Daniel M. just sent me this fascinating chess study. Enjoy!
Does Chess Need Intelligence? – A Study with Young Chess Players
Merim Bilalic and Peter McLeod
Oxford University
Fernand Gobet
Brunel University
Abstract
Although it is widely acknowledged that chess is the best example of an intellectual activity among games, evidence showing the association between any kind of intellectual ability and chess skill has been remarkably sparse. One of the reasons is that most of the studies
investigated only one factor (e.g., intelligence), neglecting other factors relevant for the acquisition of chess skill (e.g., amount of practice, years of experience). The present study investigated the chess skill of 57 young chess players using measures of intelligence (WISC
III), practice, and experience. Although practice had the most influence on chess skill, intelligence explained some variance even after the inclusion of practice. When an elite subsample of 23 children was tested, it turned out that intelligence was not a significant factor in chess skill, and that, if anything, it tended to correlate negatively with chess skill. This unexpected result is explained by a negative correlation between intelligence and practice in the elite subsample. The study demonstrates the dangers of focusing on a single factor in complex real-world situations where a number of closely interconnected factors operate.
Key words: Chess, Intelligence, Practice, Children, Verbal ability, Visuo-spatial ability, Speed of processing, Memory span.
It is widely acknowledged that chess is the king among (board) games. This special status is most likely a result of the intellectual aura which surrounds it (Holding, 1985; Newell, Shaw, & Simon, 1963). While in other competitive activities, especially traditional sporting
ones, people can always blame their failure on lack of luck or find a rationalization (e.g., so what if he can run faster than me – I can do many other things better than him), it is more difficult to come up with such excuses in chess. One has the same set of pieces as the opponent, luck does not play any role, and if one loses one can only blame oneself, one’s intellect, or lack thereof. Not being smart is more hurtful than not being able to run fast, as many chess players will testify. This notion is not only shared among lay people but also among some researchers – recently there has been a surge of research based, if not entirely then at least partly, on the assumed link between intelligence and chess (Howard, 1999; 2001; 2005a; 2005b; Irwing & Lynn, 2005). Given this common conception about the role of intelligence in chess, it is remarkable how unsuccessful the search for intellectual ingredients of chess skill has been. Despite being an apparently obvious example of a purely intellectual activity, for more than a century researchers have largely failed to connect success at chess with any intellectual ability (e.g., Binet, 1966/1893; Unterrainer, Kaller, Halsband, & Rahm, 2006).
In this study we present new empirical evidence that highlights the difficulty of relating intelligence to success at chess. We will firstly consider the sparse positive evidence for the influence of intelligence on chess skill. We will then describe the studies which failed to
uncover the often assumed link between intelligence and chess skill. Next, possible reasons for the lack of evidence for this influence will be considered and important trends that provide clues for solving the chess-intelligence paradox identified. Finally, we will present a study that addresses the problems and shortcomings of previous studies.
1. General intelligence and visuo-spatial abilities in chess – positive evidence
A common theoretical view is that besides general intelligence, chess requires a high level of visuo-spatial ability (e.g., Chase & Simon, 1973a; 1973b; Frydman & Lynn, 1992; Howard, 1999; 2005a; 2005b). Calculating variations/moves, that is imagining potential moves and representing future developments, has been thought to be one of, if not the main factor of chess skill (Aagard, 2004). Given that no external help is allowed, chess players need to do these transformations in their mind’s eye (Chase & Simon, 1973b). At first sight, these
transformations seem to resemble the popular mental rotation task (Shepard & Metzler, 1971) which taps visuo-spatial ability.
It is thus fitting that Frydman and Lynn (1992), who administered the WISC to 33 young elite Belgian chess players (mean age 11; the average rating was slightly below that of an average adult chess player; see the discussion of the Elite subsample in the Results section
for an explanation of the rating system in chess), found that the sample of talented chess players had above-average IQs (about 120) and their ‘Performance IQ’ (as measured by half of the subtests) was considerably higher than their verbal IQ (as measured by the other half of the subtests). The “stronger” players had higher performance IQ scores than the “weaker” ones, which led Frydman and Lynn to conclude that visuo-spatial abilities are essential for successful chess playing. Similarly, Horgan and Morgan (1990) demonstrated a relationship between intelligence as measured by Raven’s Progressive Matrices and improvement in chess skill. The 15 best players from the sample (performing roughly at the level of an average adult player) scored higher on the Raven’s Progressive Matrices than the average for children of their age. Stepwise regression analysis showed that 65% of variance on the current chess rating was explained by the rating in the previous year, 77% when the Raven’s test score was added to the regression, and 87% when the number of games played was added.
Here is the full study.
What do you think of this study?
This is a very fascinating research. Have they done any other work?
