pasted your link the article did not come up. I had to find the search box on that site, type in "chess", and *look for* the article in question. All that ehausting work even when you gave us the link! Now imagine what might happen without a link and I think you will realise the lawsuits which could ensue: heat strokes, pain and suffering, etc., etc. Come to think of it, I'm not sure I want to buy your company anymore, considering the risk. I think I'll just buy an island in the Pacific instead. How much do you think they might want for say, New Zealand? -- help bot   Date: 21 Oct 2006 16:53:47 From: Nick Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess This post completes my earlier post (which got interrupted and sent before completion). Nick wrote: > [email protected] wrote: > > I know that I promised never to read your posts on the subject of IQs, > > but I did skim over your last post and want to set some points straight. > > So after he just called me a 'moron' and an 'idiot' and dismissed > everything that I write as 'drivel' that's obviously not worth reading, > VKarlamov feels that he has to respond. > > Is that because VKarlamov's not convinced that everyone else will > regard what I write as 'drivel' that's obviously not worth reading? > > Even Ed Seedhouse now has admitted that he attacked me > because he wrongly believed that I had written what VKarlamov > has written about 'The Bell Curve'. > > > Sorry that Nick is dragging me further and further away from chess. > > Given what VKarlamov has written in this thread (please read the > complete evidence) I regard VKarlamov with absolute disdain. > > > Nick wrote: > > > [email protected] wrote: > > > > Nick wrote: > > > > > [email protected] wrote: > > > > > > Ed Seedhouse wrote: > > > > > > > [email protected] wrote: > > > > > > > > > Nick wrote: > > >>> > > > > [email protected] wrote: > > >>> > > > >> I assure you that you are wrong. If you take any group of top > > >>> > > > >> performers in any intellectual activity - be it chess, math, science, > > >>> > > > >> poetry, management, law, etc - their average IQ score will be several > > >>> > > > >> standard deviations above 100. > > >>> > > > >> I am amazed that intelligent people can dispute this obvious fact. > > >>> > > > >> There must be some severe brain damage, caused by perverted political > > >>> > > > >> correctness, that is responsible for such blindness to the obvious. > > > > > >>> > > > >> Does VKarlamov approve of the 1994 book, 'The Bell Curve: Intelligence > > >>> > > > >> and Class Structure in American Life', by Richard Herrnstein and > > >>> > > > >> Charles Murray? > > > > Why do you speak to your conversation partners in the third person? > > Didn't your parents explain to you that it's highly rude? > > So VKarlamov feels completely qualified to give > a condescending lecture to me about rudeness. > > In his earlier post, VKarlamov called Ed Seedhouse and me 'idiots'. > In his earlier post, VKarlamov wrote this nonsense about me: > > "You (Nick) are a moron. This is not an insult. > This is a statement of fact." > --VKarlamov > > Do his parents approve of VKarlamov's > extreme arrogance and hypocrisy? > > > Or maybe you are Golem, our precious? > > VKarlamov has shown that he's an abusive troll who > warrants no more courtesy than what he has shown > other people, which is none. > > > >>> > > > 1. Is "The Bell Curve" is well-known pseudoscience? > > > > > > > > Are there no respectable scientists who support it? > > > > > > > > > > Does VKarlamov believe that if at least one 'respectable > > > > > scientist' can be found who supports 'The Bell Curve', then > > > > > it must not be pseudoscience even though nearly all 'respectable > > > > > scientists' (in related fields) regard it as pseudoscience? > > > > Why do you speak to your conversation partners in the third person? > > Didn't your parents explain to you that it's highly rude? Or maybe you > > are Golem, our precious? > > Do his parents approve of VKarlamov's > extreme arrogance and hypocrisy? > > > > > They do? How many exactly do so and how many don't? > > > > > > VKarlamov should read the books (though I doubt he will) > > > about 'The Bell Curve' that I already have cited in this thread. > > > > But the subject of race doesn't interest me enough to > > waste time on reading books on it. > > *Without reading the books*, VKarlamov presumes > that he already knows what they must be about. Again that shows VKarlamov's prejudice. > > > > > If VKarlamov would like to read some older books > > > > > and articles, then he could find that many 'respectable > > > > > scientists', for their time and place, supported conclusions > > > > > such as the belief that white Europeans are intrinsically > > > > > superior in general intelligence to all other peoples. > > > > > > Does VKarlamov believe that white Europeans are intrinsically > > > superior in general intelligence to all other peoples? > > > > How do you define "general intelligence"? > > However VKarlamov may choose to define 'general intelligence' > (or simply 'intelligence'), does VKarlamov believe that white > Europeans are intrinsically superior in (general) intelligence > to all other peoples? > > > And why do you speak to your conversation partners in the third person? > > Didn't your parents explain to you that it's highly rude? Or maybe you > > are Golem, our precious? > > Do his parents approve of VKarlamov's > extreme arrogance and hypocrisy? > > > > > What does that have to do that you two idiots have badmouthed a > > > > scientific book without giving us a single example of errors in it? > > His calling us (Ed Seedhouse and I) 'two idiots' is an > example of VKarlamov's 'courtesy' toward other people. > Would VKarlamov's parents approve of that 'courtesy'? > > > > VKarlamov believes in his 'proof by name-calling'. > > > > Why do you speak to your conversation partners in the third person? > > Didn't your parents explain to you that it's highly rude? Or maybe you > > are Golem, our precious? > > Do his parents approve of VKarlamov's > extreme arrogance and hypocrisy? > > > > There are many scientists (including the late Stephen Jay Gould) > > > who have pointed out many errors in 'The Bell Curve' and who > > > have denounced it as a pseudoscientific book. > > > > Yes, there are hundreds of thousands of good scientists in the World, > > and several dozens of them denounce this book for political reasons. > > Let the record show that VKarlamov evidently believes that > only a small minority of scientists in the world would object > to 'The Bell Curve' and that those scientists' criticisms are > motivated only by 'political reasons'. > > > However, read what encyclopedias write about it and see that the vast > > majority of scientists, who expressed their opinion on the subject of > > this book, came out in favor of its scientific quality, although > > everybody agrees that the implications are politically inconvenient. > > Start with Wiki: > > > > //////////////////////////////////////// > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve > > > > In response to the growing controversy surrounding The Bell Curve, the > > American Psychological Association's Board of Scientific Affairs > > established a special task force to publish an investigative report on > > the research presented in the book. The final report, titled > > Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns, is available at a third-party > > website. [10] > > > > Many of the task force's findings supported or were consistent with > > statements from The Bell Curve. They agreed that: > > > > IQ scores have high predictive validity for individual differences in > > school achievement. > > > > IQ scores have predictive validity for adult occupational status, even > > when variables such as education and family background have been > > statistically controlled. > > > > Individual differences in intelligence are substantially influenced by > > genetics. > > > > Individual differences in intelligence are substantially influenced by > > environment as well. > > > > There is little evidence to show that childhood diet influences > > intelligence except in cases of severe malnutrition. > > > > There are no significant differences between the IQ scores of males and > > females. > > > > Perhaps most significantly, the APA task force stated: > > > > The differential between the mean intelligence test scores of Blacks > > and Whites (about one standard deviation, although it may be > > diminishing) does not result from any obvious biases in test > > construction and administration, nor does it simply reflect differences > > in socio-economic status. Explanations based on factors of caste and > > culture may be appropriate, but so far have little direct empirical > > support. There is certainly no such support for a genetic > > interpretation. At present, no one knows what causes this differential. > > ////////////////////////////////////////////////// > > > > > > VKarlamov's (apparently deliberate) ignorance of these many > > > diverse criticisms of 'The Bell Curve' does *not* mean that > > > these criticisms do *not* exist. These criticisms can be > > > easily looked up in books and articles in a university library. > > > > Good for you. While at the library, look up the criticisms of Darwin's > > evolution. I bet you will find 10000000 times more of it. So, should i > > also stop believing in evolution and convert to creationism? > > Evidently, VKarlamov regards criticising 'The Bell Curve' > as comparable to supporting creationism. > > I would hope that VKarlamov's nonsense and extreme bias > has become evident to most knowledgeable readers by now. > > > > > > > > > Please give precise quotes from that book, where > > > > > > > > the authors made scientific mistakes. If you know > > > > > > > > them of course. I will await your examples. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do some research on the internet. That's what it's for. > > > > > > > > > > For the record, I write independently of Ed Seedhouse. > > > > > > > > Congratulations. For you, that's an accomplishment. > > > > > > VKarlamov's condescension has been noted. > > > > Why do you speak to your conversation partners in the third person? > > Didn't your parents explain to you that it's highly rude? > > Do his parents approve of VKarlamov's > extreme arrogance and hypocrisy? > > > > > > I have cited books that discuss 'The Bell Curve' in detail. > > > > > > > > I haven't seen that post. > > > > > > It's earlier in this thread. VKarlamov is responsible for > > > his ignorance of the earlier related posts in this thread. > > > > Why do you speak to your conversation partners in the third person? > > Didn't your parents explain to you that it's highly rude? Or maybe you > > are Golem, our precious? > > Do his parents approve of VKarlamov's > extreme arrogance and hypocrisy? > > > > > > As far as I can tell, VKarlamov seems disinclined > > > > > to make the effort to read them. > > > > > > > > I will gladly read them as soon as you read books > > > > that I will tell you to read. A deal? > > > > > > 1) VKarlamov apparently asked for sources of criticisms > > > of 'The Bell Curve'. > > > 2) I have cited books that discuss 'The Bell Curve' in detail. > > > 3) VKarlamov now prefers to make excuses about why he > > > should *not* be expected to read what he has asked for. > > > > > > So I have concluded that VKarlamov is *not sincerely > > > interested* in reading criticisms of 'The Bell Curve' > > > because VKarlamov strongly admires 'The Bell Curve' > > > and its conclusions (which many divrerse persons > > > have condemned, at least in part, as racist). > > > > Why do you think i admire it? Give quotes of mine that show it. > > Earlier in his post (to which I respond now), VKarlamov > has written comments denouncing and dismissing > criticisms of 'The Bell Curve'. VKarlamov also has compared > criticising 'The Bell Curve' to supporting creationism > (which scientists regard as nonsense). > > > I read parts of it many-many years ago and found it reasonable. > > VKarlamov has admitted that he regards the > conclusions of 'The Bell Curve' as 'reasonable'. Given VKarlamov's extreme intolerance of criticisms of 'The Bell Curve', it's reasonable to conclude that VKarlamov admires 'The Bell Curve', even though he may not have read it recently. > > Then I moved on to ohter, more important subjects. > > > > > > > > > I see. That's how you operate: you make a false statement, > > > > > > > > > > "'The Bell Curve' is well-known pseudoscience." > > > > > --Ed Seedhouse > > > > > > > > > > VKarlamov has *not* proven that it's a false statement. > > > > > > > > Ed made a claim about some book that it is "pseudoscience". > > > > But you don't expect him to substantiate his claim. Oh no. > > > > > > That's another false statement by VKarmalov, who > > > likes to misrepresent what I think. > > > > > > It's reasonable to expect Ed Seedhouse to make more of > > > an effort to support his statement than just to write, as he > > > did, "Do some research on the internet." If VKarlamov > > > would like to criticise Ed Seedhouse on account of that, > > > then I would believe that's fair enough. > > > > > > But I do *not* expect Ed Seedhouse to reproduce lengthy > > > selections from (presumably) copyrighted books and > > > articles to support his statement, which seems to be > > > what VKarlamov was asking for. > > > > > > > Instead you want me to go over each and every one of > > > > maybe 50,000 sentences in this book and give you 50,000 > > > > mathematical proofs that each one of them is "scientific"? > > > > > > That's more nonsense by VKarlamov. > > > > > > It's quite easy to look up scholarly criticisms of > > > 'The Bell Curve' among the books and articles in > > > a university library or even a good public library. > > > > You wanted me to give a mathematical proof that the statement > > "'The Bell Curve' is well-known pseudoscience" is false: That's more nonsense by VKarlamov. For the record, I wrote nothing about expecting a 'mathematical proof' (on a non-mathematical subject) > > > > > VKarlamov has *not* proven that it's a false statement. > > > > > How do you expect one to give such a mathematical proof, genius? VKarlamov likes to reiterate his nonsense about a 'mathematical proof'. > > > > And now that we have established that, I will not read the rest > > > > of your drivel, because life's too short to waste it on idiots. > > > > > > Given his abusive conduct ('proof by name-calling'), > > > > "Abusive conduct"? LOL. Do his parents approve of VKarlamov calling other people (Ed Seedhouse and me) 'idiots'? Is that the kind of 'courtesy' to be expected from the Karlamov family? > > > I suspect that VKarlamov has *no sincere interest* > > > in reading scholarly criticisms of 'The Bell Curve'. > > > > That's correct. VKarlamov has confirmed what I had suspected. VKarlamov already has shown his eagerness to denounce and dismiss criticisms of 'The Bell Curve' without making any effort to consider them seriously. > > I have no interest in either re-reading Bell Curve nor > > reading its criticism nor criticism of criticism. I am > > not interested with your preoccupation with race > > and intelligence. '(My supposed) preoccupation with race and intelligence'? I simply have noted the fact that 'The Bell Curve' has been widely denounced as a racist book. I also should note 'The Bell Curve' has been embraced by some racist publications and websites as allegedly providing 'scientific proof' that white people are intrinsically superior in intelligence to black people. If VKarlamov likes to continue acting as though 'The Bell Curve' (and its popular interpretations) must have no implications whatsoever about racism, then what does that say about VKarlamov? > > Here at rec.chess we were having a nice conversation about chess > > and IQ, and then you came as a troll and tried to provoke me with: I pointed out (citing the example of James Watson and his IQ) that VKarlamov has made wrong statement(s) about IQ. > > >>> > > > >> Does VKarlamov approve of the 1994 book, 'The Bell Curve: Intelligence > > >>> > > > >> and Class Structure in American Life', by Richard Herrnstein and > > >>> > > > >> Charles Murray? My question was expressed in non-provocative terms. VKarlamov is responsible for what he wrote in response to my question and for what he has written since then. > > This is rec.chess. Diverting conversations from chess IQ to race IQ is > > against the Usenet etiquette. If oyu want to discuss race and IQ, start > > a new thread in soc.culture.menza or whatever IQ-related groups exist > > in Usenet. Given the evidence of VKarlamov's abusive and dishonest conduct, VKarlamov chooses to resort to the "But it's off-topic" excuse. > > You want to discuss chess and ethnicity? Fine. Read the Wiki article on > > Ashkenazi, that i have posted, and let's discuss why it happens that > > starting with the very first Chess Champion and his opponent, the > > majority of the greatest chess players have been Ashkenazis. > > > > But you are not going to troll me into a heated discusion > > of IQ vs, race: It's VKarlamov who has expressed his approval of 'The Bell Curve' and his intolerance of criticisms of 'The Bell Curve'. > > 1. I don't care about IQ. To me, it's a rather weak > > correlator with various mental abilities. Then why was VKarlamov impressed by 'The Bell Curve', which places much importance on IQ scores. VKarlamov seems to be attempting now *dishonestly* to distance himself from his earlier comments on IQ. > > 2. This is rec.chess not rec.IQ > > > > > > > You are a moron. This is not an insult. This is a statement of fact. Why, apart from his evident racism, would VKarlamov be certain that my IQ score must classify me as a 'moron'? > > > Ah, well, I suspect that VKarlamov could determine for > > > himself the alleged 'fact' that I must be a 'moron' just by > > > looking at my racial appearance. Perhaps VKarlamov will > > > blame 'political correctness' to explain how a 'moron' like me > > > could have won mathematical problem-solving competitions. > > > > Which ones? > > > > I doubt it very much: you lack logic and don't even > > understand the concept of "proof". How much would VKarlamov like to bet? > > > Given the much abusive nonsense written here by VKarlamov, > > > I would submit that it's clear enough that VKarlamov's far from > > > sincerely interested in any serious discussion about 'The Bell > > > Curve', which he apparently strongly admires. > > > > > > Given his evident prejudices and abusive conduct, I regard > > > it as a waste of my time to treat VKarlamov as though he > > > were someone who warranted any respect in discussion. > > > > > > The more that VKarlamov writes, the more that emerges of > > > VKarlamov's prejudices > > > > Prejudices against whom? Morons? Yes, that's true. Whom else? Evidently, VKarlamov is a racist, though he now seems to be making an effort to deny it. > > > and his extremely base character. > > > I cannot be certain of the extent to which VKarlamov is a racist, > > > though it already seems substantial, > > > > It is? Please give evidence. I don't recall evenmentioning > > any Blacks, Asians or Native Americans at all. VKarlamov's extreme intolerance of criticisms of 'The Bell Curve', which is widely condemned as a racist book, is sufficient cause to suspect him of racism. > > And while at it, explain why the reader should ignore the > > substantial evidence of your own virulent antisemitism. > > > > I am certainle less of a racist than you are an anitsemite. Simon (who wrote here as 'chapman billy') is a British Jewish friend of mine. Simon would regard what VKarlamov has written about me as nonsense. Simon also regards (we have discussed it) 'The Bell Curve' as nonsense, which usually is supported only by racists. > > > but it's more than enough > > > for me to regard VKarlamov with absolute disdain. > > > > > > Given his abusive conduct ('proof by name-calling'), > > > > I am glad you yourself never try to insult or intimidate your > > opponents... > > > > > > > > > > VKarlamov's predisposition to believe it's a false statement > > > > > is not proof. > > > > > > > > > > > and when asked to justify it, you respond: "do > > > > > > your own research for me". > > > > > > > > > > My response to VKarlamov is: "I have cited books > > > > > that discuss 'The Bell Curve' in detail. If you are > > > > > too lazy to read them, then don't expect me to > > > > > reproduce their copyrighted material here for you." > > > > > > > > > > > So, you didn't have any evidence against that book, > > > > > > > > > > Can VKarlamov read Ed Seedhouse's mind? > > > > > How could VKarlamov know what evidence > > > > > Ed Seedhouse may have against 'The Bell Curve'? > > > > > > > > > > > yet you chose to badmouth it. Why? > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps Ed Seedhouse has read more criticisms > > > > > than VKarlamov of 'The Bell Curve'. > > > > > > > > > > > Because you are an ignorant anti-science knee-jerk > > > > > > moron, who like a parrot, repeats everything that his > > > > > > "political mentors" say. > > > > > > > > > > In contrast to VKarlamov, I don't know anything about > > > > > Ed Seedhouse's 'political mentors' or what they may > > > > > have ordered him to say. By the way, if VKarlamov > > > > > happens to know my 'political mentors' and what > > > > > they have ordered me to say, then could he please > > > > > pass on their orders to me--I have not received them. :-) > > > > > > > > > > As far as I can tell, VKarlamov seems strongly predisposed > > > > > to believe that 'The Bell Curve' must be good scientific work. > > > > > Perhaps VKarlamov should consider subscribing to > > > > > 'Mankind Quarterly' or making a donation to the > > > > > Pioneer Fund. > > > > > > > > > > VKarlamov could find favourable reviews of 'The Bell > > > > > Curve' in some right-wing American publications > > > > You consider the American Psychological Association's > > Board of Scientific Affairs to be "right-wing"? It's wrong for VKarlamov to write as though the American Psychological Assocation has endorsed 'The Bell Curve'. A (white) friend of mine is a clinical psychologist and an APA member, and he regards 'The Bell Curve' as nonsense, which seems motivated largely by racism. --Nick > > > > > (e.g. 'Commentary', which is published by the > > > > > American Jewish Committee), which support the > > > > > evident political agenda of the book's authors. > > > > > > > > > > If Stephen Jay Gould were alive today, then I > > > > > expect that he would note how 'scientific racism' > > > > > (as expressed in 'The Bell Curve') continues to > > > > > impress some people, particularly those people > > > > > with self-interests to be impressed. > > > > > > > > > > --Nick   Date: 21 Oct 2006 15:58:36 From: Nick Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess [email protected] wrote: > I know that I promised never to read your posts on the subject of IQs, > but I did skim over your last post and want to set some points straight. So after he just called me a 'moron' and an 'idiot' and dismissed everything that I write as 'drivel' that's obviously not worth reading, VKarlamov feels that he has to respond. Is that because VKarlamov's not convinced that everyone else will regard what I write as 'drivel' that's obviously not worth reading? Even Ed Seedhouse now has admitted that he attacked me because he wrongly believed that I had written what VKarlamov has written about 'The Bell Curve'. > Sorry that Nick is dragging me further and further away from chess. Given what VKarlamov has written in this thread (please read the complete evidence) I regard VKarlamov with absolute disdain. > Nick wrote: > > [email protected] wrote: > > > Nick wrote: > > > > [email protected] wrote: > > > > > Ed Seedhouse wrote: > > > > > > [email protected] wrote: > > > > > > > > Nick wrote: > >>> > > > > [email protected] wrote: > >>> > > > >> I assure you that you are wrong. If you take any group of top > >>> > > > >> performers in any intellectual activity - be it chess, math, science, > >>> > > > >> poetry, management, law, etc - their average IQ score will be several > >>> > > > >> standard deviations above 100. > >>> > > > >> I am amazed that intelligent people can dispute this obvious fact. > >>> > > > >> There must be some severe brain damage, caused by perverted political > >>> > > > >> correctness, that is responsible for such blindness to the obvious. > > > >>> > > > >> Does VKarlamov approve of the 1994 book, 'The Bell Curve: Intelligence > >>> > > > >> and Class Structure in American Life', by Richard Herrnstein and > >>> > > > >> Charles Murray? > > Why do you speak to your conversation partners in the third person? > Didn't your parents explain to you that it's highly rude? So VKarlamov feels completely qualified to give a condescending lecture to me about rudeness. In his earlier post, VKarlamov called Ed Seedhouse and me 'idiots'. In his earlier post, VKarlamov wrote this nonsense about me: "You (Nick) are a moron. This is not an insult. This is a statement of fact." --VKarlamov Do his parents approve of VKarlamov's extreme arrogance and hypocrisy? > Or maybe you are Golem, our precious? VKarlamov has shown that he's an abusive troll who warrants no more courtesy than what he has shown other people, which is none. > >>> > > > 1. Is "The Bell Curve" is well-known pseudoscience? > > > > > > > Are there no respectable scientists who support it? > > > > > > > > Does VKarlamov believe that if at least one 'respectable > > > > scientist' can be found who supports 'The Bell Curve', then > > > > it must not be pseudoscience even though nearly all 'respectable > > > > scientists' (in related fields) regard it as pseudoscience? > > Why do you speak to your conversation partners in the third person? > Didn't your parents explain to you that it's highly rude? Or maybe you > are Golem, our precious? Do his parents approve of VKarlamov's extreme arrogance and hypocrisy? > > > They do? How many exactly do so and how many don't? > > > > VKarlamov should read the books (though I doubt he will) > > about 'The Bell Curve' that I already have cited in this thread. > > But the subject of race doesn't interest me enough to > waste time on reading books on it. *Without reading the books*, VKarlamov presumes that he already knows what they must be about. > > > > If VKarlamov would like to read some older books > > > > and articles, then he could find that many 'respectable > > > > scientists', for their time and place, supported conclusions > > > > such as the belief that white Europeans are intrinsically > > > > superior in general intelligence to all other peoples. > > > > Does VKarlamov believe that white Europeans are intrinsically > > superior in general intelligence to all other peoples? > > How do you define "general intelligence"? However VKarlamov may choose to define 'general intelligence' (or simply 'intelligence'), does VKarlamov believe that white Europeans are intrinsically superior in (general) intelligence to all other peoples? > And why do you speak to your conversation partners in the third person? > Didn't your parents explain to you that it's highly rude? Or maybe you > are Golem, our precious? Do his parents approve of VKarlamov's extreme arrogance and hypocrisy? > > > What does that have to do that you two idiots have badmouthed a > > > scientific book without giving us a single example of errors in it? His calling us (Ed Seedhouse and I) 'two idiots' is an example of VKarlamov's 'courtesy' toward other people. Would VKarlamov's parents approve of that 'courtesy'? > > VKarlamov believes in his 'proof by name-calling'. > > Why do you speak to your conversation partners in the third person? > Didn't your parents explain to you that it's highly rude? Or maybe you > are Golem, our