1. IQ tests typically measure a variety of cognitive abilities including logical reasoning, mathematical skills, spatial recognition, language comprehension, memory, and processing speed. All these skills are deliberately improved through chess training, which is essential for playing chess well. 2. Is it possible track individuals who are proficient at chess to see if their day-to-day work and life are more manageable than average, if they possess greater resilience, if their decision-making is superior, and if they have higher educational attainment
I'm a chess teacher to complete beginners and up to about 1200-1300 rating. Are there any particular encoding strategies or teaching methods youd particularly recommend? I'm currently encorporating variable priority training (rotating focus).
Hi, thanks for your videos on chess. Do you have anymore information on training? I feel like the section on it left a lot in the air. Since, wouldn't having chess skills mean you are more likely to participate in more tournaments? Studies on directly people learning chess might be interesting here. In particular, a controlled environment on the number of games played, or how they are practising. Do you know of any such studies? Also, do the studies you mentioned on IQ control for the influence of IQ and job choice? For example, most high IQ individual are probably not going to go into chess professionally, because they have much better job opportunities. Maybe you can make another video on the topic :). Chess is cool because I suspect it generalises to a lot of other disciplines. For example, Mozart was able to remember Miserere by Gregorio Allegri after only listening twice, with the second time only for corrections. A whole lot of chunking probably.
I've seen other commenters saying so on your other videos, and I would agree that the switching of angles is a bit disorienting. I would stick with the close shots.
Yeah, it was something I experimented with. But totally agree with you. I kind of like doing the b-roll better. I also probably did not change angles very effectively b/c I don't have much experience with editing.
Really interesting video, this was great! This made me curious to know what your thoughts are on the "too old to learn x" question. When it comes to learning new skills like chess or a musical instrument, there are always people saying "well if you're age x, it's too late for you to be great at this." I've always been curious if this is due to simply not enough time in the day for say a 20-year old beginner to catch up to a 5-year old beginner? Or are adults truly not able to reach a certain level beyond a certain age regardless of time spent in practice? Thanks again for all that you've done, really enjoying these!
This is a great question! You've put your thumb on two important explanations. I would say that both play a role in limiting the levels of performance that older people can achieve. Time is a huge factor. But brain changes also occur. How much of those changes are due to life-style and how much are "inevitable" developmental changes is somewhat murky (at least to me). But a lot depends on what we're area we're talking about. And, often, I think the "too old to do X" sentiment is overstated. If I started training to become a professional basketball player right now (at 40 years old), it's pretty obvious I wouldn't make it. And not just because I'm 5'4". Even people who have been training since they were kids age out of the profession by 40. It's reaction time, strength, speed, etc. If I were to start training now, it's also about fixing lots of bad habits - certain ways that my body moves, seeing the court, anticipating others' body movements. A tremendous amount of learned experience goes into people performing at the highest level. But what "great" means also changes over time. If the competition is weaker, then "greatness" is easier to achieve. Older brains have a key advantage, too: accumulated knowledge and experience. You won't become as good a celloist as Yo-Yo Ma if you started training right now. But you might develop the skill to quite a high level, gain a lot of enjoyment and pleasure out of that skill, and even make your own contribution to the music world.
@@benjaminkeep Thanks for the reply! I definitely have felt like I'm growing more in knowledge today in my mid-30's than I did in my admittedly unfocused teens and twenties. The studies I've seen all seem to indicate that it's all downhill from here, but I'm certainly hoping that's overstated. And I think that's an excellent point you hit on with defining what great is. In your basketball example, being able to go toe-to-toe with Steph Curry is likely out of range at this point, but improving your ball-handling, shooting and court vision to a level that makes you a key player on a rec league certainly seems reasonable. Or being Yo-Yo Ma is out of the question, but reaching a level that you can be a key member in a community orchestra is probably within the realm of possibility. Great insights, I really appreciate the time!
Nice content! How would you go about memorizing a lot of similar charts with similar content? An action leads to another state with a new set of charts. (I really want to become good at poker Texas hold em nl pre flop)
A domain-general ability is something that crosses domains (subjects). People used to think that if you were generically "smart" you would just be good at a lot of things. Some people argue that brain training helps you remember your grocery list and solve math problems and read more effectively. Or they argue that critical thinking is a generic ability (if you're a good critical thinker, that should help you in math, in history, in business, etc.). There are some things that cross (or "transfer") domains. Data visualization seems to be something that people can spontaneously transfer, for instance. But more often than not, skills do not "cross-over," even skills that you think would cross over. Domain-specific abilities are things that don't cross over. Learning how to check a carburetor on your car doesn't make you a better cook. That's what I mean when I say most of what makes up expertise is domain-specific - it's going to help you in that specific area, but not help you anywhere else (though there are some exceptions that are worth exploring).
