13 Mar 10
Originally posted by wormwood5. Chess is just like basketball. in fact I'm pretty sure their female professional players too don't have vaginas.
1. not all IQ test have limited time. in fact, the modern ones usually don't.
2. memory monsters don't rule the top player list.
3. strong players relay on muscle memory, weak players on conscious thinking. observed fact, verified by CT-scans.
4. chess is not basketball.
13 Mar 10
Originally posted by wormwood1, I'd like to see a link (you know, like the 4 I gave) on that but regardless even it is true they're only trying to replicate the results of the timed tests so my point still stands.
1. not all IQ test have limited time. in fact, the modern ones usually don't.
2. memory monsters don't rule the top player list.
3. strong players relay on muscle memory, weak players on conscious thinking. observed fact, verified by CT-scans.
4. chess is not basketball.
2. I already answered that like 5 different ways
3. Link? Show me a link that says there is no thinking involved in chess.
4. Its called an analogy. The reason why I chose basketball is that height is pretty obvious whereas you cant really see a player's intelligence.
13 Mar 10
Originally posted by wormwood1. all comprehensive IQ tests have some elements of time in it. Not all tasks, because for some of them, time is irrelevant (e.g. detecting subtle differences in assertions). But processing speed is an essential element of intelligence.
1. not all IQ test have limited time. in fact, the modern ones usually don't.
2. memory monsters don't rule the top player list.
3. strong players relay on muscle memory, weak players on conscious thinking. observed fact, verified by CT-scans.
4. chess is not basketball.
2.no player without a far higher than average memory can reach the top. A non-monster player like Boris Spassky can still reproduce most of the games he played as a world champion, 30+ years later. I can't reproduce the games I played two weeks ago.
3.what does that mean, 'muscle memory' as opposed to 'conscious thinking'. I'd be very interested in seeing CT-scans that tell us just that!!
4.I agree, although a combination might be thinkable, like chessboxing for instance.
You might think that I am not in total agreement with your assessment. You are right 😉
13 Mar 10
Originally posted by Mephisto2I'm not gonna touch the IQ religion any further, it's just time wasted. and anyway memory is a much more interesting subject.
1. all comprehensive IQ tests have some elements of time in it. Not all tasks, because for some of them, time is irrelevant (e.g. detecting subtle differences in assertions). But processing speed is an essential element of intelligence.
2.no player without a far higher than average memory can reach the top. A non-monster player like Boris Spassky can st ...[text shortened]...
You might think that I am not in total agreement with your assessment. You are right 😉
I'm sure you can easily reconstruct slow games you played 2 weeks ago. probably any (personally) important game over the years. unless there's something like 10 uncritical moves shuffled in huge time trouble or something. you must remember your stem games by now, together with a great many relevant games. there are not that many candidates at any single point, and you probably know even without looking which kind of move you tend to choose at such positions. then you add the memory imprint of intensively focusing for minutes on every single one of those relatively few options.
for example, there's not much of a chance I'll forget the dragon I recently resigned against gatecrasher, ever. even though most of the moves were played months ago. because it's the opening I've worked the most on, and because I made a stupid mistake between mixing Kb1 lines with Kc1 lines. the richter-rauzer against backfrom1994 I might forget, because I haven't played nor worked on its theory like on dragon. so far I remember it far too lively though, but I expect that to mostly fade away in time.
I understand you've been playing for something like decades, right? so you must have built up a huge database of games relevant to your specific openings by now. adding a new game you play shouldn't be much of a problem, unless you're trying something completely new.
muscle memory in a nut shell means 'skill'. it's the reason why a right-handed person can throw a ball with his right hand, but completely screws it up with his left. all the information needed to move all your hundreds of bones and joints by contracting hundreds of muscles just the right amount, is stored into youyr brain as a 'motion model' or pattern, which can be executed instantly. conscious thinking is Slow and Restricted, it can handle only 4-7 items at a time, which doesn't even cover your own pieces let alone everything that's happening on the board. so we train things until they go to into 'muscle memory', and can be executed when needed. like mating with queen against a rook.
in fact KQkr mate is a perfect example. consciously thinking it through is extremely difficult AND slow, where as after training it thousands of times it can be blitzed almost without thinking. the 'hand' knows where to go, and your rational mind drags behind thinking 'mmm, right, that DOES look okay indeed, and sort of feels familiar'. you don't calculate anything, you just move your hand until BLINK a light goes off and you see the rook drops or one of the basic forced mates appear. at which point you realize your hand has already taken the rook, without waiting for your conscious mind's okay.
every blitz game goes like that as well, especially in the opening and ending. when it doesn't, you lose on time if you insist on thinking the positions through at any level except the most superficial one. there's just no time for conscious thinking, it's a luxury that guides the trained technique stored into muscle memory, which is the real work horse under the hood.
13 Mar 10
The thing that has me against having a good memory as a necessary factor
for being a good player are Child Prodigies.
What are they remembering?