precious? Do his parents approve of VKarlamov's extreme arrogance and hypocrisy? > > There are many scientists (including the late Stephen Jay Gould) > > who have pointed out many errors in 'The Bell Curve' and who > > have denounced it as a pseudoscientific book. > > Yes, there are hundreds of thousands of good scientists in the World, > and several dozens of them denounce this book for political reasons. Let the record show that VKarlamov evidently believes that only a small minority of scientists in the world would object to 'The Bell Curve' and that those scientists' criticisms are motivated only by 'political reasons'. > However, read what encyclopedias write about it and see that the vast > majority of scientists, who expressed their opinion on the subject of > this book, came out in favor of its scientific quality, although > everybody agrees that the implications are politically inconvenient. > Start with Wiki: > > //////////////////////////////////////// > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve > > In response to the growing controversy surrounding The Bell Curve, the > American Psychological Association's Board of Scientific Affairs > established a special task force to publish an investigative report on > the research presented in the book. The final report, titled > Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns, is available at a third-party > website. [10] > > Many of the task force's findings supported or were consistent with > statements from The Bell Curve. They agreed that: > > IQ scores have high predictive validity for individual differences in > school achievement. > > IQ scores have predictive validity for adult occupational status, even > when variables such as education and family background have been > statistically controlled. > > Individual differences in intelligence are substantially influenced by > genetics. > > Individual differences in intelligence are substantially influenced by > environment as well. > > There is little evidence to show that childhood diet influences > intelligence except in cases of severe malnutrition. > > There are no significant differences between the IQ scores of males and > females. > > Perhaps most significantly, the APA task force stated: > > The differential between the mean intelligence test scores of Blacks > and Whites (about one standard deviation, although it may be > diminishing) does not result from any obvious biases in test > construction and administration, nor does it simply reflect differences > in socio-economic status. Explanations based on factors of caste and > culture may be appropriate, but so far have little direct empirical > support. There is certainly no such support for a genetic > interpretation. At present, no one knows what causes this differential. > ////////////////////////////////////////////////// > > > > VKarlamov's (apparently deliberate) ignorance of these many > > diverse criticisms of 'The Bell Curve' does *not* mean that > > these criticisms do *not* exist. These criticisms can be > > easily looked up in books and articles in a university library. > > Good for you. While at the library, look up the criticisms of Darwin's > evolution. I bet you will find 10000000 times more of it. So, should i > also stop believing in evolution and convert to creationism? Evidently, VKarlamov regards criticising 'The Bell Curve' as comparable to supporting creationism. I would hope that VKarlamov's nonsense and extreme bias has become evident to most knowledgeable readers by now. > > > > > > > Please give precise quotes from that book, where > > > > > > > the authors made scientific mistakes. If you know > > > > > > > them of course. I will await your examples. > > > > > > > > > > > > Do some research on the internet. That's what it's for. > > > > > > > > For the record, I write independently of Ed Seedhouse. > > > > > > Congratulations. For you, that's an accomplishment. > > > > VKarlamov's condescension has been noted. > > Why do you speak to your conversation partners in the third person? > Didn't your parents explain to you that it's highly rude? Do his parents approve of VKarlamov's extreme arrogance and hypocrisy? > > > > I have cited books that discuss 'The Bell Curve' in detail. > > > > > > I haven't seen that post. > > > > It's earlier in this thread. VKarlamov is responsible for > > his ignorance of the earlier related posts in this thread. > > Why do you speak to your conversation partners in the third person? > Didn't your parents explain to you that it's highly rude? Or maybe you > are Golem, our precious? Do his parents approve of VKarlamov's extreme arrogance and hypocrisy? > > > > As far as I can tell, VKarlamov seems disinclined > > > > to make the effort to read them. > > > > > > I will gladly read them as soon as you read books > > > that I will tell you to read. A deal? > > > > 1) VKarlamov apparently asked for sources of criticisms > > of 'The Bell Curve'. > > 2) I have cited books that discuss 'The Bell Curve' in detail. > > 3) VKarlamov now prefers to make excuses about why he > > should *not* be expected to read what he has asked for. > > > > So I have concluded that VKarlamov is *not sincerely > > interested* in reading criticisms of 'The Bell Curve' > > because VKarlamov strongly admires 'The Bell Curve' > > and its conclusions (which many divrerse persons > > have condemned, at least in part, as racist). > > Why do you think i admire it? Give quotes of mine that show it. Earlier in his post (to which I respond now), VKarlamov has written comments denouncing and dismissing criticisms of 'The Bell Curve'. VKarlamov also has compared criticising 'The Bell Curve' to supporting creationism. > I read parts of it many-many years ago and found it reasonable. VKarlamov has admitted that he regards the conclusions of 'The Bell Curve' as 'reasonable'. > Then I moved on to ohter, more important subjects. > > > > > > > I see. That's how you operate: you make a false statement, > > > > > > > > "'The Bell Curve' is well-known pseudoscience." > > > > --Ed Seedhouse > > > > > > > > VKarlamov has *not* proven that it's a false statement. > > > > > > Ed made a claim about some book that it is "pseudoscience". > > > But you don't expect him to substantiate his claim. Oh no. > > > > That's another false statement by VKarmalov, who > > likes to misrepresent what I think. > > > > It's reasonable to expect Ed Seedhouse to make more of > > an effort to support his statement than just to write, as he > > did, "Do some research on the internet." If VKarlamov > > would like to criticise Ed Seedhouse on account of that, > > then I would believe that's fair enough. > > > > But I do *not* expect Ed Seedhouse to reproduce lengthy > > selections from (presumably) copyrighted books and > > articles to support his statement, which seems to be > > what VKarlamov was asking for. > > > > > Instead you want me to go over each and every one of > > > maybe 50,000 sentences in this book and give you 50,000 > > > mathematical proofs that each one of them is "scientific"? > > > > That's more nonsense by VKarlamov. > > > > It's quite easy to look up scholarly criticisms of > > 'The Bell Curve' among the books and articles in > > a university library or even a good public library. > > > > You wanted me to give a mathematical proof that the statement "'The > Bell Curve' is well-known pseudoscience" is false: > > > > > > > VKarlamov has *not* proven that it's a false statement. > > > > How do you expect one to give such a mathematical proof, genius? > > > > > > And now that we have established that, I will not read the rest > > > of your drivel, because life's too short to waste it on idiots. > > > > > > Given his abusive conduct ('proof by name-calling'), > > > > "Abusive conduct"? LOL. > > > I suspect that VKarlamov has *no sincere interest* > > in reading scholarly criticisms of 'The Bell Curve'. > > > > That's correct. I have no interest in either re-reading Bell Curve nor > reading its criticism nor criticism of criticism. I am not interested > with your preoccupation with race and intelligence. > > Here at rec.chess we were having a nice conversation about chess and > IQ, and then you came as a troll and tried to provoke me with: > > > > >>> > > > >> Does VKarlamov approve of the 1994 book, 'The Bell Curve: Intelligence > >>> > > > >> and Class Structure in American Life', by Richard Herrnstein and > >>> > > > >> Charles Murray? > > > > This is rec.chess. Diverting conversations from chess IQ to race IQ is > against the Usenet etiquette. If oyu want to discuss race and IQ, start > a new thread in soc.culture.menza or whatever IQ-related groups exist > in Usenet. > > You want to discuss chess and ethnicity? Fine. Read the Wiki article on > Ashkenazi, that i have posted, and let's discuss why it happens that > starting with the very first Chess Champion and his opponent, the > majority of the greatest chess players have been Ashkenazis. > > But you are not going to troll me into a heated discusion of IQ vs, > race: > > 1. I don't care about IQ. To me, it's a rather weak correlator with > various mental abilities. > > 2. This is rec.chess not rec.IQ > > > > > > You are a moron. This is not an insult. This is a statement of fact. > > > > Ah, well, I suspect that VKarlamov could determine for > > himself the alleged 'fact' that I must be a 'moron' just by > > looking at my racial appearance. Perhaps VKarlamov will > > blame 'political correctness' to explain how a 'moron' like me > > could have won mathematical problem-solving competitions. > > > > Which ones? > > I doubt it very much: you lack logic and don't even understand the > concept of "proof". > > > > > Given the much abusive nonsense written here by VKarlamov, > > I would submit that it's clear enough that VKarlamov's far from > > sincerely interested in any serious discussion about 'The Bell > > Curve', which he apparently strongly admires. > > > > Given his evident prejudices and abusive conduct, I regard > > it as a waste of my time to treat VKarlamov as though he > > were someone who warranted any respect in discussion. > > > > The more that VKarlamov writes, the more that emerges of > > VKarlamov's prejudices > > > > Prejudices against whom? Morons? Yes, that's true. Whom else? > > > > > and his extremely base character. > > I cannot be certain of the extent to which VKarlamov is a racist, > > though it already seems substantial, > > > > It is? Please give evidence. I don't recall evenmentioning any Blacks, > Asians or Native Americans at all. > > And while at it, explain why the reader should ignore the substantial > evidence of your own virulent antisemitism. > > I am certainle less of a racist than you are an anitsemite. > > > > > but it's more than enough > > for me to regard VKarlamov with absolute disdain. > > > > > > > Given his abusive conduct ('proof by name-calling'), > > > > I am glad you yourself never try to insult or intimidate your > opponents... > > > > > > > VKarlamov's predisposition to believe it's a false statement > > > > is not proof. > > > > > > > > > and when asked to justify it, you respond: "do > > > > > your own research for me". > > > > > > > > My response to VKarlamov is: "I have cited books > > > > that discuss 'The Bell Curve' in detail. If you are > > > > too lazy to read them, then don't expect me to > > > > reproduce their copyrighted material here for you." > > > > > > > > > So, you didn't have any evidence against that book, > > > > > > > > Can VKarlamov read Ed Seedhouse's mind? > > > > How could VKarlamov know what evidence > > > > Ed Seedhouse may have against 'The Bell Curve'? > > > > > > > > > yet you chose to badmouth it. Why? > > > > > > > > Perhaps Ed Seedhouse has read more criticisms > > > > than VKarlamov of 'The Bell Curve'. > > > > > > > > > Because you are an ignorant anti-science knee-jerk > > > > > moron, who like a parrot, repeats everything that his > > > > > "political mentors" say. > > > > > > > > In contrast to VKarlamov, I don't know anything about > > > > Ed Seedhouse's 'political mentors' or what they may > > > > have ordered him to say. By the way, if VKarlamov > > > > happens to know my 'political mentors' and what > > > > they have ordered me to say, then could he please > > > > pass on their orders to me--I have not received them. :-) > > > > > > > > As far as I can tell, VKarlamov seems strongly predisposed > > > > to believe that 'The Bell Curve' must be good scientific work. > > > > Perhaps VKarlamov should consider subscribing to > > > > 'Mankind Quarterly' or making a donation to the > > > > Pioneer Fund. > > > > > > > > VKarlamov could find favourable reviews of 'The Bell > > > > Curve' in some right-wing American publications > > > > You consider the American Psychological Association's Board of > Scientific Affairs to be "right-wing"? > > > > > > > (e.g. 'Commentary', which is published by the > > > > American Jewish Committee), which support the > > > > evident political agenda of the book's authors. > > > > > > > > If Stephen Jay Gould were alive today, then I > > > > expect that he would note how 'scientific racism' > > > > (as expressed in 'The Bell Curve') continues to > > > > impress some people, particularly those people > > > > with self-interests to be impressed. > > > > > > > > --Nick   Date: 21 Oct 2006 13:26:46 From: Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess Chess One wrote: > <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... > > > > What does that have to do that you two idiots have badmouthed a > > scientific book without giving us a single example of errors in it? > > An answer to what's wrong with it is its fundamental thesis of race; that > there is some critical gene which differentiates more than skin colour and > the shape of your ears and second toe. > > Human beings share 50% of the same genes as bananas. > They share 99% of their genes with apes. > > To refute all the 'errors' of the Bell Curve is to begin here with this > refutation of 99% of it, since of that remaining 1%, absolutely no > biological evidence is presented in the book to even determine its own > thesis. > Phil, There is a time-venerated tradition of "disproving" inconvenient publications by attributing to them things that they never said and then refuting these things that they never said. As I understand, the Bell Curve never claims that "there is some critical gene which differentiates more than skin colour". The authors aren't geneticists and never pretend that they are. The opponents of the Bell Curve invent various stupid claims and attribute them to the book. That's why I have been asking my opponents to provide exact statements from the book that they disagree with. But so far, the opponents have been as scared of quoting from the Bell Curve book as... well, as vampires are of a spike. Instead, they point to various "criticisms" of Bell Curve, which invent non-existent statements from the Bell Curve and then refute their own inventions. I disagree with some of their political crecommendations, like abolishing welfare, but the scientific part of their book seems mostly reasonable.   Date: 21 Oct 2006 13:13:16 From: Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess Chess One wrote: > <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... > > > <...> > > >> This may be so! But there is no inherent //causality//, > > > > > > > Of course there is no causality. But there is almost never causality in > > such issues. This is all a matter of conditional > > expectations/probabilities. > > Okay. > > > Intelligence is an incredibly high-dimensional phenomenon: > > > > Person A may be more talented than person B at math, but person B may > > be more talented than person A at law. > > > > More narrowly, person A may be more talented than person B at math, but > > person B may be more talented than person A at physics. > > Which of A and B have more destructive personal habits? Is that intellegence > too? It seems to me that some sense of what Intelligence means is necessary, > since there are forms of concentration on a subject which obscure the > context in which such an 'intlleigence' operates. > > One example here in the USA is that recently a PhD in mathematics who is > also a chess teacher and organiser has been accused to rape, of many charges > of aggravated sexual abuse, and even of incest [within his own family]. Are > we to say that his undoubted mathematical prowess is the same as what we > speak of as social intelligence? > > The problem is that in /tests/ what is measured is potentiality, but only > within the testing environment. Can the person function as a social being > and at the same time manifest high levels of individual skill in a special > environment? > > Should I agree with you that some people do have a high level individual > skill - to the degree that we say 'phenomenal!' - then can the person have > sufficient social intelligence to live day-to-day, or should they be locked > up in a prison, university, etc :) > > > Even more narrowly, mathematician A may be more talented than > > mathematician B at algebra, but mathematician B may be more talented > > than mathematician A at topology. > > > > Even more narrowly, mathematician A may be more talented than > > mathematician B at algebraic topology, but mathematician B may be more > > talented than mathematician A at differential topology. > > Quite, and this man Gardner has suggested that mathematical intelligence is > one of 9 intelligences. > > > No facets of intelligence are perfectly correlated with each other. > > Thus there is no causality. > > > > IQ tests are intellectually demanding activities. So is math. > > So is writing a poem, but that is intellectually demanding, and... something > else too. > > > So is > > chess. So is law. Thus, abilities towards each of them will be > > positively correlated with each other. And very significantly so. But > > not perfectly. > > It seems we would agree that a certain kind of intelligence can be measured > by subject matter, and even ranked, but I am unsure if you agree that the > piano player who is now about to play his 10,000th note without looking at > the music-score, and knows the precise pressure to apply to the key, has > also an intelligence? > > >> > >> unless you know of > >> some study which I do not - except the sociological factor I mentioned > >> which > >> might relate to degrees of introversion and tendencies to play indoor > >> games > >> instead of playing football. Its also true that your statement does not > >> contain exceptions. [see end-note] > >> > > > > What statement? That the abilities towards taking IQ tests and towards > > chess are posiitvely correlated? > > Yes. > > > This is a statistical statement. By > > definition, statistics contain exceptions. Lots of them. But it's the > > averages that count. > > Would you like to say more about your idea? Did you mean a correlation that > average IQ produces average chess players? Does average IQ produce average > piano-players? Or does IQ not measure piano playing? How does IQ measure the > abstract spatial sense that master chess players have - and which I defined > [citing de Groot] previously? > OK. Let me elaborate. Intelligence is a high-dimensional phenomenon. If you take people with high ability for differential toplogy, you will find that their average ability to write poems is higher than overall average. But many individual topologists may have no poetic abilites whatsoever. IQ tests are nothing more than a bunch of puzzles, chosen from a very small set of patterns. Because they are intellevtual puzzles, the ability to solve them is going to be significantly positively correlated with other intellectual abilities. But there is no magic nor much science to these IQ tests, and the ability to do well on them is certainly not the "cause" of intelligence. So, returning to chess and IQ, the abilities towards them are also positively correlated. Especially since a lot of chess involves logical thinking and problem solving. That is, if you take a sample of great chess players and have them take an IQ test in their language (yes, there are IQ tests in Russian), the average of their scores will be probably higher than 100 and even than, say, 130. But there will be some who will score as low as 105 and as high as 200 (these are just my guesses). This is purely a 2-dimensional probaility distribution whose components are positively but not perfectly correlated. To return to the question that started this thread: judging from the way Kramnik plays chess and the way he talks and the way he carries himself, I would estimate that his IQ score would be at least 170, if he ever took such a test. Probably, higher than 190. Ditto for Kasparov and probably Anand. Topalov? Probably somewhat lower: he seems to be of a single-track (chess) mind, as exemplified by his stupid following of his manager Danailov's advice. But still above 130.     Date: 23 Oct 2006 13:54:34 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... <.. > >> Would you like to say more about your idea? Did you mean a correlation >> that >> average IQ produces average chess players? Does average IQ produce >> average >> piano-players? Or does IQ not measure piano playing? How does IQ measure >> the >> abstract spatial sense that master chess players have - and which I >> defined >> [citing de Groot] previously? >> > > OK. Let me elaborate. > > Intelligence is a high-dimensional phenomenon. If you take people with > high ability for differential toplogy, you will find that their average > ability to write poems is higher than overall average. But many > individual topologists may have no poetic abilites whatsoever. Understood. > IQ tests are nothing more than a bunch of puzzles, chosen from a very > small set of patterns. Because they are intellevtual puzzles, the > ability to solve them is going to be significantly positively > correlated with other intellectual abilities. Okay, but I think this neds more definition. For example, even though the puzzle is intellectual, is it solved intellectually, or by rote memory? > But there is no magic nor > much science to these IQ tests, and the ability to do well on them is > certainly not the "cause" of intelligence. Agree. It correlates ONE aspect of what is generally termed intelligence, with some [small] patterning knowledge, or pattern awareness. > So, returning to chess and IQ, the abilities towards them are also > positively correlated. Especially since a lot of chess involves logical > thinking and problem solving. Yes. This is a sociology. Its also true that people who go to college have typically higher IQ range than those who do not. But please consider the concert piano player again - the question is how much pressure to apply to the 10,000th note with the little finger of the left hand, and this is resolved not by 'logical thinking and problem solving'. How many mathematicians could cite a string of 10,000 numbers? :0 But this is only to address part of the question - the other part is the /level/ at which people play chess, and if there is any correlation with IQ. I would say there is, but again for sociological reasons or even physiological ones! Isn't the chess player the same sort of person who stays indoors and solves intellectual puzzles and reads for his college degree? Rather than go mountain climbing, for example. Or perhaps rehearses a sport - since that also requires study to develop a physiological 'intelligence'. What this man Gardner has done is to state that there are all sorts of intelligences, and lists 9 specific ones - which include linear processing & math skill as a discrete intelligence. I think IQ is the best measure of this particular intelligence, but others include the Kinesthetic [you use Greek word for body, soma?], and also there is a musical intelligence which is a very deeply patterned activity, quite beyond any calculus or rationcination [Greek again, ratio = measure, or beyond normal 'thinking']. This is a bit boring, so I'll tell you in a minute what I insist a bit on this music parallel. > That is, if you take a sample of great chess players and have them take > an IQ test in their language (yes, there are IQ tests in Russian), I have Russian friend in Petersburg, also Moscow, and a local chess player is for Baku. Anyway, I have much correspondance with Russians. > the > average of their scores will be probably higher than 100 and even than, > say, 130. But there will be some who will score as low as 105 and as > high as 200 (these are just my guesses). This is purely a 2-dimensional > probaility distribution whose components are positively but not > perfectly correlated. Okay! Its interesting to specualte on the range of IQs among chess players. Here is another speculation [guess]: that very strong players will have higher IQs, but most chess players [say 90 of them] will not vary significantly from their social group, and those who do not play chess. > To return to the question that started this thread: judging from the > way Kramnik plays chess and the way he talks and the way he carries > himself, I would estimate that his IQ score would be at least 170, if > he ever took such a test. Probably, higher than 190. Ditto for Kasparov > and probably Anand. Topalov? Probably somewhat lower: he seems to be of > a single-track (chess) mind, as exemplified by his stupid following of > his manager Danailov's advice. But still above 130. Oddly, I might agree with you that Topalov would score less on IQ than for example Kramnik. But that is because I do not attribute IQ as a good measure of creativity - which you see - is the other essential factor here. Kramnik may have phenomenal logical processing skills, and I am sure he has, but how do these massively complex positions which Topalov achieves come to him? I don't think he has the same process. Anyway - there's lots of guessing in what I wrote. But I wanted to share something from another top player --- I was interviewing Adorjan, and [I think I made this a formal question to him, anyway, we wrote thousands of words to each other on the subject], and to provoke a response on this 'high dimensional intelligence', to use your phrase, I asked him something like if seeing ahead in the position was like having a movie camera in you mind, on fast-forward? He replied mysteriously, and said, "I do not see the baord, I do nto see the pieces." :)) And he himself used a musical metaphor - the same I offer you above - ie, how does the concert pianist play all those notes in the right sequence and at the 10,000th note know the exact pressure to exert on the key? This of course is consciously a counter metaphor from him, and not really a suggestion that high level chess is like playing music, as much as to say that it is NOT like 'seeing ahead', or some description of what is concretely visual. The mind googles! But Adorjan by not agreeing to this visual metaphor also concludes with this Dutch researcher de Groot, that for 'master' play there is no visual dependency. Cordially, Phil Innes   Date: 21 Oct 2006 12:36:09 From: Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess I know that I promised never to read your posts on the subject of IQs, but I did skim over your last post and want to set some points straight. Sorry that Nick is dragging me further and further away from chess. Nick wrote: > [email protected] wrote: > > Nick wrote: > > > [email protected] wrote: > > > > Ed Seedhouse wrote: > > > > > [email protected] wrote: > > > > > > > Nick wrote: >>> > > > > [email protected] wrote: > >>> > > > >> I assure you that you are wrong. If you take any group of top >>> > > > >> performers in any intellectual activity - be it chess, math, science, >>> > > > >> poetry, management, law, etc - their average IQ score will be several >>> > > > >> standard deviations above 100. >>> > > > >> I am amazed that intelligent people can dispute this obvious