@@benjaminkeep Would a high Level of creative thinking skill reduce the gap between domain-general and domain-specific abilities? Highly creative thinkers might know how to find connections from a specific skill unto the a more general skill; Therefore creating better analogies or utilisations onto a domain-general problem.
Glad I stumbled onto this channel when searching for deliberate practice and noticed you had a couple chess skill videos as well. Would you be interested in collaborating say an interview on my channel?
If 6% of the variation in skill is explained by key cognitive factors and 40% of the variation is explained by deliberate practice, what explains the remaining 54%?
Me who don't know about chess thing but with good intelligence and i play ludo its more fun and relaxing without any stress for win or complexity. Its depends on person if ur interested then good luck 🤞😉
Hello Benjamin, can you please do an analysis of Richard Haier's work? I've been paranoid on a daily basis because of how probabilistic he makes life outcomes appear from intelligence research. I don't think I have low intelligence, but I've been concerned whether or not I have the baseline to major in what I want. I need some encouragement, thank you.
@@benjaminkeep Looking forward to it. I must say Jordan Peterson also leans much towards biological determinism, and his videos on intelligence have not only made me paranoid but other people as well. I recall reading a post from a former physics major on a forum recently. Like myself, the physics major also expressed fear from Peterson's rhetoric. I can only imagine how many other people it's affecting.
You're not becoming a Grandmaster without being very smart in some way. Simple as that. All the excellent chess players I knew were smart people, most very smart. It is not true that most smart people will be good chess players but all excellent chess players with longevity are very smart and most like have IQs above the normal. It's a cultural myth that "normal" people can excel at chess at the world class level. They might appear normal but excel in something like spatial reasoning. This myth is highlighted by looking at the Polgar sisters as the common myth is that their father wanted to prove that all it takes is training to make children exceptional at something. Unfortunately, what is left out of the story is Susan has an IQ of 175 and Judit around 170. They are geniuses and smarter than a few billion people on the planet. Vishwand Anand's IQ is estimated around 180. Carlsen's around 190-200. Bobby Fischer around 180. Even a "lower" scoring Kasparov scored 135 (above gifted) but with an exceptional memory and an astounding ability to calculate in his head. None of them are average across the board.
@@AJoaquin305 lol yes, i agree fully. I was just pointing out that most GMs are high IQ and that to become a GM your IQ has to be significantly higher than the general population. To be one of the best it is almost a mandatory requirement unless there is some special ability (e.g. working memory) that you posses.
I disagree learning chess will make you smarter then if you didn’t learn chess very simple logic learning anything will make you smarter then not learning it
No there are no innate differences between individuals and we could all be rock stars, Nobel prize winners and tech billionaires if we wanted it badly enough. Your explanation fails to convince.
There are innate differences, the best of us know how to work around them. And yes, working hard will make things go better in anything. Hard work is running in the race, natural aptitude is like a headstart, you can still beat those with headstarts, you just gotta run faster.
That is absurdly incorrect. If everybody was a tech billionaire, who would manufacture the product? Clean the buildings? Run a restaurant? If everyone is one thing, that leaves no one to do the other things.
Just Google it, there are studies. As he said, it only accounts for a very small percentage of the variance between chess players. Hikaru Nakamura (3rd in the world in classical) has an IQ of 102 (average). IQ tests mostly measure how good you are at IQ tests, they're not a particularly reliable indicator of intelligence broadly.
All this bullshit Just to say that there's no correlation with IQ and the game of chest itself. But Rather self-discipline, Experience, lifestyle and adaptability.... you really don't have to complicate things, just say that.😂😂😂😂
This is such a wild question. 1. Computers play chess. Better than any person that has ever lived or ever will live. Your Smart Phone can beat Magnus Carlsen. 2. Humans do a bunch of things that only humans do, but aren’t correlated with IQ…
If a gorilla was given opposable thumbs it could eventually learn with time. But even with differences in iq, even the less intelligent of us is much smarter than the average monkey or canine.
