5 ms·

A lot of people imagine chess players to he smart, but there's a video of asking grandmasters very simple (imho) general knowledge questions that they did absol

A lot of people imagine chess players to he smart, but there's a video of asking grandmasters very simple (imho) general knowledge questions that they did absolutely abysmally at. It's probably safe to assume that someone who is really good at chess is actually bad at anything that isn't chess

wongarsu 3mo ago
I would call chess players smart in the abstract sense. Playing chess requires both good "compute power", working memory, and long-term memorization. But to become grandmaster you have to dedicate a lot of your life to chess. It's not that these people couldn't know general knowledge or do higher math, they are simply not exposed to it. They are not smart in the sense of a universal genius, because that would require immersing yourself in all the things - the opposite of what a chess grandmaster does
- largbae 3mo ago
  Kasparov seems to show that there is room for more than moves in a great chess mind.
kelipso 3mo ago
A big percentage of the top grandmasters skip high school and almost none of them have went to college. They are “smart” in that they have the potential intelligence to learn that stuff, as demonstrated by them having learned chess, but they have basically no knowledge of statistics, mathematics, plenty of other general knowledge topics. From that point of view, you should really consider them to be as knowledgeable about these things as high school dropouts. It was hilarious following the whole cheating thing and seeing them try to interpret these statistical results and coming to really stupid conclusions. You could say it’s difficult to see them this way due to the cultural and historical perspectives on chess but this is the reality of top grandmasters at this time.
- IAmGraydon 3mo ago
  >A big percentage of the top grandmasters skip high school and almost none of them have went to college. They are “smart” in that they have the potential intelligence to learn that stuff, as demonstrated by them having learned chess, but they have basically no knowledge of statistics, mathematics, plenty of other general knowledge topics. Source?
  - traes 3mo ago
    Regarding general knowledge, it's a pretty well known phenomena within the community. Here's a video with the three players who spent the longest time at #2 in the world (see [0]) behind Magnus Carlsen answering basic trivia questions[1]. [0]: https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/1uk3wa3/world_no_2s_during_magnuss_unbroken_streak_as_no_1/ https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/1uk3wa3/world_no_2s_... [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXyLJaaLEpE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXyLJaaLEpE
    - codechicago277 3mo ago
      They mostly did very well, other than Levon Aronian not knowing some basic chemical formulas and Hikaru’s brain freezing on the cube side question.
- traes 3mo ago
  A lot of players actually do go to college, although likely a minority. I know that Maxime Vachier-Lagrave in particular has a math degree. Ding Liren has a law degree. Daniel Naroditsky himself, while not quite a top grandmaster by the typical definition, had a bachelors in history.
- InterviewFrog 3mo ago
  This is just a Western cultural perception and baggage. That if you are good at chess, you are smart. If you can solve the Rubik's Cube quickly, you are a genius, etc. Getting better at chess, the Rubik's Cube, etc. is a skill. The more you practice and the more passionate you are, the better you get at it. This is just like learning to play the piano or learning to swim. There is natural aptitude as well but its not as simple as being super smart and being able to strategize well using intelligence. That's just the narrative that seems to make sense. Being good at chess isn't evidence that someone is smart in general.
matheusmoreira 3mo ago
> The ability to play chess is the sign of a gentleman. > The ability to play chess well is the sign of a wasted life.
- alex1138 3mo ago
  - Paul Morphy, lawyer (I think). One of... well. Greatest of all time discussions are hard (times evolve) but he murdered his competition relative to his time
  - IAmGraydon 3mo ago
    Morphy was certainly a freak of nature, sort of like Elizabeth in Queen's Gambit. Sadly, he lost his mind and died in his 40s.
  - gwern 3mo ago
    (The quote is apocryphal and long after, so I'm pretty sure it's bunk.)
roenxi 3mo ago
Yes but ... knowing the answer to general knowledge questions isn't really an appropriate test of that. General knowledge sounds like it would be, by definition, things known to people of ordinary intelligence. So it could easily be that very intelligent people aren't up to speed about general knowledge topics because they spend their time on topics of interest to people of high intelligence. That is actually something of a trope. The nature of the questions and why they are expected to know the answers matters a lot here.