fact. >>> > > > >> There must be some severe brain damage, caused by perverted political >>> > > > >> correctness, that is responsible for such blindness to the obvious. > >>> > > > >> Does VKarlamov approve of the 1994 book, 'The Bell Curve: Intelligence >>> > > > >> and Class Structure in American Life', by Richard Herrnstein and >>> > > > >> Charles Murray? > Why do you speak to your conversation partners in the third person? Didn't your parents explain to you that it's highly rude? Or maybe you are Golem, our precious? > >>> > > > 1. Is "The Bell Curve" is well-known pseudoscience? > > > > > > Are there no respectable scientists who support it? > > > > > > Does VKarlamov believe that if at least one 'respectable > > > scientist' can be found who supports 'The Bell Curve', then > > > it must not be pseudoscience even though nearly all 'respectable > > > scientists' (in related fields) regard it as pseudoscience? > > Why do you speak to your conversation partners in the third person? Didn't your parents explain to you that it's highly rude? Or maybe you are Golem, our precious? > > > They do? How many exactly do so and how many don't? > > VKarlamov should read the books (though I doubt he will) > about 'The Bell Curve' that I already have cited in this thread. > But the subject of race doesn't interest me enough to waste time on reading books on it. > > > > If VKarlamov would like to read some older books > > > and articles, then he could find that many 'respectable > > > scientists', for their time and place, supported conclusions > > > such as the belief that white Europeans are intrinsically > > > superior in general intelligence to all other peoples. > > Does VKarlamov believe that white Europeans are intrinsically > superior in general intelligence to all other peoples? > How do you define "general intelligence"? And why do you speak to your conversation partners in the third person? Didn't your parents explain to you that it's highly rude? Or maybe you are Golem, our precious? > > > What does that have to do that you two idiots have badmouthed a > > scientific book without giving us a single example of errors in it? > > VKarlamov believes in his 'proof by name-calling'. > Why do you speak to your conversation partners in the third person? Didn't your parents explain to you that it's highly rude? Or maybe you are Golem, our precious? > > There are many scientists (including the late Stephen Jay Gould) > who have pointed out many errors in 'The Bell Curve' and who > have denounced it as a pseudoscientific book. > Yes, there are hundreds of thousands of good scientists in the World, and several dozens of them denounce this book for political reasons. However, read what encyclopedias write about it and see that the vast majority of scientists, who expressed their opinion on the subject of this book, came out in favor of its scientific quality, although everybody agrees that the implications are politically inconvenient. Start with Wiki: //////////////////////////////////////// http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve In response to the growing controversy surrounding The Bell Curve, the American Psychological Association's Board of Scientific Affairs established a special task force to publish an investigative report on the research presented in the book. The final report, titled Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns, is available at a third-party website. [10] Many of the task force's findings supported or were consistent with statements from The Bell Curve. They agreed that: IQ scores have high predictive validity for individual differences in school achievement. IQ scores have predictive validity for adult occupational status, even when variables such as education and family background have been statistically controlled. Individual differences in intelligence are substantially influenced by genetics. Individual differences in intelligence are substantially influenced by environment as well. There is little evidence to show that childhood diet influences intelligence except in cases of severe malnutrition. There are no significant differences between the IQ scores of males and females. Perhaps most significantly, the APA task force stated: The differential between the mean intelligence test scores of Blacks and Whites (about one standard deviation, although it may be diminishing) does not result from any obvious biases in test construction and administration, nor does it simply reflect differences in socio-economic status. Explanations based on factors of caste and culture may be appropriate, but so far have little direct empirical support. There is certainly no such support for a genetic interpretation. At present, no one knows what causes this differential. ////////////////////////////////////////////////// > > VKarlamov's (apparently deliberate) ignorance of these many > diverse criticisms of 'The Bell Curve' does *not* mean that > these criticisms do *not* exist. These criticisms can be > easily looked up in books and articles in a university library. > Good for you. While at the library, look up the criticisms of Darwin's evolution. I bet you will find 10000000 times more of it. So, should i also stop believing in evolution and convert to creationism? > > > > > > > Please give precise quotes from that book, where > > > > > > the authors made scientific mistakes. If you know > > > > > > them of course. I will await your examples. > > > > > > > > > > Do some research on the internet. That's what it's for. > > > > > > For the record, I write independently of Ed Seedhouse. > > > > Congratulations. For you, that's an accomplishment. > > VKarlamov's condescension has been noted. > Why do you speak to your conversation partners in the third person? Didn't your parents explain to you that it's highly rude? > > > > I have cited books that discuss 'The Bell Curve' in detail. > > > > I haven't seen that post. > > It's earlier in this thread. VKarlamov is responsible for > his ignorance of the earlier related posts in this thread. > Why do you speak to your conversation partners in the third person? Didn't your parents explain to you that it's highly rude? Or maybe you are Golem, our precious? > > > > As far as I can tell, VKarlamov seems disinclined > > > to make the effort to read them. > > > > I will gladly read them as soon as you read books > > that I will tell you to read. A deal? > > 1) VKarlamov apparently asked for sources of criticisms > of 'The Bell Curve'. > 2) I have cited books that discuss 'The Bell Curve' in detail. > 3) VKarlamov now prefers to make excuses about why he > should *not* be expected to read what he has asked for. > > So I have concluded that VKarlamov is *not sincerely > interested* in reading criticisms of 'The Bell Curve' > because VKarlamov strongly admires 'The Bell Curve' > and its conclusions (which many divrerse persons > have condemned, at least in part, as racist). > Why do you think i admire it? Give quotes of mine that show it. I read parts of it many-many years ago and found it reasonable. Then I moved on to ohter, more important subjects. > > > > > I see. That's how you operate: you make a false statement, > > > > > > "'The Bell Curve' is well-known pseudoscience." > > > --Ed Seedhouse > > > > > > VKarlamov has *not* proven that it's a false statement. > > > > Ed made a claim about some book that it is "pseudoscience". > > But you don't expect him to substantiate his claim. Oh no. > > That's another false statement by VKarmalov, who > likes to misrepresent what I think. > > It's reasonable to expect Ed Seedhouse to make more of > an effort to support his statement than just to write, as he > did, "Do some research on the internet." If VKarlamov > would like to criticise Ed Seedhouse on account of that, > then I would believe that's fair enough. > > But I do *not* expect Ed Seedhouse to reproduce lengthy > selections from (presumably) copyrighted books and > articles to support his statement, which seems to be > what VKarlamov was asking for. > > > Instead you want me to go over each and every one of > > maybe 50,000 sentences in this book and give you 50,000 > > mathematical proofs that each one of them is "scientific"? > > That's more nonsense by VKarlamov. > > It's quite easy to look up scholarly criticisms of > 'The Bell Curve' among the books and articles in > a university library or even a good public library. > You wanted me to give a mathematical proof that the statement "'The Bell Curve' is well-known pseudoscience" is false: > > > > VKarlamov has *not* proven that it's a false statement. > How do you expect one to give such a mathematical proof, genius? > > > And now that we have established that, I will not read the rest > > of your drivel, because life's too short to waste it on idiots. > > > Given his abusive conduct ('proof by name-calling'), > "Abusive conduct"? LOL. > I suspect that VKarlamov has *no sincere interest* > in reading scholarly criticisms of 'The Bell Curve'. > That's correct. I have no interest in either re-reading Bell Curve nor reading its criticism nor criticism of criticism. I am not interested with your preoccupation with race and intelligence. Here at rec.chess we were having a nice conversation about chess and IQ, and then you came as a troll and tried to provoke me with: > >>> > > > >> Does VKarlamov approve of the 1994 book, 'The Bell Curve: Intelligence >>> > > > >> and Class Structure in American Life', by Richard Herrnstein and >>> > > > >> Charles Murray? > This is rec.chess. Diverting conversations from chess IQ to race IQ is against the Usenet etiquette. If oyu want to discuss race and IQ, start a new thread in soc.culture.menza or whatever IQ-related groups exist in Usenet. You want to discuss chess and ethnicity? Fine. Read the Wiki article on Ashkenazi, that i have posted, and let's discuss why it happens that starting with the very first Chess Champion and his opponent, the majority of the greatest chess players have been Ashkenazis. But you are not going to troll me into a heated discusion of IQ vs, race: 1. I don't care about IQ. To me, it's a rather weak correlator with various mental abilities. 2. This is rec.chess not rec.IQ > > > You are a moron. This is not an insult. This is a statement of fact. > > Ah, well, I suspect that VKarlamov could determine for > himself the alleged 'fact' that I must be a 'moron' just by > looking at my racial appearance. Perhaps VKarlamov will > blame 'political correctness' to explain how a 'moron' like me > could have won mathematical problem-solving competitions. > Which ones? I doubt it very much: you lack logic and don't even understand the concept of "proof". > > Given the much abusive nonsense written here by VKarlamov, > I would submit that it's clear enough that VKarlamov's far from > sincerely interested in any serious discussion about 'The Bell > Curve', which he apparently strongly admires. > > Given his evident prejudices and abusive conduct, I regard > it as a waste of my time to treat VKarlamov as though he > were someone who warranted any respect in discussion. > > The more that VKarlamov writes, the more that emerges of > VKarlamov's prejudices > Prejudices against whom? Morons? Yes, that's true. Whom else? > > and his extremely base character. > I cannot be certain of the extent to which VKarlamov is a racist, > though it already seems substantial, > It is? Please give evidence. I don't recall evenmentioning any Blacks, Asians or Native Americans at all. And while at it, explain why the reader should ignore the substantial evidence of your own virulent antisemitism. I am certainle less of a racist than you are an anitsemite. > > but it's more than enough > for me to regard VKarlamov with absolute disdain. > > > Given his abusive conduct ('proof by name-calling'), > I am glad you yourself never try to insult or intimidate your opponents... > > > > VKarlamov's predisposition to believe it's a false statement > > > is not proof. > > > > > > > and when asked to justify it, you respond: "do > > > > your own research for me". > > > > > > My response to VKarlamov is: "I have cited books > > > that discuss 'The Bell Curve' in detail. If you are > > > too lazy to read them, then don't expect me to > > > reproduce their copyrighted material here for you." > > > > > > > So, you didn't have any evidence against that book, > > > > > > Can VKarlamov read Ed Seedhouse's mind? > > > How could VKarlamov know what evidence > > > Ed Seedhouse may have against 'The Bell Curve'? > > > > > > > yet you chose to badmouth it. Why? > > > > > > Perhaps Ed Seedhouse has read more criticisms > > > than VKarlamov of 'The Bell Curve'. > > > > > > > Because you are an ignorant anti-science knee-jerk > > > > moron, who like a parrot, repeats everything that his > > > > "political mentors" say. > > > > > > In contrast to VKarlamov, I don't know anything about > > > Ed Seedhouse's 'political mentors' or what they may > > > have ordered him to say. By the way, if VKarlamov > > > happens to know my 'political mentors' and what > > > they have ordered me to say, then could he please > > > pass on their orders to me--I have not received them. :-) > > > > > > As far as I can tell, VKarlamov seems strongly predisposed > > > to believe that 'The Bell Curve' must be good scientific work. > > > Perhaps VKarlamov should consider subscribing to > > > 'Mankind Quarterly' or making a donation to the > > > Pioneer Fund. > > > > > > VKarlamov could find favourable reviews of 'The Bell > > > Curve' in some right-wing American publications > You consider the American Psychological Association's Board of Scientific Affairs to be "right-wing"? > > > > (e.g. 'Commentary', which is published by the > > > American Jewish Committee), which support the > > > evident political agenda of the book's authors. > > > > > > If Stephen Jay Gould were alive today, then I > > > expect that he would note how 'scientific racism' > > > (as expressed in 'The Bell Curve') continues to > > > impress some people, particularly those people > > > with self-interests to be impressed. > > > > > > --Nick   Date: 20 Oct 2006 21:28:18 From: help bot Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess Henri Arsenault wrote: > > Henri, please note that we geniuses prefer to be given > > *links* which we can easily click on, as opposed to having > > to *labor* in search of some given article in parts unknown. > > > Since I don't remember links by heart, why should it be easier for me to > google "chess scientific american" to get the link than you? When I google the above text, I get 2.47 million hits. Now, how am I to know which .07 million to sift through? : >D > This will get you the link > > http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00010347-101C-14C1-8F9E83414B Actually, I am doubtful that an article from a recent SA can be plucked for free right off the Web. Why pay for the magazine if its contents are free? Nonetheless, I cut and pasted your link (whew -- that's a lot of effort for me!) and found the article after typing the word "chess" into a search box and clicking one of the links which appeared. Nearly exhausted, I began to read through the article.... -- help bot     Date: 24 Oct 2006 14:30:53 From: David Richerby Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess help bot <[email protected] > wrote: > Henri Arsenault wrote: >> Since I don't remember links by heart, why should it be easier for >> me to google "chess scientific american" to get the link than you? > > When I google the above text, I get 2.47 million hits. Now, how am > I to know which .07 million to sift through? :>D Jeez, well... I'd start with the first one if it looks relevant. And, guess what? It does! >> This will get you the link >> >> http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00010347-101C-14C1-8F9E83414B > > Actually, I am doubtful that an article from a recent SA can be > plucked for free right off the Web. Well, it turns out you can get them for free, though Henri accidentally truncated the link. Lots of magazines and newspapers put their content up on the web. Often, the website only has the most recent articles for free: if you want older articles, you either have to buy and keep the paper version or pay for a web subscription to the archives. Dave. -- David Richerby Hungry Aluminium Sushi (TM): it's www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a raw fish that's really light but it'll eat you!     Date: 21 Oct 2006 15:53:11 From: Henri H. Arsenault Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess On 20 Oct 2006 21:28:18 -0700, "help bot" <[email protected] > wrote: > > When I google the above text, I get 2.47 million hits. Now, >how am I to know which .07 million to sift through? :>D > > On MY Google, it is the first one in the list... Henri   Date: 20 Oct 2006 15:57:05 From: Nick Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess Given the much abusive nonsense written here by VKarlamov, I would submit that it's clear enough that VKarlamov's far from sincerely interested in any serious discussion about 'The Bell Curve', which he apparently strongly admires. Given his evident prejudices and abusive conduct, I regard it as a waste of my time to treat VKarlamov as though he were someone who warranted any respect in discussion. [email protected] wrote: > Nick wrote: > > [email protected] wrote: > > > Ed Seedhouse wrote: > > > > [email protected] wrote: > > > > > 1. Is "The Bell Curve" is well-known pseudoscience? > > > > > Are there no respectable scientists who support it? > > > > Does VKarlamov believe that if at least one 'respectable > > scientist' can be found who supports 'The Bell Curve', then > > it must not be pseudoscience even though nearly all 'respectable > > scientists' (in related fields) regard it as pseudoscience? > > They do? How many exactly do so and how many don't? VKarlamov should read the books (though I doubt he will) about 'The Bell Curve' that I already have cited in this thread. > > If VKarlamov would like to read some older books > > and articles, then he could find that many 'respectable > > scientists', for their time and place, supported conclusions > > such as the belief that white Europeans are intrinsically > > superior in general intelligence to all other peoples. Does VKarlamov believe that white Europeans are intrinsically superior in general intelligence to all other peoples? > What does that have to do that you two idiots have badmouthed a > scientific book without giving us a single example of errors in it? VKarlamov believes in his 'proof by name-calling'. There are many scientists (including the late Stephen Jay Gould) who have pointed out many errors in 'The Bell Curve' and who have denounced it as a pseudoscientific book. VKarlamov's (apparently deliberate) ignorance of these many diverse criticisms of 'The Bell Curve' does *not* mean that these criticisms do *not* exist. These criticisms can be easily looked up in books and articles in a university library. > > > > > Please give precise quotes from that book, where > > > > > the authors made scientific mistakes. If you know > > > > > them of course. I will await your examples. > > > > > > > > Do some research on the internet. That's what it's for. > > > > For the record, I write independently of Ed Seedhouse. > > Congratulations. For you, that's an accomplishment. VKarlamov's condescension has been noted. > > I have cited books that discuss 'The Bell Curve' in detail. > > I haven't seen that post. It's earlier in this thread. VKarlamov is responsible for his ignorance of the earlier related posts in this thread. > > As far as I can tell, VKarlamov seems disinclined > > to make the effort to read them. > > I will gladly read them as soon as you read books > that I will tell you to read. A deal? 1) VKarlamov apparently asked for sources of criticisms of 'The Bell Curve'. 2) I have cited books that discuss 'The Bell Curve' in detail. 3) VKarlamov now prefers to make excuses about why he should *not* be expected to read what he has asked for. So I have concluded that VKarlamov is *not sincerely interested* in reading criticisms of 'The Bell Curve' because VKarlamov strongly admires 'The Bell Curve' and its conclusions (which many divrerse persons have condemned, at least in part, as racist). > > > I see. That's how you operate: you make a false statement, > > > > "'The Bell Curve' is well-known pseudoscience." > > --Ed Seedhouse > > > > VKarlamov has *not* proven that it's a false statement. > > Ed made a claim about some book that it is "pseudoscience". > But you don't expect him to substantiate his claim. Oh no. That's another false statement by VKarmalov, who likes to misrepresent what I think. It's reasonable to expect Ed Seedhouse to make more of an effort to support his statement than just to write, as he did, "Do some research on the internet." If VKarlamov would like to criticise Ed Seedhouse on account of that, then I would believe that's fair enough. But I do *not* expect Ed Seedhouse to reproduce lengthy selections from (presumably) copyrighted books and articles to support his statement, which seems to be what VKarlamov was asking for. > Instead you want me to go over each and every one of > maybe 50,000 sentences in this book and give you 50,000 > mathematical proofs that each one of them is "scientific"? That's more nonsense by VKarlamov. It's quite easy to look up scholarly criticisms of 'The Bell Curve' among the books and articles in a university library or even a good public library. Given his abusive conduct ('proof by name-calling'), I suspect that VKarlamov has *no sincere interest* in reading scholarly criticisms of 'The Bell Curve'. > You are a moron. This is not an insult. This is a statement of fact. Ah, well, I suspect that VKarlamov could determine for himself the alleged 'fact' that I must be a 'moron' just by looking at my racial appearance. Perhaps VKarlamov will blame 'political correctness' to explain how a 'moron' like me could have won mathematical problem-solving competitions. > And now that we have established that, I will not read the rest > of your drivel, because life's too short to waste it on idiots. The more that VKarlamov writes, the more that emerges of VKarlamov's prejudices and his extremely base character. I cannot be certain of the extent to which VKarlamov is a racist, though it already seems substantial, but it's more than enough for me to regard VKarlamov with absolute disdain. --Nick > > VKarlamov's predisposition to believe it's a false statement > > is not proof. > > > > > and when asked to justify it, you respond: "do > > > your own research for me". > > > > My response to VKarlamov is: "I have cited books > > that discuss 'The Bell Curve' in detail. If you are > > too lazy to read them, then don't expect me to > > reproduce their copyrighted material here for you." > > > > > So, you didn't have any evidence against that book, > > > > Can VKarlamov read Ed Seedhouse's mind? > > How could VKarlamov know what evidence > > Ed Seedhouse may have against 'The Bell Curve'? > > > > > yet you chose to badmouth it. Why? > > > > Perhaps Ed Seedhouse has read more criticisms > > than VKarlamov of 'The Bell Curve'. > > > > > Because you are an ignorant anti-science knee-jerk > > > moron, who like a parrot, repeats everything that his > > > "political mentors" say. > > > > In contrast to VKarlamov, I don't know anything about > > Ed Seedhouse's 'political mentors' or what they may > > have ordered him to say. By the way, if VKarlamov > > happens to know my 'political mentors' and what > > they have ordered me to say, then could he please > > pass on their orders to me--I have not received them. :-) > > > > As far as I can tell, VKarlamov seems strongly predisposed > > to believe that 'The Bell Curve' must be good scientific work. > > Perhaps VKarlamov should consider subscribing to > > 'Mankind Quarterly' or making a donation to the > > Pioneer Fund. > > > > VKarlamov could find favourable reviews of 'The Bell > > Curve' in some right-wing American publications > > (e.g. 