Let us bring in Capablanca on memory in chess.
"It is not correct to assume, however, that my chess ability depends upon an
over-developed memory.
In chess, memory may be an aid, but it is not indispensable.
At the present time my memory is far from what it was in my early youth,
yet my play is undoubtedly much stronger than it was then.
Mastery of chess and brilliance of play do not depend so much upon the memory
as upon the peculiar functioning of the powers of the brain.’
13 Mar 10
Originally posted by greenpawn34What Capa said is virtually identical to what I said and he probably played less by memory than any player I know of.
The thing that has me against having a good memory as a necessary factor
for being a good player are Child Prodigies.
What are they remembering?
Let us bring in Capablanca on memory in chess.
"It is not correct to assume, however, that my chess ability depends upon an
over-developed memory.
In chess, memory may be an aid, but it is not i ...[text shortened]... depend so much upon the memory
as upon the peculiar functioning of the powers of the brain.’
Prodigies remember the same things everyone else does. Games they've studied or pattern recognition. True prodigies like Morphy/Fischer/Capa can usually out-calculate most people even at a very early age because of their natural talent (which includes intelligence). But the reason some can learn so fast is that the brain is so malleable at such an early age. Everyone's memory is vastly superior at that age compared to later in life.
Think of it this way : Have you ever tried to learn a foreign language as an adult? How difficult was it compared to learning your first language?
So, really, prodigies are proof of how much memory can help in chess.
To make it relevant to the thread, yes, you are at a disadvantage learning at an older age but it can be overcome for the most part with hard work.
13 Mar 10
Originally posted by wormwoodI think its debateable whether or not muscle memory is involved at all in chess but regardless what you said isnt true. You give a couple of examples (blitz, well recognized patterns) where there is little to no conscious thought. Thats fine but that doesnt prove that there is no conscious thought in chess which is what you originally claimed.
I'm not gonna touch the IQ religion any further, it's just time wasted. and anyway memory is a much more interesting subject.
I'm sure you can easily reconstruct slow games you played 2 weeks ago. probably any (personally) important game over the years. unless there's something like 10 uncritical moves shuffled in huge time trouble or something. you mu ...[text shortened]... d into muscle memory, which is the real work horse under the hood.
Just because something is true once doesnt mean its true in every case.
I guarantee you I could find positions that everybody would have to calculate. Every GM has to calculate once they're out of their openin prep . If they dont then what do they need all that time for?
13 Mar 10
Originally posted by greenpawn34Funny you should mention that. We tried that when I was attending Santa Monica College while living in Venice Beach, except we didn't have pieces, just pawns V checkers. Pawns won.
Hi isthislikecheckers
Never too old to start playing chess.
I know plenty of guys who did not take up the game till in their late 20's and
went on to be good at it. Even knew a 57 year who had never pushed in his life
join our club and within two years was a good club player.
Forget being a great player unless you are naturally gifted.
But ...[text shortened]... do think will win?
[fen]rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/Q1Q1Q1Q1/1Q1Q1Q1Q/Q1QQK1Q1 w kq - 0 1[/fen]
13 Mar 10
Originally posted by Maxacre42What do you call a chess player without a girl friend?
I started playing chess (well, I already knew the rules and played a little before) around your age, about four years ago. I got to my level, which is about 1750 OTB with the completely wrong approach to study and I'm still improving steadily and getting winning games against the 2000+ rated player at my club. Of course you can start now and become a great ...[text shortened]... depending on where you live) to an 8 hours a day chess addict with a pissed off girlfriend 🙂
Homeless.......
13 Mar 10
Originally posted by isthislikecheckersIf you just started to play tennis at the age of 20 how good would your chances be of becoming a pro?
I'm nineteen and thinking about taking up chess seriously. I've know the rules since I was about seven but rarely played. I'm a quick learner and have a high IQ but I'm afraid I've waited too long. How young do you have to start to become a great player?
Same thing with chess.
- Joined
- 10 Jan 08
- Moves
- 19223
14 Mar 10
Originally posted by Sam The Shamhardly.. you can't compare sports with chess. you could be naturally talented at tennis but before you realize it you lack the time to train and advance your skills to pro level. i'm not saying that starting at 20 and reaching pro is impossible, giving 100% dedication and you might get there before your body gets too old. whereas with chess, where age is of little value it is possible for a 20 year old who is naturally gifted yet has never played before to become pro. time is one the chess players side, when it's not on the tennis players.
If you just started to play tennis at the age of 20 how good would your chances be of becoming a pro?
Same thing with chess.
- Joined
- 10 Jan 08
- Moves
- 19223
14 Mar 10
Originally posted by isthislikecheckersdefine 'good'?
I'm nineteen and thinking about taking up chess seriously. I've know the rules since I was about seven but rarely played. I'm a quick learner and have a high IQ but I'm afraid I've waited too long. How young do you have to start to become a great player?
i started at around 20... 5 years on i still say i suck but others say i'm ok.