The result of the study suggests that chess skill is not related to intelligence but to practice.
Does anyone know of a contrary example, such as a strong player that did very little practice and relied on “natural ability” alone?
This idea would definately explain the success of the Polgar sisters considering the amount of practice they received as children.
Susan have either you or your sisters shown exceptional results in intelligence tests?
So what would be the profile we should be looking at kids to try to pick the best in a high performance training facility, for not wasting time with the ones with no natural gifts to develop later the skill through training?
I’ll admit I haven’t read the full study very carefully, but the authors attribute lack of association of skill and intelligence in adults to range restriction. This was my first suspicion on reading the excerpt. I can’t help wondering if it is true to a lesser extent of the juvenile sample, where an association was found. That is, would a greater association appear if the subjects had a wider range of intellectual abilities?
I think a good “work ethic” is something that nearly all champions have. Find children who enjoy the game and who like to practice a lot.
I think players need to work hard on their game and average intelligence.
Nice photography — that is one clearly focused image!
I think this writer is onto something. In other words, intelligence is a mere indicator among many.
However, the intelligence perspective by itself is still an important part in understanding chess better.
Because of that, the SPICE institute could build a “strategic chess” curriculum or similar course(s) that externally examines such perspectives in chess in detail, in order to hypothesize about.
A perspective is a limited view of a whole. For example, we can look at a firm from the financial perspective and it tells us something significant through the isolation of one thing in particular.
Likewise, the writer apprehends that there are more perspectives involved in properly describing the constitution of “chess intelligence”.
DILEMA
It explained also in other area that we need to start early. If you want to be an expert on one aspect nowadays (not like before), start early in your life! The competition is very hard.
Remember Tiger Wood? Polgar sisters? They start very early!
Even now in China there is Kindergarten pupils prepared for MBA.
But how about choice? I want my children choose their own sports and hobbies. By the time they can choose, it is too late for them to be an expert, for example to be a Chess world champion.
I want my children to be happy and they choose their own path of life, but I want them also to be very successful in something. Then it is not something that we could achieve.
Susan,
what do you think of this study?
I think the headline is misleading. In the study they say that the average IQ of the sample of 57 chess playing school children was 120. That’s clearly way above average, more than one SD. They go on to say that the average IQ of the subgroup of elite players was 130, and they admit that that is “impressive.”
Clearly, the vast majority of kids (and adults) who enjoy playing chess, and especially those who play in rated events have above average intelligence, as measured by IQ tests.
What they go on to say, which is probably lost on most casual readers, is that within the narrow range of the subgroup of elite players, higher IQ does not translate into higher ratings.
That makes perfect sense to me. There are different kinds of intelligence (Professor Gardner of Harvard U. has named 7) and standard IQ tests measure do not begin to measure most of them. There’s no reason to believe that the kind of mental abilities needed to excel at chess would be captured perfectly by a standard IQ test. A kid with an IQ of 120 could well have more “chess intelligence” (aptitude) than a kid with an IQ of 160.
The authors of the study also spend a lot of time talking about the amount of time spent studying and/or practicing the game. I believe it’s very often the case that kids with exceptionally high IQ’s (above 150) have a wide range of interests, and chess is likely to be just one of many. In other words, they may not spend a lot of time studying or practicing.
But a kid with a moderately high IQ who has a passion for the game, and who really hates to lose, (and who has a special aptitude for the game, albeit as yet unmeasurable) may excel at the game far and above many of his peers with ostensibly higher IQ’s.
-Eric
I only gave the study a cursory reading, but its results make pretty good sense to me.
Most mental activities require a mixture of raw, abstract problem solving ability (what psychologists call “fluid intelligence”) and knowledge and experience (often referred to as “crystallized intelligence”). Most IQ tests measure some mixture of these, though they tend to be biased toward the latter (they often focus on vocabulary, math skills, etc.). And no one really has a single IQ score. Your score will vary depend on the test you take — sometimes greatly — although good tests do tend to correlate with each other.
Chess is obviously a mental activity, so it fits the above pattern. A player needs a certain amount of fluid intelligence in order to profit from practice and succeed at solving unfamiliar, problematic situations that arise on the board. But practice is what develops “crystallized chess intelligence.” In the end, experience/practice counts for a great deal — more than anything else, according to the study — but enough brainpower is needed to profit from the experience in the first place.
The reason IQ and chess skill didn’t correlate among the elite players (while these did correlate across the total range of chess skill) may simply be that once you’re above a certain intelligence threshold, practice is essentially everything.
Thanks for sharing this informative article about iq. Also you can learn more about a young lady who has iq level 225 which is very much high. Vishalini iq level is recorded as a world record. You can also get more information about her while visiting this website. Also share some updated iq news in your website
Highest iq person in the world