'Commentary', which is published by the > > American Jewish Committee), which support the > > evident political agenda of the book's authors. > > > > If Stephen Jay Gould were alive today, then I > > expect that he would note how 'scientific racism' > > (as expressed in 'The Bell Curve') continues to > > impress some people, particularly those people > > with self-interests to be impressed. > > > > --Nick   Date: From: Martin Brown Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess     Date: 24 Oct 2006 14:36:05 From: David Richerby Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess tin Brown <       Date: 24 Oct 2006 21:30:29 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess "David Richerby" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:vci*[email protected]... > tin Brown <     Date: 21 Oct 2006 04:33:30 From: Ed Seedhouse Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess On 20 Oct 2006 10:34:34 -0700, "tin Brown" <   Date: From: Martin Brown Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess   Date: From: Martin Brown Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess     Date: 20 Oct 2006 14:52:07 From: Ed Seedhouse Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess On 20 Oct 2006 03:11:29 -0700, "tin Brown" <       Date: 21 Oct 2006 20:38:52 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess "Ed Seedhouse" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On 20 Oct 2006 03:11:29 -0700, "tin Brown" > <   Date: 19 Oct 2006 23:03:37 From: Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess Chess One wrote: > <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... > > > > Chess One wrote: > >> <[email protected]> wrote in message > >> news:[email protected]... > >> > > >> > Sanny wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Computer will always play with same IQ Level. > >> >> > >> > > >> > Why? You don't believe in progress and in self-learning programs? > >> > > >> >> > >> >> So if a person gets higher ratings in Chess it is clear idea he is > >> >> more > >> >> intelligent, Has better brains than those who fail to win. > >> >> > >> > > >> > I must have a very low IQ because I don't see any logic in the above > >> > derivation. > >> > >> Me to. I must have even lower IQ. > >> > >> There is no correlation between chess and IQ (that is not a sociology*). > >> > > > > I assure you that you are wrong. If you take any group of top > > performers in any intellectual activity - be it chess, math, science, > > poetry, management, law, etc - their IQ score will be several standard > > deviations above 100. > > This may be so! But there is no inherent //causality//, > Of course there is no causality. But there is almost never causality in such issues. This is all a matter of conditional expectations/probabilities. Intelligence is an incredibly high-dimensional phenomenon: Person A may be more talented than person B at math, but person B may be more talented than person A at law. More narrowly, person A may be more talented than person B at math, but person B may be more talented than person A at physics. Even more narrowly, mathematician A may be more talented than mathematician B at algebra, but mathematician B may be more talented than mathematician A at topology. Even more narrowly, mathematician A may be more talented than mathematician B at algebraic topology, but mathematician B may be more talented than mathematician A at differential topology. No facets of intelligence are perfectly correlated with each other. Thus there is no causality. IQ tests are intellectually demanding activities. So is math. So is chess. So is law. Thus, abilities towards each of them will be positively correlated with each other. And very significantly so. But not perfectly. > > unless you know of > some study which I do not - except the sociological factor I mentioned which > might relate to degrees of introversion and tendencies to play indoor games > instead of playing football. Its also true that your statement does not > contain exceptions. [see end-note] > What statement? That the abilities towards taking IQ tests and towards chess are posiitvely correlated? This is a statistical statement. By definition, statistics contain exceptions. Lots of them. But it's the averages that count. > > Maybe the best study of all is by de Groot who concluded that he could not > state that those people attracted to chess developed their skill as a result > of playing chess in such a way that they would not have developed their > skills otherwise. > > He also stated that only some people attempting chess actually succeed at it > to a certain level, whatever other success they have had in other fields of > endeavor. > > Furthermore, he limited the transference of success at chess to other > fields, so that for example, whereas chess masters often have superb memory > of chess positions, far superior to non chess players [and weak chess > players!], this memorisation is only for legal or natural-looking positions, > and he measured memory of random piece placement on the board against all > groups, and the masters scored no better at that form of memorisation than > non-players. > > > I am amazed that intelligent people can dispute this obvious fact. > > There must be some severe brain damage, caused by perverted political > > correctness, that is responsible for such blindness to the obvious. > > If you are stating that high IQs tend to succeed at /something/, then you > are correct. > > But it is also true that high IQs are not the ONLY group to succeed to high > levels, and often leaders in society are 'B' students with no significant IQ > differentiation from their own sociological group. > > It may be true that more people at genius level IQ play chess than other IQ > levels do [as said above, this is a sociological factor], but then we are > left with the relative factor of performance and what chess skill they have > [measured as rating]. There does not seem to be any prescriptive factor > involved, so as to say, 'IQ is a causal connection to chess skill', > otherwise how do we explain people of same age, education, and other > significant factors such as same time-exposure to chess, where the IQ110 > player regularly beats the IQ150 player? > > Phil Innes > > >> > >> IQ > >> measures priily left-brain functions of literacy and numeracy in > >> sequencing, with some pattern recognition. Some people play chess like > >> that, > >> but also dominos like that or drive their car like that! Master chess > >> players utilise abstract spatial intelligence [right brain] and sequence > >> play based on that [left-brain] as an /integration/ [de Groot]. > >> > >> The pattern recognition in IQ tests is not even the same type as utilised > >> by > >> a chess player. IQ was almost entirely concrete spatial [Gardner] whereas > >> chess playing utilises abstract dynamic spatial. > >> > >> Concrete spatial is about physcial forms, and would suit an artist or > >> even > >> design engineer. [Gardner] > >> Abstract dynamic is not dependent on any form [/nb/] and concerns > >> movement > >> of forces in 3space. [de Groot] > >> > >> IQ tests are perfunctory measures of the ability to process information > >> in > >> sequences, but are poor at describing or even identifying what > >> information > >> is processed. > >> > >> Phil Innes > >> > >> *like for pale weedy types and also large lard-ones who stay indoors and > >> worry about things, swot books, play chess with imaginary friends, become > >> passionate about history of golfballs in Turkistan &c ;)     Date: 21 Oct 2006 19:21:40 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > <... > >> This may be so! But there is no inherent //causality//, > > > > Of course there is no causality. But there is almost never causality in > such issues. This is all a matter of conditional > expectations/probabilities. Okay. > Intelligence is an incredibly high-dimensional phenomenon: > > Person A may be more talented than person B at math, but person B may > be more talented than person A at law. > > More narrowly, person A may be more talented than person B at math, but > person B may be more talented than person A at physics. Which of A and B have more destructive personal habits? Is that intellegence too? It seems to me that some sense of what Intelligence means is necessary, since there are forms of concentration on a subject which obscure the context in which such an 'intlleigence' operates. One example here in the USA is that recently a PhD in mathematics who is also a chess teacher and organiser has been accused to rape, of many charges of aggravated sexual abuse, and even of incest [within his own family]. Are we to say that his undoubted mathematical prowess is the same as what we speak of as social intelligence? The problem is that in /tests/ what is measured is potentiality, but only within the testing environment. Can the person function as a social being and at the same time manifest high levels of individual skill in a special environment? Should I agree with you that some people do have a high level individual skill - to the degree that we say 'phenomenal!' - then can the person have sufficient social intelligence to live day-to-day, or should they be locked up in a prison, university, etc :) > Even more narrowly, mathematician A may be more talented than > mathematician B at algebra, but mathematician B may be more talented > than mathematician A at topology. > > Even more narrowly, mathematician A may be more talented than > mathematician B at algebraic topology, but mathematician B may be more > talented than mathematician A at differential topology. Quite, and this man Gardner has suggested that mathematical intelligence is one of 9 intelligences. > No facets of intelligence are perfectly correlated with each other. > Thus there is no causality. > > IQ tests are intellectually demanding activities. So is math. So is writing a poem, but that is intellectually demanding, and... something else too. > So is > chess. So is law. Thus, abilities towards each of them will be > positively correlated with each other. And very significantly so. But > not perfectly. It seems we would agree that a certain kind of intelligence can be measured by subject matter, and even ranked, but I am unsure if you agree that the piano player who is now about to play his 10,000th note without looking at the music-score, and knows the precise pressure to apply to the key, has also an intelligence? >> >> unless you know of >> some study which I do not - except the sociological factor I mentioned >> which >> might relate to degrees of introversion and tendencies to play indoor >> games >> instead of playing football. Its also true that your statement does not >> contain exceptions. [see end-note] >> > > What statement? That the abilities towards taking IQ tests and towards > chess are posiitvely correlated? Yes. > This is a statistical statement. By > definition, statistics contain exceptions. Lots of them. But it's the > averages that count. Would you like to say more about your idea? Did you mean a correlation that average IQ produces average chess players? Does average IQ produce average piano-players? Or does IQ not measure piano playing? How does IQ measure the abstract spatial sense that master chess players have - and which I defined [citing de Groot] previously? Phil Innes   Date: 19 Oct 2006 21:55:45 From: Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess Ed Seedhouse wrote: > On 18 Oct 2006 02:03:52 -0700, [email protected] wrote: > > > >> Does VKarlamov approve of the 1994 book, 'The Bell Curve: Intelligence > >> and Class Structure in American Life', by Richard Herrnstein and > >> Charles Murray? > > "The Bell Curve" is well-known pseudoscience, and anyone who relies on > it to support an argument will rapidly become a laughingstock. > Hey, Ed, do you approve of the following Wiki article: ///////////////////////////////// http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_intelligence Ashkenazi Jews are the Jews of Central and Eastern European origin, the descendants of Jews who settled in the Rhineland beginning about 800 CE. Many studies show that Ashkenazi Jews, on standardized tests of general intelligence, have the highest average IQ scores of any tested ethnic group, being roughly one standard deviation higher than the mean of the general population.[4] These studies also indicate that this advantage is priily in verbal and mathematical performance; spatial performance is average. Ashkenazi Jews achieve out of proportion with their numbers in areas that presumably require high intelligence. For example, although Ashkenazi Jews represent only about 0.25% of the world population, they make up 28% of Nobel prize winners in physics, chemistry, medicine, and economics, and have accounted for more than half of world chess champions.[5] In the United States, Ashkenazi Jews represent 2% of the population, but have won 40% of the US Nobel Prizes in science, and 25% of the ACM Turing Awards (the Nobel-equivalent in computer science). A significant decline in the number of Nobel prizes awarded to Europeans and a corresponding increase in the number of prizes awarded to US citizens occurred at the same time as Nazi persecutions of Jews drove them from Europe during the 1930s and the Holocaust reduced their number in Europe during the 1940s.[6] Whether this difference in measured intelligence and achievement is due entirely to a culture of study and vocational training (environment), or partially to a difference in genetic variables, is presently unknown and controversial. (See Race and intelligence) "Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence" It has been suggested that European Jews' history of persecution created social selection for high intelligence, leaving a positive effect on the hereditary component of their IQ.[1] A 2005 study by Gregory Cochran, Jason Hardy, and Henry Harpending at the University of Utah [7] notes that European Jews were forbidden to work in many of the common jobs of the middle-ages from C.E. 800 to 1700, such as agriculture, and subsequently worked in high proportion in meritocratic jobs requiring higher intelligence, such as finance and trade, some of which were forbidden to gentiles by the church. Those who performed better are known to have raised more children to adulthood, according to Cochran et al., passing on their genes in greater proportion than those who performed less successfully.[2] Cochran et. al. hypothesize that the eugenic pressure was strong enough that mutations creating higher intelligence when inherited from one parent but creating disease when inherited from both parents would still be selected for, which could explain the unusual pattern of genetic diseases found in the Ashkenazi population, such as Tay-Sachs and other sphingolipid diseases. Some of these diseases have been shown to correlate with high intelligence, and others are known to cause neurons to grow an increased number of connections to neighboring neurons.[3] Reviews of the controversial paper have been both positive and negative, with critics finding the argument to be far-fetched and unsupported by direct evidence.[8] Other theories There have been other theories along similar lines. One theory notes that for Jews to be socially successful in their peer group, expertise at Torah study has traditionally been an advantage, and since the Enlightenment, those Jews lacking the intellectual skills for this endeavour may have been more prone to assimilate into general culture, thus leaving the reproductively-isolated Jewish population.(Murray 2003, Shafran 2005) In general, among religious Jews, study of Judaism (especially, Talmud) is historically a required and praised everyday activity (not only among rabbis and Torah scholars but even simple people). When Jewish families became secularized, the tradition of constant study of Judaism was replaced by a tradition of rigorous secular studies, which by itself became a part of the culture. As the number of generations between the transition to the secular life style increases, the intelligence of the generation approaches the average national intelligence, as the generations assimilate into the general culture, in which education is less favored. In addition, Jewish families usually had many children. The wealthiest families tended to be more educated (it was a common practice for wealthy Jewish merchants to encourage young successful Torah scholars to ry into their families and then support the scholars' studies for several years after the riage). This may have propagated not only the tradition of education, but also the genes associated with the higher intelligence. Others say that, due to frequent persecution, Jews emphasized education, an asset that is transportable. In this way, they could adapt better in new locations. This hypothesis is not mutually exclusive with others, because human intelligence is influenced by genetic as well as environmental factors. Certainly, outstanding success in chess and mathematics-heavy sciences requires an above-average capability for memorizing a large number of complex and abstract formulae (a function of intelligence that only in comparatively recent times can be utilized to the fullest). Either a favorable genotype, or an upbringing that placed high emphasis on study and learning-by-heart of legthy, abstract and complex treatises such as the Talmud, or a combination of both will provide a better-than-average foundation for such success. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_intelligence" ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////     Date: 19 Oct 2006 22:33:40 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess On 19 Oct 2006 21:55:45 -0700, [email protected] wrote: >Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_intelligence" Some researchers believe an analogous genetic phenomenon is occurring today in Silicon Valley and other tech centers where large numbers of young software developers are clustered. A side effect may be a relatively large number of children who tend toward autism. Of course, discussing this usually raises the ire of the hysterical PC crowd, one example of which Nick describes in another post in this thread.       Date: 20 Oct 2006 14:49:32 From: Ed Seedhouse Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 22:33:40 -0700, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote: >On 19 Oct 2006 21:55:45 -0700, [email protected] wrote: > >>Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_intelligence" > >Some researchers believe an analogous genetic phenomenon is occurring >today in Silicon Valley and other tech centers where large numbers of >young software developers are clustered. A side effect may be a >relatively large number of children who tend toward autism. > >Of course, discussing this usually raises the ire of the hysterical PC >crowd, one example of which Nick describes in another post in this >thread. It has nothing to do with "PC", but rather "SC" - i.e. Scientific Credibility. Typically those who have none refer to those who ask for it with the PC epithet.         Date: 20 Oct 2006 10:13:57 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 14:49:32 GMT, Ed Seedhouse <[email protected] > wrote: >On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 22:33:40 -0700, Mike Murray ><[email protected]> wrote: >>On 19 Oct 2006 21:55:45 -0700, [email protected] wrote: >>>Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_intelligence" >>Some researchers believe an analogous genetic phenomenon is occurring >>today in Silicon Valley and other tech centers where large numbers of >>young software developers are clustered. A side effect may be a >>relatively large number of children who tend toward autism. >>Of course, discussing this usually raises the ire of the hysterical PC >>crowd, one example of which Nick describes in another post in this >>thread. >It has nothing to do with "PC", but rather "SC" - i.e. Scientific >Credibility. Typically those who have none refer to those who ask for >it with the PC epithet. As an example then, you would consider the mob at Leeds (described by Nick elsewhere in this thread) who evidently forced a Don into early retirement, you would consider this mob to have "SC"? Surprising. I would consider them merely Fascist, the left-wing analog of fundamentalists howling for the dismissal of those godless Darwinists. To those of us who grew up with experience in agriculture and animal husbandry, the notion that some parts of the body (examples of which include the brain and central nervous system) are exempt from the effects of breeding practices and natural selection is naive and ludicrous. Try training your pit bull to herd sheep. This is not to say that older IQ tests measured anything meaningful. But investigation into whether the ability to acquire certain classes of skills differs genetically from one population to another is no less a legitimate object of scientific inquiry than investigation into whether populations differ in resistance to specific diseases or in tendency to gain muscle rather than fat.   Date: 19 Oct 2006 21:16:35 From: help bot Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess Henri H. Arsenault wrote: > Unless I missed it, no one here seems to be aware of the study on > chess and intelligence published in the August issue of Scientific > American. The article is available on the web. > > In sum, it has been shown that there is no correlation between IQ > tests and chess ability. A whole bunch of othe experimentally proven > results regarding chess and intelligence can be found in the > article.The bottom line is that dedication and hard work are the main > factors regarding chess mastership. > > So instead of speculating, go read the article to get the facts and > then discuss it here... > > Henri Henri, please note that we geniuses prefer to be given *links* which we can easily click on, as opposed to having to *labor* in search of some given article in parts unknown. What those guys obviously missed was the fact that, despite their finding no correleation between IQ and chess ability, when you realise just how lazy we are, the idea that we acheived "star" status (Sanny's word, not mine) is proof positive that hard work was not the method of choice here. That leaves the alternative (rejected outright by careless scientists, who failed to study me properly before reaching such sweeping -- and silly -- conclusions). What they ought to have concluded was that to some degree, dedication and hard work can substitute for intelligence, or make up for a lack thereof. But this assumes one is not averse to hard work -- which is a shaky assumption, at best. Make me choose between hard work and having a high IQ, and I will choose the latter every time. I know not what course others may take, but as for me -- give me a high IQ, or give me patzerdom! -- help bot     Date: 20 Oct 2006 15:57:18 From: Henri Arsenault Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess In article <[email protected] >, "help bot" <[email protected] > wrote: > > > Henri, please note that we geniuses prefer to be given > *links* which we can easily click on, as opposed to having > to *labor* in search of some given article in parts unknown. > Since I don't remember links by heart, why should it be easier for me to google "chess scientific american" to get the link than you? This will get you the link http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00010347-101C-14C1-8F9E83414B Henri       Date: 24 Oct 2006 14:27:20 From: David Richerby Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess Henri Arsenault <[email protected] > wrote: > "help bot" <[email protected]> wrote: >> Henri, please note that we geniuses prefer to be given >> *links* which we can easily click on, as opposed to having >> to *labor* in search of some given article in parts unknown. > > Since I don't remember links by heart, why should it be easier for me to > google "chess scientific american" to get the link than you? > > This will get you the link > > http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00010347-101C-14C1-8F9E83414B That link has been truncated. Correct is http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00010347-101C-14C1-8F9E83414B7F4945 I don't want to get into this catfight but I'd recommend that, if you've just been reading an article on the web and want to talk about it here, it's a good idea to include the link. Little mistakes aside, it't not difficult and it saves everyone time. Dave. -- David Richerby Evil Widget (TM): it's like a thingy www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ but it's genuinely evil!   Date: 19 Oct 2006 21:08:26 From: Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess Nick wrote: > [email protected] wrote: > > Ed Seedhouse wrote: > > > [email protected] wrote: > > > > 1. Is "The Bell Curve" is well-known pseudoscience? > > > > Are there no respectable scientists who support it? > > Does VKarlamov believe that if at least one 'respectable > scientist' can be found who supports 'The Bell Curve', then > it must not be pseudoscience even though nearly all 'respectable > scientists' (in related fields) regard it as pseudoscience? > They do? How many exactly do so and how many don't? > > If VKarlamov would like to read some older books > and articles, then he could find that many 'respectable > scientists', for their time and place, supported conclusions > such as the belief that white Europeans are intrinsically > superior in general intelligence to all other peoples. > What does that have to do that you two idiots have badmouthed a scientific book without giving us a single example of errors in it? > > > > > Please give precise quotes from that book, where > > > > the authors made scientific mistakes. If you know > > > > them of course. I will await your examples. > > > > > > Do some research on the internet. That's what it's for. > > For the record, I write independently of Ed Seedhouse. > Congratulations. For you, that's an accomplishment. > > I have cited books that discuss 'The Bell Curve' in detail. > I haven't seen that post. > > As far as I can tell, VKarlamov seems disinclined to make > the effort to read them. > I will gladly read them as soon as you read books that I will tell you to read. A deal? > > > I see. That's how you operate: you make a false statement, > > > "'The Bell Curve' is well-known pseudoscience." > --Ed Seedhouse > > VKarlamov has *not* proven that it's a false statement. > Ed made a claim about some book that it is "pseudoscience". But you don't expect him to substantiate his claim. Oh no. Instead you want me to go over each and every one of maybe 50,000 sentences in this book and give you 50,000 mathematical proofs that each one of them is "scientific"? You are a moron. This is not an insult. This is a statement of fact. And now that we have established that, I will not read the rest of your drivel, because life's too short to waste it on idiots. Bye. > > VKarlamov's predisposition to believe it's a false statement > is not proof. > > > and when asked to justify it, you respond: "do > > your own research for me". > > My response to VKarlamov is: "I have cited books > that discuss 'The Bell Curve' in detail. If you are > too lazy to read them, then don't expect me to > reproduce their copyrighted material here for you." > > > So, you didn't have any evidence against that book, > > Can VKarlamov read Ed Seedhouse's mind? > How could VKarlamov know what evidence > Ed Seedhouse may have against 'The Bell Curve'? > > > yet you chose to badmouth it. Why? > > Perhaps Ed Seedhouse has read more criticisms > than VKarlamov of 'The Bell Curve'. > > > Because you are an ignorant anti-science knee-jerk > > moron, who like a parrot, repeats everything that his > > "political mentors" say. > > In contrast to VKarlamov, I don't know anything about > Ed Seedhouse's 'political mentors' or what they may > have ordered him to say. By the way, if VKarlamov > happens to know my 'political mentors' and what > they have ordered me to say, then could he please > pass on their orders to me--I have not received them. :-) > > As far as I can tell, VKarlamov seems strongly predisposed > to believe that 'The Bell Curve' must be good scientific work. > Perhaps VKarlamov should consider subscribing to > 'Mankind Quarterly' or making a donation to the > Pioneer Fund. > > VKarlamov could find favourable reviews of 'The Bell > Curve' in some right-wing American publications > (e.g. 'Commentary', which is published by the > American Jewish Committee), which support the > evident political agenda of the book's authors. > > If Stephen Jay Gould were alive today, then I > expect that he would note how 'scientific racism' > (as expressed in 'The Bell Curve') continues to > impress some people, particularly those people > with self-interests to be impressed. > > --Nick     Date: 21 Oct 2006 18:32:19 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > > What does that have to do that you two idiots have badmouthed a > scientific book without giving us a single example of errors in it? An answer to what's wrong with it is its fundamental thesis of race; that there is some critical gene which differentiates more than skin colour and the shape of your ears and second toe. Human beings share 50% of the same genes as bananas. They share 99% of their genes with apes. To refute all the 'errors' of the Bell Curve is to begin here with this refutation of 99% of it, since of that remaining 1%, absolutely no biological evidence is presented in the book to even determine its own thesis. Phil Innes     Date: 20 Oct 2006 05:02:02 From: Ed Seedhouse Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess On 19 Oct 2006 21:08:26 -0700, [email protected] wrote: >Nick wrote: >Ed made a claim about some book that it is "pseudoscience". But you >don't expect him to substantiate his claim. You see that's how folks like Nick typically work. They make outrageous claims and when someone rational points out they have provided no evidence for their claims they attack that person for not providing evidence that they haven't provided evidence. And so it goes. I think I'll just slap "Nick" in the old ignore file. He has nothing interesting to say on the evidence of what he has said so far.   Date: 19 Oct 2006 17:49:40 From: Nick Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess [email protected] wrote: > Ed Seedhouse wrote: > > [email protected] wrote: > > > 1. Is "The Bell Curve" is well-known pseudoscience? Are there no > > > respectable scientists who support it? Please give precise quotes from > > > that book, where the authors made scientific mistakes. If you know them > > > of course. I will await your examples. > > > > Do some research on the internet. That's what it's for. > > I see. That's how you operate: you make a false statement, and when > asked to justify it, you respoind: "do your own research for me". > > So, you didn't have any evidence against that book, yet you chose to > badmouth it. Why? Because you are an ignorant anti-science knee-jerk > moron, who like a parrot, repeats everything that his "political mentors" > say. Here's an article, "Campus Storm Over 'Racist' Don": http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,1723806,00.html "Students and lecturers are calling for a Leeds University don (Frank Ellis, a lecturer in Russian and Slavonic studies) to be sacked after he said he supported a theory that black people were inferior to whites. ... Ellis said he supported right-wing ideas such as the Bell Curve theory, which held that white people were more intelligent than black people. ... Psychologists have said that IQ has been discredited as a reliable measure of intelligence. Robert McHenry, chairman of the psychology consultancy OPP, said: 'It was developed by white researchers and tested on white populations, so is not suitable for measuring other cultures.' He said the Bell Curve theory was out of date and showed lower achievements among the black population because they were economically worse off. 