wongarsu 3mo ago

I would call chess players smart in the abstract sense. Playing chess requires both good "compute power", working memory, and long-term memorization. But to become grandmaster you have to dedicate a lot of your life to chess. It's not that these people couldn't know general knowledge or do higher math, they are simply not exposed to it. They are not smart in the sense of a universal genius, because that would require immersing yourself in all the things - the opposite of what a chess grandmaster does

largbae 3mo ago
Kasparov seems to show that there is room for more than moves in a great chess mind.

kelipso 3mo ago

A big percentage of the top grandmasters skip high school and almost none of them have went to college. They are “smart” in that they have the potential intelligence to learn that stuff, as demonstrated by them having learned chess, but they have basically no knowledge of statistics, mathematics, plenty of other general knowledge topics. From that point of view, you should really consider them to be as knowledgeable about these things as high school dropouts. It was hilarious following the whole cheating thing and seeing them try to interpret these statistical results and coming to really stupid conclusions. You could say it’s difficult to see them this way due to the cultural and historical perspectives on chess but this is the reality of top grandmasters at this time.

IAmGraydon 3mo ago
>A big percentage of the top grandmasters skip high school and almost none of them have went to college. They are “smart” in that they have the potential intelligence to learn that stuff, as demonstrated by them having learned chess, but they have basically no knowledge of statistics, mathematics, plenty of other general knowledge topics. Source?
- traes 3mo ago
  Regarding general knowledge, it's a pretty well known phenomena within the community. Here's a video with the three players who spent the longest time at #2 in the world (see [0]) behind Magnus Carlsen answering basic trivia questions[1]. [0]: https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/1uk3wa3/world_no_2s_during_magnuss_unbroken_streak_as_no_1/ https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/1uk3wa3/world_no_2s_... [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXyLJaaLEpE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXyLJaaLEpE
  - codechicago277 3mo ago
    They mostly did very well, other than Levon Aronian not knowing some basic chemical formulas and Hikaru’s brain freezing on the cube side question.
traes 3mo ago
A lot of players actually do go to college, although likely a minority. I know that Maxime Vachier-Lagrave in particular has a math degree. Ding Liren has a law degree. Daniel Naroditsky himself, while not quite a top grandmaster by the typical definition, had a bachelors in history.
InterviewFrog 3mo ago
This is just a Western cultural perception and baggage. That if you are good at chess, you are smart. If you can solve the Rubik's Cube quickly, you are a genius, etc. Getting better at chess, the Rubik's Cube, etc. is a skill. The more you practice and the more passionate you are, the better you get at it. This is just like learning to play the piano or learning to swim. There is natural aptitude as well but its not as simple as being super smart and being able to strategize well using intelligence. That's just the narrative that seems to make sense. Being good at chess isn't evidence that someone is smart in general.

matheusmoreira 3mo ago

> The ability to play chess is the sign of a gentleman. > The ability to play chess well is the sign of a wasted life.

alex1138 3mo ago
- Paul Morphy, lawyer (I think). One of... well. Greatest of all time discussions are hard (times evolve) but he murdered his competition relative to his time
- IAmGraydon 3mo ago
  Morphy was certainly a freak of nature, sort of like Elizabeth in Queen's Gambit. Sadly, he lost his mind and died in his 40s.
- gwern 3mo ago
  (The quote is apocryphal and long after, so I'm pretty sure it's bunk.)

roenxi 3mo ago

Yes but ... knowing the answer to general knowledge questions isn't really an appropriate test of that. General knowledge sounds like it would be, by definition, things known to people of ordinary intelligence. So it could easily be that very intelligent people aren't up to speed about general knowledge topics because they spend their time on topics of interest to people of high intelligence. That is actually something of a trope. The nature of the questions and why they are expected to know the answers matters a lot here.