Chess talent

>>8138417
I'm a mathematician with a fairly high IQ and I'm a mediocre chess player.

>>8138417
Unlike what a lot of shows and movies would have you believe, Chess does not equal intelligence. Don't get me wrong, Chess does require a certain deal of intelligence and these skilled chess players are smart.

However, the simple fact is that not all minds express themselves in the same manner. Chess as a game is a very rule based activity. The moment that you make one mistake or act in the wrong way, you can lose. And the simple fact is that not all people can manage that type of thinking.

So the simple answer to your questions are, 'Frame of Mind', 'For the Most Part', 'Unknown'.

>>8138417
Like that guy said, yes and no. It does take a great deal of intellectual power to do well, but it's not all the case.

For one to do good in chess, a game based on very, very strict rules, you have to be creative, tactical, have good memory, and think outside the box; which are things that people with high IQs have.

But, an example of someone who is very good at chess (number one in the world) but does not have an IQ of 190 like Garry Kasparov is Magnus Carlsen. He is extremely good at chess but he isn't at the intellectual level of Kasparov.

It's like every game, you have people who aren't really "intelligent" but are really good, and then you have people who are very intelligent and are good.

To answer your other question, chess can be used as a tool to train the mind into thinking in certain ways with a very specific set of rules, including math and science. So, yes, if you're intellectually able to preform very well given these set of rules, while having the attributes to be able to succeed, you probably can and will do well with math and science.

>>8138417
I used to play lots of chess, great game and it teaches you to think in new and interesting ways. Now I study maths. While both defeating an opponent in chess and proving a theorem requires "an envisioning of a strategy", I believe any closer comparison is far-fetched. If learning new things and using your brain is good for your brain, then chess is good for your brain - that is trivial.

I remember an IQ study with college students who were chess players and those who weren't. The chess players scored a few points lower actually, albeit not statistically significant.

But chess is a great game, learning it for it's own sake is worthwhile.

Speaking of chess, what's the best way for a total noob like me to git gud?

>>8138515
>have an IQ of 190 like Garry Kasparov
What a garbage statement. 190 IQ just lol.

>>8139292
Play. That's really the best way. To get better at any skill based game, it's good to play against people who are a little bit better than you, and just increase the difficulty gradually.

>>8139292
Basically what >>8139327 said. Also try to analyse the games that you lost. Figure out what went wrong in the game. That way you will avoid making the same mistakes in the future.

>>8139292
I wanted to learn as a kid and was super self-conscious about losing and never really played. I've recently been practicing with a friend and a couple of tips for complete newbs aside from >>8139327 >>8139353:

Find an intro series to give you some basic guidelines to start, and terms to use. Even though the basic concepts are incredibly simple and "obvious", having names committed to memory goes a long way to helping you think about them. I watched this series:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21L45Qo6EIY

In case you aren't solid in the rules (most likely: castling and en passant), that series has a prequel video now too if you look for it.

Practice searching for available moves. Many chess websites have "tactics" problems, where you are given a midgame board and must find the "optimal" move. The first day might feel frustrating, but after a week of 10-20 problems a day you will be significantly faster at identifying available moves, and when you move into a real game where you aren't constantly being given a completely new foreign board to work with, you'll find yourself much better at keeping track of threats. chesstempo.com is a decent free option, as opposed to chess.com which charges for that.

Another tactic to practice is endgame mating, avoiding a draw. Later on you study popular openings and responses. Can't help with that one, I haven't started it.

Definitely don't neglect playing! There is no other way to get experience pulling opening, midgame, endgame, and figuring out your opponent, all into one complete process. AI is shit for this purpose because it only resembles humans in opening moves and simple situations.

>>8139380
Thanks!

Chess is a shit game.
A true game of cleverness and intelligence would never benefit people who memorized moves

Like most skills, you can make anyone into a top performer if you start teaching and pushing them when they're like 4 or 5 years old and you aren't shit at teaching. https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200507/the-grandmaster-experiment

> IQ
>>>/pol/

>>8139292
I like the lichess.org training, but it only gets you to a certain point. After that, you really have to play against people.