'There is no scientific data that supports the idea that the difference between blacks and whites is genetic.' " --'The Observer' (5 ch 2006) By the way, Frank Ellis has decided to retire early. --Nick   Date: 19 Oct 2006 17:33:58 From: Nick Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess Henri H. Arsenault wrote: > Unless I missed it, no one here seems to be aware of the study > on chess and intelligence published in the August issue of > Scientific American. The article is available on the web. Henri H. Arsenault *has* missed the (at least) several posts in more than one thread in rec.games.chess.* in which that 'Scientific American' article, 'The Expert Mind', already has been discussed. As far as I know, I was the first writer in rec.games.chess.* to mention the 'Scientific American' article, 'The Expert Mind', in the RGCM thread, 'Article on Chess Expertise' (28 July 2006). > In sum, it has been shown that there is no correlation between > IQ tests and chess ability. A whole bunch of othe experimentally > proven results regarding chess and intelligence can be found in > the article.The bottom line is that dedication and hard work are > the main factors regarding chess mastership. Unlike Henri H. Arsenault, some writers in rec.games.chess.* do *not* regard the 'Scientific American' article, 'The Expert Mind', as representing the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about the nature of chess mastery. > So instead of speculating, go read the article to get > the facts and then discuss it here. Instead of writing his ignorant and condescending post, Henri H. Arsenault *could* have first searched the Google archives of rec.games.chess.misc in order to find out what already has been discussed here about that article. --Nick     Date: 20 Oct 2006 04:57:59 From: Ed Seedhouse Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess On 19 Oct 2006 17:33:58 -0700, "Nick" <[email protected] > wrote: >Henri H. Arsenault wrote: >Unlike Henri H. Arsenault, some writers in rec.games.chess.* >do *not* regard the 'Scientific American' article, 'The Expert Mind', >as representing the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the >truth about the nature of chess mastery. No one I know of has ever claimed it does or is. However, the article actually presents evidence, which is what really has Nick in a knot since he has none to offer for his own case.   Date: 19 Oct 2006 14:28:27 From: Nick Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess Chess One wrote: > Nick has said it! Bell Curve argues racism, not sociology or psychology. Actually, I mentioned that a black scholar (who wrote a chapter in 'The Bell Curve Wars') denounced 'The Bell Curve' as a racist book. (I don't have 'The Bell Curve Wars' at hand, so while I believe that I recall this scholar's name, I cannot confirm it immediately.) While I concur with this scholar's view, it's not quite accurate for Phil Innes to write as though I had written: "'Bell Curve' argues racism, not sociology or psychology". > In the last 12 months such titles have become popular in China, Is there any evidence to support Phil Innes's assertion? > and some there argue superiority in math for example, > by racist precept. It has been widely noted (not only in China) that Chinese students tend to do exceptionally well in international comparative tests in mathematics. Several explanations have been offered, and of these the 'Chinese ethnic superiority' hypothesis is far from being considered the most respectable. For whatever it's worth, here's an article by Richard Lynn, a controversial right-wing white European academic, "The Intelligence of East Asians: A Thirty-Year Controversy and its Resolution": http://www.mankindquarterly.org/summer2006_lynn.html (I don't subscribe to 'Mankind Quarterly', and I have not read the complete article.) --Nick     Date: 20 Oct 2006 14:17:41 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess "Nick" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > Chess One wrote: >> Nick has said it! Bell Curve argues racism, not sociology or psychology. > > Actually, I mentioned that a black scholar (who wrote a chapter in > 'The Bell Curve Wars') denounced 'The Bell Curve' as a racist book. > (I don't have 'The Bell Curve Wars' at hand, so while I believe that > I recall this scholar's name, I cannot confirm it immediately.) > > While I concur with this scholar's view, it's not quite accurate > for Phil Innes to write as though I had written: "'Bell Curve' > argues racism, not sociology or psychology". Yes - should you like a more accurate restatement, I own those words as my own, not yours, which would have appeared in inverted commas if a citation, and if I were conscientious! Its true, I could have avoided the appearance of paraphrasing you by writing at greater length. >> In the last 12 months such titles have become popular in China, > > Is there any evidence to support Phil Innes's assertion? O yes there is, but since we are discussing social science, then we should also discuss what comprises evidence. it is no fling at Nick - who asks a reasonable question - to say that rather typically on usenet people asking for proofs do not say what would comprise a proof /for them/ nor usually acknowledge that this would not be a proof for others. Example, if someone says if you substantiate A & B you would prove your case, while the who is asked the question thinks A & C would do so. How then is any proof to be communicated, if the basis is not an agreed one? A secondary factor may be that things may be true, yet not provable since the parties who are jurists to the proof do not have the same experience and can neither ratify what others say, nor disprove the same. In this instance [of what may be citable on usenet] my statement was by direct experience of discussion in a newsgroup misc.education, which rattled away for 3 or 4 months on a racial basis of mathematical superiority. >> and some there argue superiority in math for example, >> by racist precept. > > It has been widely noted (not only in China) that Chinese > students tend to do exceptionally well in international > comparative tests in mathematics. Several explanations > have been offered, and of these the 'Chinese ethnic superiority' > hypothesis is far from being considered the most respectable. > > For whatever it's worth, here's an article by Richard Lynn, > a controversial right-wing white European academic, > "The Intelligence of East Asians: A Thirty-Year Controversy > and its Resolution": > > http://www.mankindquarterly.org/summer2006_lynn.html > > (I don't subscribe to 'Mankind Quarterly', > and I have not read the complete article.) Interesting! Here the discussion evolves into 'race', sociology and cultural factors [as much about Chinese parenting as Chinese scholarship, per se. An interesting element in the misc.ed group was to ask what sort of differentiation there would be if Chinese parents didn't insist that their progeny did rather more homework than is custoy in the West. Would they do it?]. -------- A seminal book on this subject of what may be said and understood of these educational/cultural paradigms, is titled /Lunar Perspectives, Field Notes from the Culture Wars/ and written by a Canadian academic Michael Keefer, who proposes that the Classical curriculum is now victim of heavy political intrigue in the Americas. He asks if we are to believe that a "McCarthyists of the left" have hijacked Shakespeare, Western culture and free speech, or if this is a campaign of misinformation by anti-egalitarian forces of the right? I would say that the second chapter; Social Reproduction and Cultural Memory, is the appropriate chapter where the same rehersal process of argument is in play for IQ, as indeed for some racist approaches. Anyone willing to study this book - which is a refutation of much of Tillyard - might note that the title was written in 1996 and openly anticipated the visible sparks of disintegrative tension in higher education in the USA becoming a conflagration. In short - what we have is an accurate prediction of the politicisation of education and cultural mores in the USA, currently in full-blaze, while students, whatever their blessed Intelligence Quotient <laugh > score less and less every year. Phil Innes > --Nick >   Date: 19 Oct 2006 13:52:19 From: Nick Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess [email protected] wrote: > Ed Seedhouse wrote: > > [email protected] wrote: > > > 1. Is "The Bell Curve" is well-known pseudoscience? > > > Are there no respectable scientists who support it? Does VKarlamov believe that if at least one 'respectable scientist' can be found who supports 'The Bell Curve', then it must not be pseudoscience even though nearly all 'respectable scientists' (in related fields) regard it as pseudoscience? If VKarlamov would like to read some older books and articles, then he could find that many 'respectable scientists', for their time and place, supported conclusions such as the belief that white Europeans are intrinsically superior in general intelligence to all other peoples. > > > Please give precise quotes from that book, where > > > the authors made scientific mistakes. If you know > > > them of course. I will await your examples. > > > > Do some research on the internet. That's what it's for. For the record, I write independently of Ed Seedhouse. I have cited books that discuss 'The Bell Curve' in detail. As far as I can tell, VKarlamov seems disinclined to make the effort to read them. > I see. That's how you operate: you make a false statement, "'The Bell Curve' is well-known pseudoscience." --Ed Seedhouse VKarlamov has *not* proven that it's a false statement. VKarlamov's predisposition to believe it's a false statement is not proof. > and when asked to justify it, you respoind: "do > your own research for me". My response to VKarlamov is: "I have cited books that discuss 'The Bell Curve' in detail. If you are too lazy to read them, then don't expect me to reproduce their copyrighted material here for you." > So, you didn't have any evidence against that book, Can VKarlamov read Ed Seedhouse's mind? How could VKarlamov know what evidence Ed Seedhouse may have against 'The Bell Curve'? > yet you chose to badmouth it. Why? Perhaps Ed Seedhouse has read more criticisms than VKarlamov of 'The Bell Curve'. > Because you are an ignorant anti-science knee-jerk > moron, who like a parrot, repeats everything that his > "political mentors" say. In contrast to VKarlamov, I don't know anything about Ed Seedhouse's 'political mentors' or what they may have ordered him to say. By the way, if VKarlamov happens to know my 'political mentors' and what they have ordered me to say, then could he please pass on their orders to me--I have not received them. :-) As far as I can tell, VKarlamov seems strongly predisposed to believe that 'The Bell Curve' must be good scientific work. Perhaps VKarlamov should consider subscribing to 'Mankind Quarterly' or making a donation to the Pioneer Fund. VKarlamov could find favourable reviews of 'The Bell Curve' in some right-wing American publications (e.g. 'Commentary', which is published by the American Jewish Committee), which support the evident political agenda of the book's authors. If Stephen Jay Gould were alive today, then I expect that he would note how 'scientific racism' (as expressed in 'The Bell Curve') continues to impress some people, particularly those people with self-interests to be impressed. --Nick   Date: 19 Oct 2006 12:58:31 From: Nick Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess [email protected] wrote: > Ed Seedhouse wrote: > > [email protected] wrote: > > > Nick wrote: > > >> Does VKarlamov approve of the 1994 book, 'The Bell Curve: Intelligence > > >> and Class Structure in American Life', by Richard Herrnstein and > > >> Charles Murray? > > > > "The Bell Curve" is well-known pseudoscience, and anyone who relies > > on it to support an argument will rapidly become a laughingstock. > > Two questiuons beg to be asked here: > > 1. Is "The Bell Curve" is well-known pseudoscience? > Are there no respectable scientists who support it? > Please give precise quotes from that book, where the authors > made scientific mistakes. If you know them of course. > I will await your examples. If VKarlamov has a sincere interest in this matter, then he should read the books that I already have cited: "The Bell Curve Debate: History, Documents, Opinions" "The Bell Curve Wars: Race, Intelligence, and the Future of America" Are there any 'respectable scientists' who support 'The Bell Curve'? 52 persons signed an 1994 'Wall Street Journal' editorial, 'Mainstream Science on Intelligence' (a pretentious and misleading title) written by Linda Gottfredson, which supported many, though not necessarily all, of the positions given in 'The Bell Curve'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream_Science_on_Intelligence I am not familiar with most of the signatories' names. But I do know some of them (e.g. J. Philippe Rushton) have been strongly condemned as racists by other academics. Many of the signatories have received grants from a foundation associated with the extreme right-wing in the United States. As far as I know, only a small minority of 'scientists' ('respectable' or otherwise) would endorse the conclusions of 'The Bell Curve'. --Nick     Date: 19 Oct 2006 20:42:03 From: Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess "Nick" <[email protected] > wrote: > [email protected] wrote: > > Ed Seedhouse wrote: > > > [email protected] wrote: > > > > Nick wrote: > > > >> Does VKarlamov approve of the 1994 book, 'The Bell Curve: > > > >> Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life', by Richard > > > >> Herrnstein and Charles Murray? > > > > > > "The Bell Curve" is well-known pseudoscience, and anyone who relies > > > on it to support an argument will rapidly become a laughingstock. > > > > Two questiuons beg to be asked here: > > > > 1. Is "The Bell Curve" is well-known pseudoscience? > > Are there no respectable scientists who support it? > > Please give precise quotes from that book, where the authors > > made scientific mistakes. If you know them of course. > > I will await your examples. > > If VKarlamov has a sincere interest in this matter, then > he should read the books that I already have cited: > > "The Bell Curve Debate: History, Documents, Opinions" > "The Bell Curve Wars: Race, Intelligence, and the Future > of America" > > Are there any 'respectable scientists' who support > 'The Bell Curve'? > > 52 persons signed an 1994 'Wall Street Journal' editorial, > 'Mainstream Science on Intelligence' (a pretentious and > misleading title) written by Linda Gottfredson, which > supported many, though not necessarily all, of the > positions given in 'The Bell Curve'. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream_Science_on_Intelligence > > I am not familiar with most of the signatories' names. > But I do know some of them (e.g. J. Philippe Rushton) have > been strongly condemned as racists by other academics. > Many of the signatories have received grants from a foundation > associated with the extreme right-wing in the United States. > > As far as I know, only a small minority of 'scientists' > ('respectable' or otherwise) would endorse the conclusions > of 'The Bell Curve'. While statisticians and mathematicians uniformly use the term "normal distribution" for this distribution, physicists sometimes call it a Gaussian distribution and, because of its curved flaring shape, social scientists refer to it as the "bell curve." Note that a scientist is a person using scientific methods. For a discussion of what constitutes scientific method, see" http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html and in particular Section III. Common Mistakes in Applying the Scientific Method, which, to me, suggests that most social scientists are not scientists. -- Nick. Support severely wounded and disabled Veterans and their families! Thank a Veteran and Support Our Troops. You are not forgotten. Thanks ! ! ! ~Semper Fi~   Date: 19 Oct 2006 11:08:17 From: Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess Ed Seedhouse wrote: > On 19 Oct 2006 01:04:01 -0700, [email protected] wrote: > > > > >Ed Seedhouse wrote: > > >1. Is "The Bell Curve" is well-known pseudoscience? Are there no > >respectable scientists who support it? Please give precise quotes from > >that book, where the authors made scientific mistakes. If you know them > >of course. I will await your examples. > > Do some research on the internet. That's what it's for. > I see. That's how you operate: you make a false statement, and when asked to justify it, you respoind: "do your own research for me". So, you didn't have any evidence against that book, yet you chose to badmouth it. Why? Because you are an ignorant anti-science knee-jerk moron, who like a parrot, repeats everything that his "political mentors" say.     Date: 19 Oct 2006 18:22:15 From: Ed Seedhouse Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess On 19 Oct 2006 11:08:17 -0700, [email protected] wrote: > >Ed Seedhouse wrote: >> On 19 Oct 2006 01:04:01 -0700, [email protected] wrote: >> >> > >> >Ed Seedhouse wrote: >> >> >1. Is "The Bell Curve" is well-known pseudoscience? Are there no >> >respectable scientists who support it? Please give precise quotes from >> >that book, where the authors made scientific mistakes. If you know them >> >of course. I will await your examples. >> >> Do some research on the internet. That's what it's for. >> > >I see. That's how you operate: you make a false statement, and when >asked to justify it, you respoind: "do your own research for me". > >So, you didn't have any evidence against that book, yet you chose to >badmouth it. Why? Because you are an ignorant anti-science knee-jerk >moron, who like a parrot, repeats everything that his "political >mentors" say. And the descent into mere silliness proceeds apace....   Date: 19 Oct 2006 03:49:59 From: Sanny Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess > > So if a person has never gone outside his town or read geography he > > will never be able to answer these questions. > > Flawed rational Sanny - for ex: man sits outside mud-hut in > deepest/darkest Efrica, listening to radio Zambesi, broadcaster > announces that exhibitionist arrested after 'bungee' jumping the Eifel > Tower in Paris. Ergo! mud-hutter is now aware Tower in Paris, & Paris > capital of French real-estate - also don't forget TV & 'puter > dissemination of general data. Do you see now?.. Yes with TV and Internet Things are Changing a lot. Bye Sanny Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html   Date: 19 Oct 2006 01:04:01 From: Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess Ed Seedhouse wrote: > On 18 Oct 2006 02:03:52 -0700, [email protected] wrote: > > > >> Does VKarlamov approve of the 1994 book, 'The Bell Curve: Intelligence > >> and Class Structure in American Life', by Richard Herrnstein and > >> Charles Murray? > > "The Bell Curve" is well-known pseudoscience, and anyone who relies on > it to support an argument will rapidly become a laughingstock. > Two questiuons beg to be asked here: 1. Is "The Bell Curve" is well-known pseudoscience? Are there no respectable scientists who support it? Please give precise quotes from that book, where the authors made scientific mistakes. If you know them of course. I will await your examples. 2. Who plans to "rely on it to support an argument" in this thread? You? Nick? What for?     Date: 22 Oct 2006 21:19:54 From: help bot Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess Nick wrote: > Here are some facts: > > VKarmalov has written that 'The Bell Curve' is > 'scientific book', which he considers 'intelligent' > and 'reasonable'. Ed Seedhouse has written > that 'The Bell Curve' is pseudoscience. > I concur with Ed Seedhouse on that point. > But VKarlamov has called Ed Seedhouse > an 'idiot'. This is mere name-calling ("pseudo-science" and "idiot"). Perhaps the fact that such tactics are used has something to do with why their comments are not being taken very seriously. I was surprised to read that there was not only a strong correlation between IQ scores and such things as poverty, birth rates, and riage/divorce rates, but most shocking of all, the comment about "blacks" averaging one standard deviation lower than non-hispanic "whites" on IQ tests. My gut reaction is to suppose that these tests were written in language which these "whites" could easily comprehend, while at least some of the lower-scoring "blacks" may have had some difficulty resulting from the muddled English to which many are exposed and which has become their native language, so to speak. Not only this, but the IQ tests (as well as the ASVAB, SAT, etc.) I have taken failed to measure what I would consider intelligence, but rather seemed geared toward measuring things which I was taught in school; in a sense, had I not attended school I could conceiveably score a big fat zero on some IQ tests, and this seems just a bit low, IMO. -- help bot     Date: 22 Oct 2006 20:22:43 From: Nick Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess Ed Seedhouse wrote: > "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ed Seedhouse wrote: > > > > Ed Seedhouse's grudging mea culpa does *not* > > excuse his earlier offensive conduct toward me, for > > which he should apologise without making excuses. > > It wasn't a "mea culpa", So it's noted that Ed Seedhouse refuses to admit that he has made any error. Evidently, Ed Seedhouse is too insecure to make such an admission. > but this message is enough to convince me > that I shall miss nothing interesting if "Nick" > too goes in the old "ignore" file. Here are some facts: VKarmalov has written that 'The Bell Curve' is 'scientific book', which he considers 'intelligent' and 'reasonable'. Ed Seedhouse has written that 'The Bell Curve' is pseudoscience. I concur with Ed Seedhouse on that point. But VKarlamov has called Ed Seedhouse an 'idiot'. Evidently, Ed Seedhouse *repeatedly* concluded that what VKarlamov wrote was what I wrote. No other writer in this thread has confused what VKarlamov wrote with what I wrote. Ed Seedhouse has no one else but himself to blame for his repeated blunders. Blaming me for what VKarlamov wrote, Ed Seedhouse then repeatedly attacked me in offensive terms. Ed Seedhouse has refused to admit any error or to make any apology to me. Let me understand if this is Ed Seedhouse's position: "Although VKarlamov and I completely disagree about 'The Bell Curve' and VKarlamov has called me an 'idiot', I, Ed Seedhouse, find it's much more fun to attack Nick, who concurs with me about 'The Bell Curve', than to criticise VKarlamov". ? Ed Seedhouse has shown enough of his arrogance, dishonesty, and stupidity for me to regard him with deep disdain. --Nick     Date: 19 Oct 2006 15:42:45 From: Ed Seedhouse Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess On 19 Oct 2006 01:04:01 -0700, [email protected] wrote: > >Ed Seedhouse wrote: >1. Is "The Bell Curve" is well-known pseudoscience? Are there no >respectable scientists who support it? Please give precise quotes from >that book, where the authors made scientific mistakes. If you know them >of course. I will await your examples. Do some research on the internet. That's what it's for. Ed   Date: 18 Oct 2006 21:07:04 From: help bot Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess Ed Seedhouse wrote: > On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 10:53:42 GMT, "Chess One" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >> Actually, truly intelligent people will notice how not one shred of > >> evidence is provided in the referred post for these claims. There's a > >> reason for that... > > > >I have just begun correspondence with a PhD student from India who wants to > >make a new chess study. > > Fine - let him do it and report the results to the scientific community. > >I began with trying to find significant ground that > >is well covered, so as usual quoted Dutchman Adrian de Groot whose work > >seems to be appreciated at only a perfunctory level [perhaps since it is > >currently so counter-culture in implication for educators], but also Howard > >Gardner of Harvard, whose multiple intelligence theory is now well-known to > >mainstream educators. Significantly Gardner chooses chess as an illustration > >for one of his 'intelligences'. > > There are recent studies which show that great skill in chess is largely > a result of lots of effortful study and practice. These are reported in > a recent issue of Scientific American and are easily available at your > local public library to anyone who is interested in actual evidence, as > opposed to empty claims. > > None of these studies supports a correlation between "I.Q." and chess > skill, let alone causation. However I predict that this will not change > the opinions of the "I.Q." true believers who post in this forum. One item I bet the magazine overlooked is this: a TRUE genius must come to the inescapable conclusion that chess is a horrific waste of time. Hence, no TRUE genius would devote the time and effort necessary to master the game. It logically follows that all TRUE geniuses are patzers (and I can probably give them Queen odds). -- help bot   Date: 19 Oct 2006 09:51:15 From: michael adams Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess Sanny wrote: .. > So if a person has never gone outside his town or read geography he > will never be able to answer these questions. Flawed rational Sanny - for ex: man sits outside mud-hut in deepest/darkest Efrica, listening to radio Zambesi, broadcaster announces that exhibitionist arrested after 'bungee' jumping the Eifel Tower in Paris. Ergo! mud-hutter is now aware Tower in Paris, & Paris capital of French real-estate - also don't forget TV & 'puter dissemination of general data. Do you see now?..   