@@PNL1992Yeah,but who created the computers,Einstein? It still being exclusively correlated to humans anyways,even if you consider that a computer can play chess,who programmed the computer to have the ability of playing chess?
@@oreidaazenha23 computers, the best ones, are all self taught. And to say “a computer was made by a person, so a people are still smarter” is such a dumb statement.
1. IQ tests typically measure a variety of cognitive abilities including logical reasoning, mathematical skills, spatial recognition, language comprehension, memory, and processing speed. All these skills are deliberately improved through chess training, which is essential for playing chess well.
2. Is it possible track individuals who are proficient at chess to see if their day-to-day work and life are more manageable than average, if they possess greater resilience, if their decision-making is superior, and if they have higher educational attainment
either his house is abnormally big, or he's really small
He is sitting
How you noticed that
@@fauzanazima-yq3gj Magic
His body is 99% legs prob
You must be really good at chess
This video has a 'No sh!t, Sherlock' level of 5000. "How you train is going to play a large role in how good you get."
Yeah, I bet this dude is 200 elo as well 😂
Your videos are fantastic !!
Dude plzzzz make a lot of videos maaaaaaaaaaakkkeeeeee
Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeessssssssssssssssssss!
Thanks
Tus vídeos son muy buenos!
Muchas gracias!
I'm a chess teacher to complete beginners and up to about 1200-1300 rating. Are there any particular encoding strategies or teaching methods youd particularly recommend? I'm currently encorporating variable priority training (rotating focus).
1200 is beginner???
I'm 400 and I thought I'm really good at chess😂😂😂😂
@@Sarahalani you misunderstood them lol, they said the people they teach range from beginners to people at that rating
@@Sarahalanilol noob
Hi, thanks for your videos on chess.
Do you have anymore information on training? I feel like the section on it left a lot in the air. Since, wouldn't having chess skills mean you are more likely to participate in more tournaments?
Studies on directly people learning chess might be interesting here. In particular, a controlled environment on the number of games played, or how they are practising. Do you know of any such studies?
Also, do the studies you mentioned on IQ control for the influence of IQ and job choice? For example, most high IQ individual are probably not going to go into chess professionally, because they have much better job opportunities.
Maybe you can make another video on the topic :). Chess is cool because I suspect it generalises to a lot of other disciplines. For example, Mozart was able to remember Miserere by Gregorio Allegri after only listening twice, with the second time only for corrections. A whole lot of chunking probably.
Thanks for making this video it's just what I was looking for :-)
Thanke
I've seen other commenters saying so on your other videos, and I would agree that the switching of angles is a bit disorienting. I would stick with the close shots.
Yeah, it was something I experimented with. But totally agree with you. I kind of like doing the b-roll better. I also probably did not change angles very effectively b/c I don't have much experience with editing.
Chess increases tactical and strategic thinking 😮
Nah, it's more domain-specific (fancy termin from comment below)
Also analytical and logical skills, calculation and memory too
Really interesting video, this was great!
This made me curious to know what your thoughts are on the "too old to learn x" question. When it comes to learning new skills like chess or a musical instrument, there are always people saying "well if you're age x, it's too late for you to be great at this." I've always been curious if this is due to simply not enough time in the day for say a 20-year old beginner to catch up to a 5-year old beginner? Or are adults truly not able to reach a certain level beyond a certain age regardless of time spent in practice?
Thanks again for all that you've done, really enjoying these!
This is a great question! You've put your thumb on two important explanations. I would say that both play a role in limiting the levels of performance that older people can achieve. Time is a huge factor. But brain changes also occur. How much of those changes are due to life-style and how much are "inevitable" developmental changes is somewhat murky (at least to me).
But a lot depends on what we're area we're talking about. And, often, I think the "too old to do X" sentiment is overstated.
If I started training to become a professional basketball player right now (at 40 years old), it's pretty obvious I wouldn't make it. And not just because I'm 5'4". Even people who have been training since they were kids age out of the profession by 40. It's reaction time, strength, speed, etc. If I were to start training now, it's also about fixing lots of bad habits - certain ways that my body moves, seeing the court, anticipating others' body movements. A tremendous amount of learned experience goes into people performing at the highest level.
But what "great" means also changes over time. If the competition is weaker, then "greatness" is easier to achieve.