Date: 18 Oct 2006 15:58:19 From: Nick Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess Rob wrote: > Nick wrote: > > Ed Seedhouse wrote: > > > > Nick wrote: > > > > > Does VKarlamov approve of the 1994 book, 'The Bell Curve: Intelligence > > > > > and Class Structure in American Life', by Richard Herrnstein and > > > > > Charles Murray? > > > > > > [email protected] wrote: > > > > I don't remember details but it did seem like an intelligent book. > > > > Given that VKarlamov has written 'There must be some severe > > brain damage, caused by perverted political correctness, > > that is responsible for such blindness to the obvious' (about > > IQ scores), it seems hardly surprising that VKarlamov seems > > to have been impressed by 'The Bell Curve'. > > > > > "The Bell Curve" is well-known pseudoscience, > > > > I regard 'The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in > > American Life' by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray > > as pseudoscience in the service of political propaganda. > > > > > and anyone who relies on it to support an argument > > > will rapidly become a laughingstock. > > > > As far as I can recall reading, 'The Bell Curve' did receive > > positive reviews in several American publications (which > > were sympathetic to the authors' evident political agenda). > > But academic journals had much more critical reviews. > > > > As I recall, a black scholar (who had been on cordial > > terms personally with Richard Herrnstein) wrote that > > he was quite disappointed that Herrnstein had come > > to such racist conclusions in 'The Bell Curve'. > > > > For further reading: > > > > 'The Bell Curve Debate: History, Documents, Opinions' > > edited by Russell Jacoby and Naomi Glauberman > > > > 'The Bell Curve War: Race, Intelligence, and the > > Future of America' edited by Steven Fraser The correct title is 'The Bell Curve Wars...' > Hasn't it been theorized that many current IQ tests > are sociologically biased to Eurocentric cutlures? IQ tests have been criticised for being biased on account of class, culture, race, and/or sex. I consider it self-evident that the people who design IQ tests would be satisfied with such tests only if they themselves could score well enough on them. Let's suppose that Herr Doktor Professor Ubermensch designed an IQ test for which he was disappointed with his score. Would he be more likely to think that 1) "There must be something wrong with me! I am less intelligent than I had thought." or 2) "There must be something wrong with this test!" ? --Nick   Date: 18 Oct 2006 15:39:36 From: Rob Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess Nick wrote: > Ed Seedhouse wrote: > > > Nick wrote: > > > > Does VKarlamov approve of the 1994 book, 'The Bell Curve: Intelligence > > > > and Class Structure in American Life', by Richard Herrnstein and > > > > Charles Murray? > > > > [email protected] wrote: > > > I don't remember details but it did seem like an intelligent book. > > Given that VKarlamov has writen 'There must be some severe > brain damage, caused by perverted political correctness, > that is responsible for such blindness to the obvious' (about > IQ scores), it seems hardly surprising that VKarlamov seems > to have been impressed by 'The Bell Curve'. > > > "The Bell Curve" is well-known pseudoscience, > > I regard 'The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in > American Life' by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray > as pseudoscience in the service of political propaganda. > > > and anyone who relies on it to support an argument > > will rapidly become a laughingstock. > > As far as I can recall reading, 'The Bell Curve' did receive > positive reviews in several American publications (which > were sympathetic to the authors' evident political agenda). > But academic journals had much more critical reviews. > > As I recall, a black scholar (who had been on cordial > terms personally with Richard Herrnstein) wrote that > he was quite disappointed that Herrnstein had come > to such racist conclusions in 'The Bell Curve'. > > For further reading: > > 'The Bell Curve Debate: History, Documents, Opinions' > edited by Russell Jacoby and Naomi Glauberman > > 'The Bell Curve War: Race, Intelligence, and the > Future of America' edited by Steven Fraser > > --Nick Nick, Hasn't it been theorized that many current IQ tests are sociologically biased to Eurocentric cutlures? Rob   Date: 18 Oct 2006 14:56:45 From: Nick Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess Ed Seedhouse wrote: > > Nick wrote: > > > Does VKarlamov approve of the 1994 book, 'The Bell Curve: Intelligence > > > and Class Structure in American Life', by Richard Herrnstein and > > > Charles Murray? > > [email protected] wrote: > > I don't remember details but it did seem like an intelligent book. Given that VKarlamov has writen 'There must be some severe brain damage, caused by perverted political correctness, that is responsible for such blindness to the obvious' (about IQ scores), it seems hardly surprising that VKarlamov seems to have been impressed by 'The Bell Curve'. > "The Bell Curve" is well-known pseudoscience, I regard 'The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life' by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray as pseudoscience in the service of political propaganda. > and anyone who relies on it to support an argument > will rapidly become a laughingstock. As far as I can recall reading, 'The Bell Curve' did receive positive reviews in several American publications (which were sympathetic to the authors' evident political agenda). But academic journals had much more critical reviews. As I recall, a black scholar (who had been on cordial terms personally with Richard Herrnstein) wrote that he was quite disappointed that Herrnstein had come to such racist conclusions in 'The Bell Curve'. For further reading: 'The Bell Curve Debate: History, Documents, Opinions' edited by Russell Jacoby and Naomi Glauberman 'The Bell Curve War: Race, Intelligence, and the Future of America' edited by Steven Fraser --Nick     Date: 19 Oct 2006 14:30:52 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess Nick has said it! Bell Curve argues racism, not sociology or psychology. In the last 12 months such titles have become popular in China, and some there argue superiority in math for example, by racist precept. But there are no races! Except to say that there is a human race. I don't think Bell Curve could have originated in any other country than America, which is still coming to terms with race - in fact its still common in psychological evaluations to inquire of race [!] This is personally amusing for me, since as a white European the only option seems to be to write what I consider to be a religious category as "Jewish" or the generic "Anglo Saxon", whereas I am neither, but a Celt! It would make more sense to ask about background culture than 'race'. In fact during some tests black students in particular score less well when their is an initial inquiry to 'race' !! If you think I am a st-arse about this, you are correct - and I don't get it right either. I have a friend who teaches divinity and is also a 2000 rated black person. When asking him about Jesse Jackson's potential future political prospects he turned around as said, "how come you are asking me, I'm not black, I'm a New Yorker!" Good answer :)) Phil "Nick" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > Ed Seedhouse wrote: >> > Nick wrote: >> > > Does VKarlamov approve of the 1994 book, 'The Bell Curve: >> > > Intelligence >> > > and Class Structure in American Life', by Richard Herrnstein and >> > > Charles Murray? >> >> [email protected] wrote: >> > I don't remember details but it did seem like an intelligent book. > > Given that VKarlamov has writen 'There must be some severe > brain damage, caused by perverted political correctness, > that is responsible for such blindness to the obvious' (about > IQ scores), it seems hardly surprising that VKarlamov seems > to have been impressed by 'The Bell Curve'. > >> "The Bell Curve" is well-known pseudoscience, > > I regard 'The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in > American Life' by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray > as pseudoscience in the service of political propaganda. > >> and anyone who relies on it to support an argument >> will rapidly become a laughingstock. > > As far as I can recall reading, 'The Bell Curve' did receive > positive reviews in several American publications (which > were sympathetic to the authors' evident political agenda). > But academic journals had much more critical reviews. > > As I recall, a black scholar (who had been on cordial > terms personally with Richard Herrnstein) wrote that > he was quite disappointed that Herrnstein had come > to such racist conclusions in 'The Bell Curve'. > > For further reading: > > 'The Bell Curve Debate: History, Documents, Opinions' > edited by Russell Jacoby and Naomi Glauberman > > 'The Bell Curve War: Race, Intelligence, and the > Future of America' edited by Steven Fraser > > --Nick >       Date: 19 Oct 2006 22:03:39 From: Henri H. Arsenault Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess Unless I missed it, no one here seems to be aware of the study on chess and intelligence published in the August issue of Scientific American. The article is available on the web. In sum, it has been shown that there is no correlation between IQ tests and chess ability. A whole bunch of othe experimentally proven results regarding chess and intelligence can be found in the article.The bottom line is that dedication and hard work are the main factors regarding chess mastership. So instead of speculating, go read the article to get the facts and then discuss it here... Henri         Date: 20 Oct 2006 04:56:11 From: Ed Seedhouse Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 22:03:39 GMT, arseno@phy.*nospam*ulaval.ca (Henri H. Arsenault) wrote: >Unless I missed it You did, but it bears repeating. >, no one here seems to be aware of the study on >chess and intelligence published in the August issue of Scientific >American. The article is available on the web. > >In sum, it has been shown that there is no correlation between IQ >tests and chess ability. A whole bunch of othe experimentally proven >results regarding chess and intelligence can be found in the >article.The bottom line is that dedication and hard work are the main >factors regarding chess mastership. > >So instead of speculating, go read the article to get the facts and >then discuss it here... > >Henri I referred to this myself a couple of times, but I don't think the "IQ determines Chess skill" crowd is really interested in evidence.   Date: 18 Oct 2006 02:03:52 From: Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess Nick wrote: > [email protected] wrote: > > Chess One wrote: > > > There is no correlation between chess and IQ (that is not a sociology*). > > > > I assure you that you are wrong. If you take any group of top > > performers in any intellectual activity - be it chess, math, science, > > poetry, management, law, etc - their IQ score will be several standard > > deviations above 100. > > As I recall reading, James Watson, who won a Nobel Prize for > his work (with Francis Crick) in discovering the structure of DNA, > has an IQ score that's no more than slightly above average. > > "Because he (Linus Pauling) was so st he did not feel the need > to talk to anybody, which hampered his ability to figure things out > as fast as other scientists who worked together. As a matter of > fact, he was overwhelmed by how good he was. I wasn't, and > I'm still not because I know my IQ." > --James Watson (14 May 2003) > > > I am amazed that intelligent people can dispute this obvious fact. > > They may do that because this 'obvious fact' is not necessarily true. > > > There must be some severe brain damage, caused by perverted political > > correctness, that is responsible for such blindness to the obvious. > > Does VKarlamov approve of the 1994 book, 'The Bell Curve: Intelligence > and Class Structure in American Life', by Richard Herrnstein and > Charles Murray? > I don't remember details but it did seem like an intelligent book.     Date: 21 Oct 2006 15:24:44 From: Nick Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess Ed Seedhouse wrote: > "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote: > >Has Ed Seedhouse (again) apparently confused what > >VKarlamov has written with what I have written? > > It would appear so. Such is the nature of usenet that articles grow to > seemingly infinite lengths unless one snips, which I certainly do, and > will continue to do. Nor do I object to having that done to me, in fact > I usually appreciate it. Ed Seedhouse has snipped out-of-context what was written in order to make it easier for him to attack it. > In the process sometimes one gets mixed up. Ed Seedhouse's grudging mea culpa does *not* excuse his earlier offensive conduct toward me, for which he should apologise without making excuses. --Nick       Date: 22 Oct 2006 05:06:30 From: Ed Seedhouse Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess On 21 Oct 2006 15:24:44 -0700, "Nick" <[email protected] > wrote: >Ed Seedhouse wrote: >Ed Seedhouse's grudging mea culpa does *not* >excuse his earlier offensive conduct toward me, for >which he should apologise without making excuses. It wasn't a "mea culpa", but this message is enough to convince me that I shall miss nothing interesting if "Nick" too goes in the old "ignore" file.     Date: 18 Oct 2006 16:29:32 From: Ed Seedhouse Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess On 18 Oct 2006 02:03:52 -0700, [email protected] wrote: >> Does VKarlamov approve of the 1994 book, 'The Bell Curve: Intelligence >> and Class Structure in American Life', by Richard Herrnstein and >> Charles Murray? "The Bell Curve" is well-known pseudoscience, and anyone who relies on it to support an argument will rapidly become a laughingstock.   Date: 18 Oct 2006 00:59:59 From: Sanny Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess > > A person in Africa can never tell about Streets in Japan, Simmilarly > > a person in Japan can never tell about cities in Africa. > > > > So IQ should be tested depending on occupation and region the person > > lives in. > > IQ has nothing to do with streets in Japan or cities in Africa. When I gave IQ Test when I was in School I got an IQ of "125". In that I was asked What is capital of Australia. Where is Effile Tower Situated, Where is Panama Canal etc. So if a person has never gone outside his town or read geography he will never be able to answer these questions. Bye Sanny. Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html     Date: 18 Oct 2006 14:11:20 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess "Sanny" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... >> > A person in Africa can never tell about Streets in Japan, Simmilarly >> > a person in Japan can never tell about cities in Africa. >> > >> > So IQ should be tested depending on occupation and region the person >> > lives in. >> >> IQ has nothing to do with streets in Japan or cities in Africa. > > When I gave IQ Test when I was in School I got an IQ of "125". In that > I was asked What is capital of Australia. Where is Effile Tower > Situated, Where is Panama Canal etc. Is true! For example I would have to guess Panama Canal was in Panama, if I never went there to know by personal experience or never read geography. But the question is not completely crazy, since what is being tested? It could be logic, ie, Panama canal is named for the place, Panama. It could be memory, if you remember where canal is. But if you didn't read geography then its not always possible to answer this type of question - ie, where is Lake Champlain? Because the Lake is named for a person, not a place. Therefore, is this part of IQ test a measure of geographical knowledge remembered? --------- Other questions are self-inferential, either singly or as a group, When was the War of 1812? Who wrote Beethoven's 5th symphony. --in multiple choice papers it is common to encounter these pairings What is wool made out of? What grows on sheep? > So if a person has never gone outside his town or read geography he > will never be able to answer these questions. Recently I audited a curriculm for 11th grade students studying American Literature. I had not read ANY of the books, but still scored 90%. How is that possible when the course is intended as text-book based? Evidently I knew enough from general knowledge and some logical determinations to score an 'A' without reading these particular text-books. So was the test just on literature, and was its 'American' nature simply the means to score gram, comprehension, etc? If the "I" in IQ is taken to mean [is generally understood to mean] 'logical' intelligence [a left-brain process] then what you describe is not a measure of that, but of memory alone [and which hemisphere is that?]. How much of IQ testing is a measure of memory alone? If that much relates to memory, it must also be said that it is culturally selected memory, since some cultures may not stress geography. As to logical measurements:- Anyone interested in underscoring at IQ tests might read The Oxford Murders, which is a drama resolving on logical determinations, but which illustrates something about Godel's theorum. Often people give correct answers which are ked wrong, not because they are not consequent [correct] answers, but they are unusually correct answers! In fact more scientifically central to mathematical reasoning than the ostensibly 'correct' answer. For example, on IQ tests only one answer was permitted for the following:- Complete the series: 2, 4, 8, .... How many correct answers are there? Of all correct answers justify which one you would choose to complete the series. Phil Innes > Bye > Sanny. > > Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html >     Date: 18 Oct 2006 10:05:49 From: David Richerby Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess Sanny <[email protected] > wrote: > David Richerby wrote: >> Sanny <[email protected]> wrote: >>> A person in Africa can never tell about Streets in Japan, >>> Simmilarly a person in Japan can never tell about cities in >>> Africa. >> >> IQ has nothing to do with streets in Japan or cities in Africa. > > When I gave IQ Test when I was in School I got an IQ of "125". In > that I was asked What is capital of Australia. Where is Effile Tower > Situated, Where is Panama Canal etc. That's an extremely bad IQ test and has nothing to do with IQ as the term is commonly understood. Dave. -- David Richerby Transparent Cat (TM): it's like a www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ cuddly pet but you can see right through it!       Date: 18 Oct 2006 06:06:36 From: Chris F.A. Johnson Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess On 2006-10-18, David Richerby wrote: > Sanny <[email protected]> wrote: >> David Richerby wrote: >>> Sanny <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> A person in Africa can never tell about Streets in Japan, >>>> Simmilarly a person in Japan can never tell about cities in >>>> Africa. >>> >>> IQ has nothing to do with streets in Japan or cities in Africa. >> >> When I gave IQ Test when I was in School I got an IQ of "125". In >> that I was asked What is capital of Australia. Where is Effile Tower >> Situated, Where is Panama Canal etc. > > That's an extremely bad IQ test and has nothing to do with IQ as the > term is commonly understood. It's typical of older IQ tests, and it's fair within a certain group, e.g., those who have all been educated within a specific system, and to a certain level. These days (i.e., the last 30 or more years) they do tend to be much more culture fair. -- Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org > =================================================================== Author: Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)   Date: 17 Oct 2006 22:55:42 From: Subject: Re: Does Kramnik have a high IQ ? The Historian wrote: > Mike Murray wrote: > > On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 13:35:42 GMT, "Kenneth" <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > >The Levitt equation is a lot of BS. Akiba Rubenstein, one of this centuries > > >strongest GMs, was close to being mentally retarded. Most GMs are of just > > >normal intelligence, while a few are, exceptionally bright. > > Sorry for the slight tangent...talk about the power of hypertext: I happened onto this newsgroup googling's the legitimacy of someone's claims about being a former national champion, from that I bumped into this post, which prompted me to look up Rubinstein, which brought me to this link http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1119679 Sorry if this has been discussed before, but * the page states Rubinstein's move 22 (Rxc3) was given !!! (and I can see why) * but wouldn't Rd2 at 22 had been just as good? Regardless of what white does afterwards I can't discern an outcome that doesn't lead to a Bxe4 and eventual checkmate in 2/3 moves, or there's something I'm not seeing here? (most likely, since I'm not a great chess player). As for the topic. I think generally speaking--people with higher IQs are generally better chess players than those with lower IQs, so there's some correlation. Just the reverse is not as true, good chess players don't necessarily have higher IQ. (Just as research has shown folks with higher IQ stay single longer and hence there's correlation between intelligence and prolonged bachelorhood, but being a bachelor doesn't indicate high IQ).     Date: 18 Oct 2006 06:34:23 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: Does Kramnik have a high IQ ? On 17 Oct 2006 22:55:42 -0700, [email protected] wrote: >Sorry for the slight tangent...talk about the power of hypertext: I >happened onto this newsgroup googling's the legitimacy of someone's >claims about being a former national champion, from that I bumped into >this post, which prompted me to look up Rubinstein, which brought me to >this link >http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1119679 >Sorry if this has been discussed before, but >* the page states Rubinstein's move 22 (Rxc3) was given !!! (and I can >see why) >* but wouldn't Rd2 at 22 had been just as good? Regardless of what >white does afterwards I can't discern an outcome that doesn't lead to a >Bxe4 and eventual checkmate in 2/3 moves, or there's something I'm not >seeing here? (most likely, since I'm not a great chess player). And if White just chops the Rook ? Now ... Rxc3 doesn't work because White can take the Bishop at b7.   Date: 17 Oct 2006 15:30:33 From: Nick Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess [email protected] wrote: > Chess One wrote: > > There is no correlation between chess and IQ (that is not a sociology*). > > I assure you that you are wrong. If you take any group of top > performers in any intellectual activity - be it chess, math, science, > poetry, management, law, etc - their IQ score will be several standard > deviations above 100. As I recall reading, James Watson, who won a Nobel Prize for his work (with Francis Crick) in discovering the structure of DNA, has an IQ score that's no more than slightly above average. "Because he (Linus Pauling) was so st he did not feel the need to talk to anybody, which hampered his ability to figure things out as fast as other scientists who worked together. As a matter of fact, he was overwhelmed by how good he was. I wasn't, and I'm still not because I know my IQ." --James Watson (14 May 2003) > I am amazed that intelligent people can dispute this obvious fact. They may do that because this 'obvious fact' is not necessarily true. > There must be some severe brain damage, caused by perverted political > correctness, that is responsible for such blindness to the obvious. Does VKarlamov approve of the 1994 book, 'The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life', by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray? --Nick     Date: 21 Oct 2006 16:08:09 From: Nick Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess Ed Seedhouse wrote: > "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote: The context was snipped by Ed Seedhouse. > > As far as I can tell, Ed Seedhouse is a contentious > > writer who's poor at reading comprehension. > > I am not responsible for Ed Seedhouse's fantasies > > about what I have written or what I believe. > > Well I will admit to getting the writers mixed up. > After I sent the article I put the writer in my "ignore" file > and lo and behold it wasn't Nick. If Ed Seedhouse intends to criticise what VKarlamov has written, then Ed Seedhouse should address those criticisms to VKarlamov rather than attacking me on account of what someone else has written. --Nick   Date: 17 Oct 2006 09:34:27 From: Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess Chess One wrote: > <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... > > > > Sanny wrote: > >> > >> Computer will always play with same IQ Level. > >> > > > > Why? You don't believe in progress and in self-learning programs? > > > >> > >> So if a person gets higher ratings in Chess it is clear idea he is more > >> intelligent, Has better brains than those who fail to win. > >> > > > > I must have a very low IQ because I don't see any logic in the above > > derivation. > > Me to. I must have even lower IQ. > > There is no correlation between chess and IQ (that is not a sociology*). > I assure you that you are wrong. If you take any group of top performers in any intellectual activity - be it chess, math, science, poetry, management, law, etc - their IQ score will be several standard deviations above 100. I am amazed that intelligent people can dispute this obvious fact. There must be some severe brain damage, caused by perverted political correctness, that is responsible for such blindness to the obvious. > > IQ > measures priily left-brain functions of literacy and numeracy in > sequencing, with some pattern recognition. Some people play chess like that, > but also dominos like that or drive their car like that! Master chess > players utilise abstract spatial intelligence [right brain] and sequence > play based on that [left-brain] as an /integration/ [de Groot]. > > The pattern recognition in IQ tests is not even the same type as utilised by > a chess player. IQ was almost entirely concrete spatial [Gardner] whereas > chess playing utilises abstract dynamic spatial. > > Concrete spatial is about physcial forms, and would suit an artist or even > design engineer. [Gardner] > Abstract dynamic is not dependent on any form [/nb/] and concerns movement > of forces in 3space. [de Groot] > > IQ tests are perfunctory measures of the ability to process information in > sequences, but are poor at describing or even identifying what information > is processed. > > Phil Innes > > *like for pale weedy types and also large lard-ones who stay indoors and > worry about things, swot books, play chess with imaginary friends, become > passionate about history of golfballs in Turkistan &c ;) > > >> > >> Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html > >> > >> Here Nomorechess is on Top showing he is much intelligent than others. > >> > >> Taylor Kingston 2300+ Rating is Second So he too is Intelligent > >> > >> Bob Ranks Third So he is betterthan other 100 Players who are unable to > >> reach in Top Three. > >> > >> So I feel IQ can be easily tested using Chess. > >> > > > > Is this supposed to be humour? > > > >> > >> But I think IQ testing techniques are useless. > >> > >> A person in Africa can never tell about Streets in Japan, Simmilarly a > >> person in Japan can never tell about cities in Africa. > >> > >> So IQ should be tested depending on occupation and region the person > >> lives in. > >> > >> Bye > >> Sanny > >> > >> Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html > >     Date: 20 Oct 2006 14:47:46 From: Nick Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess Ed Seedhouse wrote: Again, most of the context was snipped by Ed Seedhouse. > [email protected] wrote: > > Nick wrote: > > > > Ed made a claim about some book that it is "pseudoscience". That statement (above) was written by VKarlamov, not by me. In the interest of clarity, let's be more specific here: " 'The Bell Curve' is well-known pseudoscience." --Ed Seedhouse > > But you don't expect him to substantiate his claim. That's another false statement by VKarlamov, who likes to misrepresent what I think. It's reasonable to expect Ed Seedhouse to make more of an effort to support his statement than just to write, as he did, "Do some research on the internet." If VKarlamov would like to criticise Ed Seedhouse on account of that, then I would believe that's fair enough. But I do *not* expect Ed Seedhouse to reproduce lengthy selections from (presumably) coprighted books and articles in order to support his statement, which seems to be what VKarlamov was asking for. > You see that's how folks like Nick typically work. Has Ed Seedhouse (again) apparently confused what VKarlamov has written with what I have written? By the way, who *exactly* does Ed Seedhouse believe (stereotypically) are the 'folks like Nick'? > They make outrageous claims What 'outrageous claims' have I allegedly made? I concur with Ed Seedhouse that 'The Bell Curve' is pseudoscience. > and when someone rational Does Ed Seedhouse regard what VKarlamov has written about 'The Bell Curve' as rational? > points out they have provided no evidence for their claims > they attack that person for not providing evidence that > they haven't provided evidence. And so it goes. > > I think I'll just slap "Nick" in the old ignore file. He has nothing > interesting to say on the evidence of what he has said so far. The most charitable response that I can make toward Ed Seedhouse's offensive nonsense is to say that Ed Seedhouse needs to improve his reading comprehension. --Nick       Date: 21 Oct 2006 04:31:50 From: Ed Seedhouse Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess On 20 Oct 2006 14:47:46 -0700, "Nick" <[email protected] > wrote: >Has Ed Seedhouse (again) apparently confused what >VKarlamov has written with what I have written? It would appear so. Such is the nature of usenet that articles grow to seemingly infinite lengths unless one snips, which I certainly do, and will continue to do. Nor do I object to having that done to me, in fact I usually appreciate it. In the process sometimes one gets mixed up. Ed     Date: 18 Oct 2006 10:44:32 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > > Chess One wrote: >> <[email protected]> wrote in message >> news:[email protected]... >> > >> > Sanny wrote: >> >> >> >> Computer will always play with same IQ Level. >> >> >> > >> > Why? You don't believe in progress and in self-learning programs? >> > >> >> >> >> So if a person gets higher ratings in Chess it is clear idea he is >> >> more >> >> intelligent, Has better brains than those who fail to win. >> >> >> > >> > I must have a very low IQ because I don't see any logic in the above >> > derivation. >> >> Me to. I must have even lower IQ. >> >> There is no correlation between chess and IQ (that is not a sociology*). >> > > I assure you that you are wrong. If you take any group of top > performers in any intellectual activity - be it chess, math, science, > poetry, management, law, etc - their IQ score will be several standard > deviations above 100. This may be so! But there is no inherent //causality//, unless you know of some study which I do not - except the sociological factor I mentioned which might relate to degrees of introversion and tendencies to play indoor games instead of playing football. Its also true that your statement does not contain exceptions. [see end-note] Maybe the best study of all is by de Groot who concluded that he could not state that those people attracted to chess developed their skill as a result of playing chess in such a way that they would not have developed their skills otherwise. He also stated that only some people attempting chess actually succeed at it to a certain level, whatever other success they have had in other fields of endeavor. Furthermore, he limited the transference of success at chess to other fields, so that for example, whereas chess masters often have superb memory of chess positions, far superior to non chess players [and weak chess players!], this memorisation is only for legal or natural-looking positions, and he measured memory of random piece placement on the board against all groups, and the masters scored no better at that form of memorisation than non-players. > I am amazed that intelligent people can dispute this obvious fact. > There must be some severe brain damage, caused by perverted political > correctness, that is responsible for such blindness to the obvious. If you are stating that high IQs tend to succeed at /something/, then you are correct. But it is also true that high IQs are not the ONLY group to succeed to high levels, and often leaders in society are 'B' students with no significant IQ differentiation from their own sociological group. It may be true that more people at genius level IQ play chess than other IQ levels do [as said above, this is a sociological factor], but then we are left with the relative factor of performance and what chess skill they have [measured as rating]. There does not seem to be any prescriptive factor involved, so as to say, 'IQ is a causal connection to chess skill', otherwise how do we explain people of same age, education, and other significant factors such as same time-exposure to chess, where the IQ110 player regularly beats the IQ150 player? Phil Innes >> >> IQ >> measures priily left-brain functions of literacy and numeracy in >> sequencing, with some pattern recognition. Some people play chess like >> that, >> but also dominos like that or drive their car like that! Master chess >> players utilise abstract spatial intelligence [right brain] and sequence >> play based on that [left-brain] as an /integration/ [de Groot]. >> >> The pattern recognition in IQ tests is not even the same type as utilised >> by >> a chess player. IQ was almost entirely concrete spatial [Gardner] whereas >> chess playing utilises abstract dynamic spatial. >> >> Concrete spatial is about physcial forms, and would suit an artist or >> even >> design engineer. [Gardner] >> Abstract dynamic is not dependent on any form [/nb/] and concerns >> movement >> of forces in 3space. [de Groot] >> >> IQ tests are perfunctory measures of the ability to process information >> in >> sequences, but are poor at describing or even identifying what >> information >> is processed. >> >> Phil Innes >> >> *like for pale weedy types and also large lard-ones who stay indoors and >> worry about things, swot books, play chess with imaginary friends, become >> passionate about history of golfballs in Turkistan &c ;)     Date: 17 Oct 2006 17:32:05 From: Ed Seedhouse Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess On 17 Oct 2006 09:34:27 -0700, [email protected] wrote: >I assure you that you are wrong. If you take any group of top >performers in any intellectual activity - be it chess, math, science, >poetry, management, law, etc - their IQ score will be several standard >deviations above 100. > >I am amazed that intelligent people can dispute this obvious fact. >There must be some severe brain damage, caused by perverted political >correctness, that is responsible for such blindness to the obvious. Actually, truly intelligent people will notice how not one shred of evidence is provided in the referred post for these claims. There's a reason for that...       Date: 18 Oct 2006 10:53:42 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess "Ed Seedhouse" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On 17 Oct 2006 09:34:27 -0700, [email protected] wrote: > > >>I assure you that you are wrong. If you take any group of top >>performers in any intellectual activity - be it chess, math, science, >>poetry, management, law, etc - their IQ score will be several standard >>deviations above 100. >> >>I am amazed that intelligent people can dispute this obvious fact. >>There must be some severe brain damage, caused by perverted political >>correctness, that is responsible for such blindness to the obvious. > > Actually, truly intelligent people will notice how not one shred of > evidence is provided in the referred post for these claims. There's a > reason for that... I have just begun correspondence with a PhD student from India who wants to make a new chess study. I began with trying to find significant ground that is well covered, so as usual quoted Dutchman Adrian de Groot whose work seems to be appreciated at only a perfunctory level [perhaps since it is currently so counter-culture in implication for educators], but also Howard Gardner of Harvard, whose multiple intelligence theory is now well-known to mainstream educators. Significantly Gardner chooses chess as an illustration for one of his 'intelligences'. Also significant is that Gardner's thesis is the specific naming and description of a plurality of intelligences, whereas Binet's idea is a deliberately generalised one. Phil Innes         Date: 18 Oct 2006 16:26:18 From: Ed Seedhouse Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 10:53:42 GMT, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: >> Actually, truly intelligent people will notice how not one shred of >> evidence is provided in the referred post for these claims. There's a >> reason for that... > >I have just begun correspondence with a PhD student from India who wants to >make a new chess study. Fine - let him do it and report the results to the scientific community. >I began with trying to find significant ground that >is well covered, so as usual quoted Dutchman Adrian de Groot whose work >seems to be appreciated at only a perfunctory level [perhaps since it is >currently so counter-culture in implication for educators], but also Howard >Gardner of Harvard, whose multiple intelligence theory is now well-known to >mainstream educators. Significantly Gardner chooses chess as an illustration >for one of his 'intelligences'. There are recent studies which show that great skill in chess is largely a result of lots of effortful study and practice. These are reported in a recent issue of Scientific American and are easily available at your local public library to anyone who is interested in actual evidence, as opposed to empty claims. None of these studies supports a correlation between "I.Q." and chess skill, let alone causation. However I predict that this will not change the opinions of the "I.Q." true believers who post in this forum.           Date: 19 Oct 2006 13:25:34 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess "Ed Seedhouse" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 10:53:42 GMT, "Chess One" <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> Actually, truly intelligent people will notice how not one shred of >>> evidence is provided in the referred post for these claims. There's a >>> reason for that... >> >>I have just begun correspondence with a PhD student from India who wants >>to >>make a new chess study. > > Fine - let him do it and report the results to the scientific community. >>I began with trying to find significant ground that >>is well covered, so as usual quoted Dutchman Adrian de Groot whose work >>seems to be appreciated at only a perfunctory level [perhaps since it is >>currently so counter-culture in implication for educators], but also >>Howard >>Gardner of Harvard, whose multiple intelligence theory is now well-known >>to >>mainstream educators. Significantly Gardner chooses chess as an >>illustration >>for one of his 'intelligences'. > > There are recent studies which show that great skill in chess is largely > a result of lots of effortful study and practice. These are reported in > a recent issue of Scientific American and are easily available at your > local public library to anyone who is interested in actual evidence, as > opposed to empty claims. > > None of these studies supports a correlation between "I.Q." and chess > skill, let alone causation. However I predict that this will not change > the opinions of the "I.Q." true believers who post in this forum. I agree. In fact of the studies conducted [which are not transparently self-serving attempts to siphon into the Federal education budget] researchers also agree! The most provocative aspect of de Groot's study was that, at master levels, chess may not even be 'teachable' - which is to say, not learnable at master level either. Some may achieve it, and some not, but the condition is very far from any prescription - as you emphasize had no known causal relation to IQ alone. Latterly -- in our time this is a substantial heresy since practically any subject is thought to be teachable -- de Groot indicates that rote-learning is insufficient to become a master - no matter how efficiently your memory or linear processing of information. This has very large implications for every field of study. Therefore, it was fascinating for Garner to fill the gap, and to begin making suggestions and studies of what /does/ make for that level of success. Gardner takes another track than IQ entirely, and instead of discussing the predominantly left-brain activity measured by IQ [plus token pattern recognition inclusions, and assorted and seeming random cultural foibles] he indicates the nature of one's own genius not as any sort of quantity [left brain measurement] at all, but as a quality [right brain function], moreover, her describes I think it is now 8 discrete right brain intelligences. Laughably other commentators have said that the reductio-ad-absurdam of treating intelligence or genius as a quantity [as measured by IQ] is proposed by people who treat the brain only as some form of meat-calculator. In a profoundly mechanistic age, perhaps this is inevitable. Quite evidently Binet is not at fault for these determinations, since IQ certainly does measure something, and may even be a fair indicator of the ability to conduct linear processing - it is the misapprehension, then misapplication of IQ and of what a human being is, or may be, that is the culprit. Phil Innes       Date: 18 Oct 2006 09:57:26 From: David Richerby Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess Ed Seedhouse <[email protected] > wrote: > [email protected] wrote: >> I assure you that you are wrong. If you take any group of top >> performers in any intellectual activity - be it chess, math, >> science, poetry, management, law, etc - their IQ score will be >> several standard deviations above 100. >> >> I am amazed that intelligent people can dispute this obvious fact. >> There must be some severe brain damage, caused by perverted >> political correctness, that is responsible for such blindness to >> the obvious. > > Actually, truly intelligent people will notice how not one shred of > evidence is provided in the referred post for these claims. There's > a reason for that... Though I note you haven't cited any evidence, either. Surely somebody must have done a study indicating that there's no significant correlation between IQ and chess ability. Dave. -- David Richerby Carnivorous Mexi-Radio (TM): it's like www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a radio that comes from Mexico but it eats flesh!         Date: 18 Oct 2006 16:21:09 From: Ed Seedhouse Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess On 18 Oct 2006 09:57:26 +0100 (BST), David Richerby <[email protected] > wrote: >Ed Seedhouse <[email protected]> wrote: >> [email protected] wrote: >>> I assure you that you are wrong. If you take any group of top >>> performers in any intellectual activity - be it chess, math, >>> science, poetry, management, law, etc - their IQ score will be >>> several standard deviations above 100. >>> >>> I am amazed that intelligent people can dispute this obvious fact. >>> There must be some severe brain damage, caused by perverted >>> political correctness, that is responsible for such blindness to >>> the obvious. >> >> Actually, truly intelligent people will notice how not one shred of >> evidence is provided in the referred post for these claims. There's >> a reason for that... >Though I note you haven't cited any evidence, either. Surely somebody >must have done a study indicating that there's no significant >correlation between IQ and chess ability. The person who makes the claim is the one who is required to supply evidence. I am merely pointing out it's absence here. Anyone can disprove me simply by providing such evidence. Yet each time this subject has come up over the years and I point out that there is no evidence, no evidence has ever been presented. I think there's a reason for that. If you want to know what actually correlates with chess skill (or great skill in most any field), it was well covered in one of the recent issues of Scientific American which relates several studies on the subject. None of them find any relationship between brilliance at chess, or indeed any particular endeavor, and a "high I.Q.", let alone a causal relationship. Remember that correlation does not prove causation. But no one has yet even provided evidence of a simple correlation, let alone causality. The actual evidence indicates rather that great skill at chess is a result of a whole lot of effortful study and practice.   Date: 16 Oct 2006 21:00:40 From: help bot Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess Sanny wrote: > Computer will always play with same IQ Level. > > So if a person gets higher ratings in Chess it is clear idea he is more > intelligent, Has better brains than those who fail to win. So then, Fritz is many times more intelligent than I am? I though it was just much better at chess -- an idiot savant. > Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html > > Here Nomorechess is on Top showing he is much intelligent than others. Actually, the reverse is true. I am now at the top because I never learn but just keep playing Sanny's program, again and again. One example of someone dozens of times ster is IM Innes, who quit after just one game: http://www.getclub.com/cc/showgame.php?num=10&user=FakeIM > Taylor Kingston 2300+ Rating is Second So he too is Intelligent Huh? He jumped ahead of me by one thousand points overnight? That doesn't seem possible. : >D > Bob Ranks Third So he is betterthan other 100 Players who are unable to > reach in Top Three. > > So I feel IQ can be easily tested using Chess. > > But I think IQ testing techniques are useless. > > A person in Africa can never tell about Streets in Japan, Simmilarly a > person in Japan can never tell about cities in Africa. > > So IQ should be tested depending on occupation and region the person > lives in. Earlier in this thread, someone asked a series of questions relating specifically to weather: earthquakes, hurricanes, etc., and every one was a trick question! As if tricks and weather knowledge determined ones IQ. The idea that chess is a good measure of intelligence clearly overlooks many factors which affect results, but which in no way equate to intelligence. (The fact that I am a great chess player and a genius is mere coincidence.) : >D -- help bot   Date: 16 Oct 2006 20:45:01 From: help bot Subject: Re: Does Kramnik have a high IQ ? [email protected] wrote: > [email protected] wrote: > "The Levitt > > Equation". This formula calculates an Elo rating which expresses > > one's potential chess strength (talent) as being equal to ten times > > one's IQ, plus 1000 points. Thus, he claims that Bobby Fischer > > once scored 187 on an IQ test so, applying The Levitt Equation, > > Bobby's potential chess strength would be equal to a rating of > > about 2870 if he reached his peak talent. (187 x 10 = 1870 + 1000 > > = 2870)" > ====================== > Umm... I took my rating of 1954 and solved it for IQ. It came out to > 94.5. > Would Levitt claim all 1900 level players are slightly below average in > IQ? > > Old Haasie Looks like your math skills are little better than mine. Your rating (1954) minus 1000 = 954. Divide that by 10 and I get *95.4*, which means somebody screwed up the equation. Obviously, since few players make it to 1954, you ought to have ended up among those with a high chess-IQ score, certainly not below 100. Also note that when Fischer allegedly scored 187 on an IQ test, he was just a kid, still in school. He's gotten a "lot more dumber" since then. : >D -- help bot   Date: 16 Oct 2006 20:18:25 From: Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess Sanny wrote: > > Computer will always play with same IQ Level. > Why? You don't believe in progress and in self-learning programs? > > So if a person gets higher ratings in Chess it is clear idea he is more > intelligent, Has better brains than those who fail to win. > I must have a very low IQ because I don't see any logic in the above derivation. > > Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html > > Here Nomorechess is on Top showing he is much intelligent than others. > > Taylor Kingston 2300+ Rating is Second So he too is Intelligent > > Bob Ranks Third So he is betterthan other 100 Players who are unable to > reach in Top Three. > > So I feel IQ can be easily tested using Chess. > Is this supposed to be humour? > > But I think IQ testing techniques are useless. > > A person in Africa can never tell about Streets in Japan, Simmilarly a > person in Japan can never tell about cities in Africa. > > So IQ should be tested depending on occupation and region the person > lives in. > > Bye > Sanny > > Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html     Date: 20 Oct 2006 14:22:33 From: Nick Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess Ed Seedhouse wrote: > "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Henri H. Arsenault wrote: The context was *completely snipped* by Ed Seedhouse, which seems to be evidence of his disingenuousness. > > Unlike Henri H. Arsenault, some writers in rec.games.chess.* > > do *not* regard the 'Scientific American' article, 'The Expert Mind', > > as representing the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the > > truth about the nature of chess mastery. > > No one I know of has ever claimed it does or is. In his earlier comments (which Ed Seedhouse chose to snip), Henri H. Arsenault wrote in a way that implies that he believes that 'The Expert Mind' represents about the complete truth on the nature of chess mastery. > However, the article actually presents evidence, For the record, as I already have mentioned (which Ed Seedhouse chose to snip), I was the first writer in RGCM to cite the 'Scientific American' article, 'The Expert Mind', which I did long before Henri H. Arsenault mentioned it. It's wrong for Ed Seedhouse to insinuate that I had been ignorant of 'The Expert Mind' until Henri H. Arsenault's post. > which is what really has Nick in a knot > since he has none to offer for his own case. What 'case'? The main point of my previous post (to which Ed Seedhouse objects) was to make this simple correction of fact: Henri H. Arsensault is wrong to believe that he's the first writer in rec.games.chess.* to have read the 'Scientific American' article, 'The Expert Mind'. It's already been discussed in rec.games.chess.* Does Ed Seedhouse dispute this statement (above)? As far as I can tell, Ed Seedhouse is a contentious writer who's poor at reading comprehension. I am not responsible for Ed Seedhouse's fantasies about what I have written or what I believe. --Nick       Date: 21 Oct 2006 04:28:57 From: Ed Seedhouse Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess On 20 Oct 2006 14:22:33 -0700, "Nick" <[email protected] > wrote: >As far as I can tell, Ed Seedhouse is a contentious >writer who's poor at reading comprehension. >I am not responsible for Ed Seedhouse's fantasies >about what I have written or what I believe. Well I will admit to getting the writers mixed up. After I sent the article I put the writer in my "ignore" file and lo and behold it wasn't Nick.     Date: 20 Oct 2006 00:32:34 From: help bot Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess Ed Seedhouse wrote: > On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 22:03:39 GMT, arseno@phy.*nospam*ulaval.ca (Henri H. > Arsenault) wrote: > > >Unless I missed it > > You did, but it bears repeating. > > >, no one here seems to be aware of the study on > >chess and intelligence published in the August issue of Scientific > >American. The article is available on the web. > > > >In sum, it has been shown that there is no correlation between IQ > >tests and chess ability. A whole bunch of othe experimentally proven > >results regarding chess and intelligence can be found in the > >article.The bottom line is that dedication and hard work are the main > >factors regarding chess mastership. > > > >So instead of speculating, go read the article to get the facts and > >then discuss it here... > > > >Henri > > I referred to this myself a couple of times, but I don't think the "IQ > determines Chess skill" crowd is really interested in evidence. Just a minute ago, I finished reading a longwinded article on a subset of Jews, purportedly of higher intelligence than all others in the entire universe! (Just how and why it should occur to anyone to break Jews into subsets was not explained, nor were there any details about say, how they compared to rabid albino Gypsies, or maybe long-haired hippie freaks with big pimples, but then, I somehow doubt these groups had any pull with the writer of that article.) Anyway, that writer claimed these subset Jews dominated chess bigtime, and the purported reason (judging from all the hype about intelligence in his article) was superior intelligence, supposedly well documented. Yet...we are told that the folks at Scientific American have determined there is *no* correlation between high IQ and chess ability. We have also been told that not one chess master (grandmaster?) fails to have a high IQ, that there is no such thing as a chess idiot-savant among their ranks. Yes, we have been told many things, and when even one of them is questioned, the pompous arise from their sleep to advise us to read the books they have read, so we will believe as they believe. For you see, it could never be that these pompous experts are wrong, that maybe they had an agenda, or maybe they *wanted* the results to be one way or another. Or that they unwitingly contradict one another, despite myriad claims to scientific evidence (which we may request, but to no avail). It seems to me if you want to endorse the SA article, you might quote a small portion which you support, in place of pompous posturing. But make no mistake: this act entails risk, for you commit to your endorsement and can no longer hide behind the skirts of "science". -- help bot     Date: 17 Oct 2006 12:02:29 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > > Sanny wrote: >> >> Computer will always play with same IQ Level. >> > > Why? You don't believe in progress and in self-learning programs? > >> >> So if a person gets higher ratings in Chess it is clear idea he is more >> intelligent, Has better brains than those who fail to win. >> > > I must have a very low IQ because I don't see any logic in the above > derivation. Me to. I must have even lower IQ. There is no correlation between chess and IQ (that is not a sociology*). IQ measures priily left-brain functions of literacy and numeracy in sequencing, with some pattern recognition. Some people play chess like that, but also dominos like that or drive their car like that! Master chess players utilise abstract spatial intelligence [right brain] and sequence play based on that [left-brain] as an /integration/ [de Groot]. The pattern recognition in IQ tests is not even the same type as utilised by a chess player. IQ was almost entirely concrete spatial [Gardner] whereas chess playing utilises abstract dynamic spatial. Concrete spatial is about physcial forms, and would suit an artist or even design engineer. [Gardner] Abstract dynamic is not dependent on any form [/nb/] and concerns movement of forces in 3space. [de Groot] IQ tests are perfunctory measures of the ability to process information in sequences, but are poor at describing or even identifying what information is processed. Phil Innes *like for pale weedy types and also large lard-ones who stay indoors and worry about things, swot books, play chess with imaginary friends, become passionate about history of golfballs in Turkistan &c ;) >> >> Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html >> >> Here Nomorechess is on Top showing he is much intelligent than others. >> >> Taylor Kingston 2300+ Rating is Second So he too is Intelligent >> >> Bob Ranks Third So he is betterthan other 100 Players who are unable to >> reach in Top Three. >> >> So I feel IQ can be easily tested using Chess. >> > > Is this supposed to be humour? > >> >> But I think IQ testing techniques are useless. >> >> A person in Africa can never tell about Streets in Japan, Simmilarly a >> person in Japan can never tell about cities in Africa. >> >> So IQ should be tested depending on occupation and region the person >> lives in. >> >> Bye >> Sanny >> >> Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html >   Date: 15 Oct 2006 08:46:47 From: The Historian Subject: Re: Does Kramnik have a high IQ ? Mike Murray wrote: > On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 13:35:42 GMT, "Kenneth" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >The Levitt equation is a lot of BS. Akiba Rubenstein, one of this centuries > >strongest GMs, was close to being mentally retarded. Most GMs are of just > >normal intelligence, while a few are, exceptionally bright. > > Where do you get this info about Rubenstein? From what I've read, he > probably tended toward autism, but this doesn't equate to retardation > -- quite the opposite, in fact. "Kenneth"'s post is what Freud would have called "projection."   Date: 15 Oct 2006 02:22:19 From: Sanny Subject: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess Computer will always play with same IQ Level. So if a person gets higher ratings in Chess it is clear idea he is more intelligent, Has better brains than those who fail to win. Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html Here Nomorechess is on Top showing he is much intelligent than others. Taylor Kingston 2300+ Rating is Second So he too is Intelligent Bob Ranks Third So he is betterthan other 100 Players who are unable to reach in Top Three. So I feel IQ can be easily tested using Chess. But I think IQ testing techniques are useless. A person in Africa can never tell about Streets in Japan, Simmilarly a person in Japan can never tell about cities in Africa. So IQ should be tested depending on occupation and region the person lives in. Bye Sanny Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html     Date: 17 Oct 2006 14:12:13 From: David Richerby Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess Sanny <[email protected] > wrote: > A person in Africa can never tell about Streets in Japan, Simmilarly > a person in Japan can never tell about cities in Africa. > > So IQ should be tested depending on occupation and region the person > lives in. IQ has nothing to do with streets in Japan or cities in Africa. Dave. -- David Richerby Flammable Radio (TM): it's like a www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ radio but it burns really easily!     Date: 15 Oct 2006 18:03:55 From: Ed Seedhouse Subject: Re: Test your IQ Levels by playing Chess On 15 Oct 2006 02:22:19 -0700, "Sanny" <[email protected] > wrote: >Computer will always play with same IQ Level. Computers don't have IQ's. >So if a person gets higher ratings in Chess it is clear idea he is more >intelligent, Has better brains than those who fail to win. What is clear is that "Sanny" has no idea of how to draw valid conclusions using simple logc.   Date: 15 Oct 2006 01:11:40 From: Subject: Re: Does Kramnik have a high IQ ? [email protected] wrote: > [email protected] wrote: > "The Levitt > > Equation". This formula calculates an Elo rating which expresses > > one's potential chess strength (talent) as being equal to ten times > > one's IQ, plus 1000 points. Thus, he claims that Bobby Fischer > > once scored 187 on an IQ test so, applying The Levitt Equation, > > Bobby's potential chess strength would be equal to a rating of > > about 2870 if he reached his peak talent. (187 x 10 = 1870 + 1000 > > = 2870)" > ====================== > Umm... I took my rating of 1954 and solved it for IQ. It came out to > 94.5. > Would Levitt claim all 1900 level players are slightly below average in > IQ? > If you play full time - yes, he would. Otherwise - no. However, I fail to imagine a person with a 2-digit IQ who would want to devote his life to chess, except for Danailov of course. Using this formula, my own IQ doesn't look good either.     Date: 15 Oct 2006 13:35:42 From: Kenneth Subject: Re: Does Kramnik have a high IQ ? The Levitt equation is a lot of BS. Akiba Rubenstein, one of this centuries strongest GMs, was close to being mentally retarded. Most GMs are of just normal intelligence, while a few are, exceptionally bright. -- Kenneth <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > > [email protected] wrote: >> [email protected] wrote: >> "The Levitt >> > Equation". This formula calculates an Elo rating which expresses >> > one's potential chess strength (talent) as being equal to ten times >> > one's IQ, plus 1000 points. Thus, he claims that Bobby Fischer >> > once scored 187 on an IQ test so, applying The Levitt Equation, >> > Bobby's potential chess strength would be equal to a rating of >> > about 2870 if he reached his peak talent. (187 x 10 = 1870 + 1000 >> > = 2870)" >> ====================== >> Umm... I took my rating of 1954 and solved it for IQ. It came out to >> 94.5. >> Would Levitt claim all 1900 level players are slightly below average in >> IQ? >> > > If you play full time - yes, he would. Otherwise - no. However, I fail > to imagine a person with a 2-digit IQ who would want to devote his life > to chess, except for Danailov of course. > > Using this formula, my own IQ doesn't look good either. >       Date: 15 Oct 2006 07:51:05 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: Does Kramnik have a high IQ ? On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 13:35:42 GMT, "Kenneth" <[email protected] > wrote: >The Levitt equation is a lot of BS. Akiba Rubenstein, one of this centuries >strongest GMs, was close to being mentally retarded. Most GMs are of just >normal intelligence, while a few are, exceptionally bright. Where do you get this info about Rubenstein? From what I've read, he probably tended toward autism, but this doesn't equate to retardation -- quite the opposite, in fact.   Date: 14 Oct 2006 15:58:51 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: Does Kramnik have a high IQ ? [email protected] wrote: "The Levitt > Equation". This formula calculates an Elo rating which expresses > one's potential chess strength (talent) as being equal to ten times > one's IQ, plus 1000 points. Thus, he claims that Bobby Fischer > once scored 187 on an IQ test so, applying The Levitt Equation, > Bobby's potential chess strength would be equal to a rating of > about 2870 if he reached his peak talent. (187 x 10 = 1870 + 1000 > = 2870)" ====================== Umm... I took my rating of 1954 and solved it for IQ. It came out to 94.5. Would Levitt claim all 1900 level players are slightly below average in IQ? Old Haasie   Date: 14 Oct 2006 15:40:25 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: Does Kramnik have a high IQ ? Kenneth wrote: > It is well known that chess ability and IQ, are not related. As to whether > Kramnik has a high IQ or not, only an IQ test can tell. > > -- > Kenneth ================== I think the relationship between chess playing ability and IQ is somewhat related... but not perfectly related. I've met many players rated 2200 and up; all of them would easily exceed 100 on standard IQ tests. Old Haasie   Date: 14 Oct 2006 15:37:47 From: Subject: Re: Does Kramnik have a high IQ ? [email protected] wrote: > Mike Murray wrote: > > On 13 Oct 2006 22:32:16 -0700, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > > > >Zero wrote: > > >> Since Kramnik is the world chess champion, does that mean that he is a > > >> genius and have a high IQ? Could he be a member of Mensa ? > > >> > > > > > >Mensa is what? 130+? I think Kramnik, like most other grandmasters, can > > >get 2 Mensa memberships, if you can figure out what i mean. > > > > Actually, they don't get two memberships, they get one double-lifetime > > membership. > > > > Helpful for Hindus like Anand, or if your life is a blitz. > Just the other day, I saw an ad for a re-incarnation seminar. At first, I was taken aback by its price - $3,000 bucks! - but then I said to myself: - What the hell! It's worth it. You live only once.   Date: 14 Oct 2006 15:32:32 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: Does Kramnik have a high IQ ? help bot wrote: "... But there > are those few who have a special talent for one thing, > and far from being all-around geniuses, these people > are often termed idiot-savants. I don't see any reason > an idiot-savant could not be "trained" to perform well > on a standard IQ test, provided he is not truly an > idiot...." ================ Would't happen. Idiot savants are idiots with one highly specialized mental gift. There has never been an idiot savant in chess. Old Haasie (semi-retired idiot and former Mensa member)   Date: 14 Oct 2006 15:30:29 From: Subject: Re: Does Kramnik have a high IQ ? Mike Murray wrote: > On 13 Oct 2006 22:32:16 -0700, [email protected] wrote: > > > > >Zero wrote: > >> Since Kramnik is the world chess champion, does that mean that he is a > >> genius and have a high IQ? Could he be a member of Mensa ? > >> > > > >Mensa is what? 130+? I think Kramnik, like most other grandmasters, can > >get 2 Mensa memberships, if you can figure out what i mean. > > Actually, they don't get two memberships, they get one double-lifetime > membership. > Helpful for Hindus like Anand, or if your life is a blitz.   Date: 14 Oct 2006 15:27:23 From: Subject: Re: Does Kramnik have a high IQ ? [email protected] wrote: > Kenneth wrote: > > > > It is well known that chess ability and IQ, are not related. > > > > It is? Could you please remind us of the evidence that you base such an > absurd statement on, genius? > > > > > -- > > Kenneth > > "Zero" <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news:[email protected]... > > > Since Kramnik is the world chess champion, does that mean that he is a > > > genius and have a high IQ? Could he be a member of Mensa ? > > > > > http://www.chesscafe.com/text/genius.txt > > "Genius in Chess" by Jonathan Levitt, 1997 American Batsford > Chess Library, Figurine Algebraic Notation, paperback, 128pp., > $19.50 > > Reviewed by Glenn Budzinski > > Did you ever wonder, even if for only a moment, whether you had > enough raw talent to make it to the top of the chess world > someday? Does one really have to be a genius to be World > Champion? British GM Jonathan Levitt's "Genius in Chess" > purports to help you determine whether or not you have the right > stuff. > > The book consists of 128 pages segregated into four parts, plus a > preface, a forward and an index. Part 1, entitled "The Nature of > Chess Genius", which corresponds to about one- quarter of the > book, is a rather detailed discussion of the correlation between > chess talent and genius, and the influence of IQ. Part 2 includes 8 > separate tests (plus solutions) that can be taken to determine, to > some degree, the extent of one's chess talent. A 20-question, > multiple choice test (with answers at the end of the section), > consisting mostly of middle and endgame positions, can be found > in Part III, while the final part offers a few pages of advice on how > to develop one's talent. > > The elements of genius, talent and intelligence are interwoven > throughout "The Nature of Chess Genius" narrative section. > Although there is much background information offered about how > the game of chess is learned and understood, be forewarned: light > reading, it is not. > > Levitt begins by distinguishing between the concepts of > intelligence, creativity and genius, followed by a close look at what > he believes it means to be a genius at chess. According to him, a > chess genius is a person who exhibits certain traits such as a high > IQ, a strong desire to win, one who is physically capable of > performing his (or her) best at the board, superior concentration, > perhaps a proper background (whatever that may mean), as well as > unusually good perception and vision of the board and positions. > Chess geniuses can be further segregated into two categories: the > "Type A" genius, considered to be a positional or strategic player, > like Steinitz, Capablanca and Karpov; and the "Type B" genius, > such as Lasker, Alekhine, Tal and Kasparov, viewed as calculators > or tacticians. (Fischer and Spassky are identified in a third > category, "Universal", since they are, in Levitt's words, "harder to > call," p. 33.) > > For Levitt, chess talent, or potential chess strength (which is > different from current chess strength as determined by tournament > play), is inextricably linked to IQ. In an attempt to quantify just > how closely these two aspects are related, he came up with a > mathematical formula called, not surprisingly, "The Levitt > Equation". This formula calculates an Elo rating which expresses > one's potential chess strength (talent) as being equal to ten times > one's IQ, plus 1000 points. Thus, he claims that Bobby Fischer > once scored 187 on an IQ test so, applying The Levitt Equation, > Bobby's potential chess strength would be equal to a rating of > about 2870 if he reached his peak talent. (187 x 10 = 1870 + 1000 > = 2870) > http://www.auschess.org.au/articles/chessmind.htm Analysis, Logic, and Problem Solving Playing chess well involves a combination of aptitudes. A 1973-74 study in Zaire by Dr Albert Frank (1974) found that good teenage chess players (16-18 years old) had strong spatial, numerical, administrative-directional, and paperwork abilities. Dr Robert Ferguson (1995, p. 2) notes that "This finding tends to show that ability in chess is not due to the presence in an individual of only one or two abilities but that a large number of aptitudes all work together in chess." Even more significantly Frank's study found that learning chess, even as teenagers, strengthened both numerical and verbal aptitudes. This occurred for the majority of students (not just the strong players) who took a chess course for two hours each week for one school year. Other studies have added that playing chess can strengthen a child's memory (Artise). A 1990-92 study in New Brunswick, Canada, further shows the value of chess for developing problem solving skills among young children (Gaudreau 1992). By integrating chess into the traditional mathematics curriculum teachers were able to raise significantly the average problem solving scores of their students. These students also scored far higher on problem solving tests than ones who just took the standard mathematics course. Priy school chess has now exploded in New Brunswick. In 1989, 120 students played in the provincial school chess championship. Three years later over 19,000 played (Ferguson 1995, p. 11). Chess has also been shown to foster critical and creative thinking. Dr Ferguson's four-year study (1979-83) analysed the impact of chess on students' thinking skills in the Bradford Area School District in the United States (grades 7-9). These students were already identified as gifted, with intelligence quotient (IQ) scores above 130. Using two tests (Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal and the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking) Ferguson (1995, pp. 4-6) found that after spending 60-64 hours playing and studying chess over 32 weeks students showed significant progress in critical thinking. He further found that chess enhances "creativity in gifted adolescents." He concluded that "it appears that chess is superior to many currently used programs for developing creative thinking and, therefore, could logically be included in a differentiated program for mentally gifted students". Playing chess, however, is not only valuable for developing the skills of gifted children. Average and even below average learners can also benefit. Chess teacher Michael Wojcio (1990) notes that "even if a slow learner does not grasp all of [the strategies and tactics in chess], he/she can still benefit by learning language, concepts, and fine motor movement." During a program run by Dr Ferguson from September 1987 to May 1988 all members of a standard sixth grade class in rural Pennsylvania were required to take chess lessons and play games. This class had 9 boys and 5 girls. At the start of this study students took IQ tests, producing a mean IQ of 104.6. Students then studied chess two or three times per week while playing most days. They were also encouraged to participate in tournaments. After this intensive chess instruction a group of seven boys managed to finish second in the 1998 Pennsylvania State Scholastic Championship. Significantly, at the conclusion of the study tests showed a significant increase in both memory and verbal reasoning skills, especially among the more competitive chess players (Ferguson 1995, pp. 8-9). Chess has even been shown to raise students' overall IQ scores. Using the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children a Venezuelan study of over 4,000 second grade students found a significant increase in most students' IQ scores after only 4.5 months of systematically studying chess. This occurred across all socio-economic groups and for both males and females. The Venezuelan government was so impressed that all Venezuelan schools introduced chess lessons starting in 1988-89 (sumised in Ferguson 1995, p. 8).   Date: 14 Oct 2006 15:23:06 From: Subject: Re: Does Kramnik have a high IQ ? Kenneth wrote: > > It is well known that chess ability and IQ, are not related. > It is? Could you please remind us of the evidence that you base such an absurd statement on, genius? > > -- > Kenneth > "Zero" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... > > Since Kramnik is the world chess champion, does that mean that he is a > > genius and have a high IQ? Could he be a member of Mensa ? > > http://www.chesscafe.com/text/genius.txt "Genius in Chess" by Jonathan Levitt, 1997 American Batsford Chess Library, Figurine Algebraic Notation, paperback, 128pp., $19.50 Reviewed by Glenn Budzinski Did you ever wonder, even if for only a moment, whether you had enough raw talent to make it to the top of the chess world someday? Does one really have to be a genius to be World Champion? British GM Jonathan Levitt's "Genius in Chess" purports to help you determine whether or not you have the right stuff. The book consists of 128 pages segregated into four parts, plus a preface, a forward and an index. Part 1, entitled "The Nature of Chess Genius", which corresponds to about one- quarter of the book, is a rather detailed discussion of the correlation between chess talent and genius, and the influence of IQ. Part 2 includes 8 separate tests (plus solutions) that can be taken to determine, to some degree, the extent of one's chess talent. A 20-question, multiple choice test (with answers at the end of the section), consisting mostly of middle and endgame positions, can be found in Part III, while the final part offers a few pages of advice on how to develop one's talent. The elements of genius, talent and intelligence are interwoven throughout "The Nature of Chess Genius" narrative section. Although there is much background information offered about how the game of chess is learned and understood, be forewarned: light reading, it is not. Levitt begins by distinguishing between the concepts of intelligence, creativity and genius, followed by a close look at what he believes it means to be a genius at chess. According to him, a chess genius is a person who exhibits certain traits such as a high IQ, a strong desire to win, one who is physically capable of performing his (or her) best at the board, superior concentration, perhaps a proper background (whatever that may mean), as well as unusually good perception and vision of the board and positions. Chess geniuses can be further segregated into two categories: the "Type A" genius, considered to be a positional or strategic player, like Steinitz, Capablanca and Karpov; and the "Type B" genius, such as Lasker, Alekhine, Tal and Kasparov, viewed as calculators or tacticians. (Fischer and Spassky are identified in a third category, "Universal", since they are, in Levitt's words, "harder to call," p. 33.) For Levitt, chess talent, or potential chess strength (which is different from current chess strength as determined by tournament play), is inextricably linked to IQ. In an attempt to quantify just how closely these two aspects are related, he came up with a mathematical formula called, not surprisingly, "The Levitt Equation". This formula calculates an Elo rating which expresses one's potential chess strength (talent) as being equal to ten times one's IQ, plus 1000 points. Thus, he claims that Bobby Fischer once scored 187 on an IQ test so, applying The Levitt Equation, Bobby's potential chess strength would be equal to a rating of about 2870 if he reached his peak talent. (187 x 10 = 1870 + 1000 = 2870)     Date: 15 Oct 2006 00:01:14 From: Ed Seedhouse Subject: Re: Does Kramnik have a high IQ ? On 14 Oct 2006 15:23:06 -0700, [email protected] wrote: >Kenneth wrote: > It is well known that chess ability and IQ, are not related. >It is? Could you please remind us of the evidence that you base such an >absurd statement on, genius? To be more precise, there is no credible evidence that skill in chess is related causally to IQ. In fact there is really no convincing evidence that IQ is related causally to anything at all except perhaps the ability to do well on IQ tests.       Date: 17 Oct 2006 14:10:23 From: David Richerby Subject: Re: Does Kramnik have a high IQ ? Ed Seedhouse <[email protected] > wrote: > In fact there is really no convincing evidence that IQ is related > causally to anything at all except perhaps the ability to do well on > IQ tests. Hey! That's my line! Give it back! Dave. -- David Richerby Unholy Nuclear Puzzle (TM): it's www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like an intriguing conundrum that's made of atoms but it's also a crime against nature!   Date: 14 Oct 2006 15:00:50 From: help bot Subject: Re: Does Kramnik have a high IQ ? [email protected] wrote: > > > Mensa is what? 130+? I think Kramnik, like most other grandmasters, can > > > get 2 Mensa memberships, if you can figure out what i mean. > > > > > > Of course we can figure out what you're saying -- > > do you think we're all stupid? You're saying that > > Kramnik's IQ is not less than 230, so he can get > > a multiple-membership discount at Mensa. ;>D > Sure you are not stupid, but 130 times 2 is still 260 not 230. What I wrote was obviously a typo for 630, which any fool can see is what you get when you multiply 320 by 2 and divide by twelve. Stop trying to criticise your betters. I suppose you remembered to adjust for IQ inflation? Thought not. You're probably not even a member of Mesna! -- Larry Bott   Date: 14 Oct 2006 11:12:05 From: Eliyahu Subject: Re: Does Kramnik have a high IQ ? [email protected] wrote: > help bot wrote: > > [email protected] wrote: > > > Zero wrote: > > > > Since Kramnik is the world chess champion, does that mean that he is a > > > > genius and have a high IQ? Could he be a member of Mensa ? > > > > > > > > > > Mensa is what? 130+? I think Kramnik, like most other grandmasters, can > > > get 2 Mensa memberships, if you can figure out what i mean. > > > > > > Of course we can figure out what you're saying -- > > do you think we're all stupid? You're saying that > > Kramnik's IQ is not less than 230, so he can get > > a multiple-membership discount at Mensa. ;>D > > > > Sure you are not stupid, but 130 times 2 is still 260 not 230. Bs'd Says who? Eliyahu   Date: 14 Oct 2006 13:50:10 From: Kenneth Subject: Re: Does Kramnik have a high IQ ? It is well known that chess ability and IQ, are not related. As to whether Kramnik has a high IQ or not, only an IQ test can tell. -- Kenneth "Zero" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > Since Kramnik is the world chess champion, does that mean that he is a > genius and have a high IQ? Could he be a member of Mensa ? >   Date: 14 Oct 2006 03:11:56 From: Subject: Re: Does Kramnik have a high IQ ? help bot wrote: > [email protected] wrote: > > Zero wrote: > > > Since Kramnik is the world chess champion, does that mean that he is a > > > genius and have a high IQ? Could he be a member of Mensa ? > > > > > > > Mensa is what? 130+? I think Kramnik, like most other grandmasters, can > > get 2 Mensa memberships, if you can figure out what i mean. > > > Of course we can figure out what you're saying -- > do you think we're all stupid? You're saying that > Kramnik's IQ is not less than 230, so he can get > a multiple-membership discount at Mensa. ;>D > Sure you are not stupid, but 130 times 2 is still 260 not 230. > > I saw an online IQ test at tickle.com, and many > of the questions were just pattern-matching, which > is a skill not unrelated to chess. I expect most, if > not all, GMs would do well on such a test. But there > are those few who have a special talent for one thing, > and far from being all-around geniuses, these people > are often termed idiot-savants. I don't see any reason > an idiot-savant could not be "trained" to perform well > on a standard IQ test, provided he is not truly an > idiot. One problem is that these tests are rather > limited in scope. What is purportedly a test of > intelligence, is more a test of education and specific, > learned skills. What is needed is a more general > approach like say, putting a person in a cage with a > tiger and seeing if he is any "ster" than a monkey > in the exact same position. :>D > > > -- help bot     Date: 14 Oct 2006 15:32:06 From: Johnny T Subject: Re: Does Kramnik have a high IQ ? [email protected] wrote: > Sure you are not stupid, but 130 times 2 is still 260 not 230. Short test... What is twice the volume of 100 db? What is twice the strength of an 7 earthquake? If a tornado is rated as 4, what is the rating of a tornado that is twice as much? And finally, what is the IQ of someone that is twice as st as 130?   Date: 14 Oct 2006 01:47:15 From: help bot Subject: Re: Does Kramnik have a high IQ ? [email protected] wrote: > Zero wrote: > > Since Kramnik is the world chess champion, does that mean that he is a > > genius and have a high IQ? Could he be a member of Mensa ? > > > > Mensa is what? 130+? I think Kramnik, like most other grandmasters, can > get 2 Mensa memberships, if you can figure out what i mean. Of course we can figure out what you're saying -- do you think we're all stupid? You're saying that Kramnik's IQ is not less than 230, so he can get a multiple-membership discount at Mensa. ; >D ------- I saw an online IQ test at tickle.com, and many of the questions were just pattern-matching, which is a skill not unrelated to chess. I expect most, if not all, GMs would do well on such a test. But there are those few who have a special talent for one thing, and far from being all-around geniuses, these people are often termed idiot-savants. I don't see any reason an idiot-savant could not be "trained" to perform well on a standard IQ test, provided he is not truly an idiot. One problem is that these tests are rather limited in scope. What is purportedly a test of intelligence, is more a test of education and specific, learned skills. What is needed is a more general approach like say, putting a person in a cage with a tiger and seeing if he is any "ster" than a monkey in the exact same position. : >D -- help bot   Date: 13 Oct 2006 22:32:16 From: Subject: Re: Does Kramnik have a high IQ ? Zero wrote: > Since Kramnik is the world chess champion, does that mean that he is a > genius and have a high IQ? Could he be a member of Mensa ? > Mensa is what? 130+? I think Kramnik, like most other grandmasters, can get 2 Mensa memberships, if you can figure out what i mean.     Date: 14 Oct 2006 07:17:59 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: Does Kramnik have a high IQ ? On 13 Oct 2006 22:32:16 -0700, [email protected] wrote: > >Zero wrote: >> Since Kramnik is the world chess champion, does that mean that he is a >> genius and have a high IQ? Could he be a member of Mensa ? >> > >Mensa is what? 130+? I think Kramnik, like most other grandmasters, can >get 2 Mensa memberships, if you can figure out what i mean. Actually, they don't get two memberships, they get one double-lifetime membership.