Older brains have a key advantage, too: accumulated knowledge and experience. You won't become as good a celloist as Yo-Yo Ma if you started training right now. But you might develop the skill to quite a high level, gain a lot of enjoyment and pleasure out of that skill, and even make your own contribution to the music world.
@@benjaminkeep Thanks for the reply! I definitely have felt like I'm growing more in knowledge today in my mid-30's than I did in my admittedly unfocused teens and twenties. The studies I've seen all seem to indicate that it's all downhill from here, but I'm certainly hoping that's overstated.
And I think that's an excellent point you hit on with defining what great is. In your basketball example, being able to go toe-to-toe with Steph Curry is likely out of range at this point, but improving your ball-handling, shooting and court vision to a level that makes you a key player on a rec league certainly seems reasonable. Or being Yo-Yo Ma is out of the question, but reaching a level that you can be a key member in a community orchestra is probably within the realm of possibility.
Great insights, I really appreciate the time!
Nice content! How would you go about memorizing a lot of similar charts with similar content? An action leads to another state with a new set of charts. (I really want to become good at poker Texas hold em nl pre flop)
I play poker too actually and I'm interested in the same topic. There's so much to remember.
What's the difference between domain-general abilities and domain-specific abilities ??
A domain-general ability is something that crosses domains (subjects). People used to think that if you were generically "smart" you would just be good at a lot of things. Some people argue that brain training helps you remember your grocery list and solve math problems and read more effectively. Or they argue that critical thinking is a generic ability (if you're a good critical thinker, that should help you in math, in history, in business, etc.). There are some things that cross (or "transfer") domains. Data visualization seems to be something that people can spontaneously transfer, for instance. But more often than not, skills do not "cross-over," even skills that you think would cross over.
Domain-specific abilities are things that don't cross over. Learning how to check a carburetor on your car doesn't make you a better cook. That's what I mean when I say most of what makes up expertise is domain-specific - it's going to help you in that specific area, but not help you anywhere else (though there are some exceptions that are worth exploring).
@@benjaminkeep Would a high Level of creative thinking skill reduce the gap between domain-general and domain-specific abilities?
Highly creative thinkers might know how to find connections from a specific skill unto the a more general skill; Therefore creating better analogies or utilisations onto a domain-general problem.
He protected he’s camera with another camera as it he was protecting a peace’s
Glad I stumbled onto this channel when searching for deliberate practice and noticed you had a couple chess skill videos as well. Would you be interested in collaborating say an interview on my channel?
Great collaborating. For those reading, the video is here: th-cam.com/video/pIE5hD09yi4/w-d-xo.html
If 6% of the variation in skill is explained by key cognitive factors and 40% of the variation is explained by deliberate practice, what explains the remaining 54%?
Unknown factors essentially
Peanut butter.
The checkmate duh
Adaptability, that's what it comes down to.😂
Me who don't know about chess thing but with good intelligence and i play ludo its more fun and relaxing without any stress for win or complexity. Its depends on person if ur interested then good luck 🤞😉
Hello Benjamin, can you please do an analysis of Richard Haier's work? I've been paranoid on a daily basis because of how probabilistic he makes life outcomes appear from intelligence research. I don't think I have low intelligence, but I've been concerned whether or not I have the baseline to major in what I want. I need some encouragement, thank you.
I've been planning a longer video on IQ. Probably won't be out for a little while, but it is in the works!
@@benjaminkeep Looking forward to it. I must say Jordan Peterson also leans much towards biological determinism, and his videos on intelligence have not only made me paranoid but other people as well. I recall reading a post from a former physics major on a forum recently. Like myself, the physics major also expressed fear from Peterson's rhetoric. I can only imagine how many other people it's affecting.
Chess is passe, computers can beat humans, switch to a better risklike game, battle for wesnoth 😅
Chess isn't a risklik, nothing is chance based in chess. Nobody cares if computers beat humans when the entire point is beating another human.
just don't tell him computers can beat humans in literally every skill-based game with strictly defined rules xD
Hi where is part 1 or 2?
You're not becoming a Grandmaster without being very smart in some way. Simple as that. All the excellent chess players I knew were smart people, most very smart. It is not true that most smart people will be good chess players but all excellent chess players with longevity are very smart and most like have IQs above the normal. It's a cultural myth that "normal" people can excel at chess at the world class level. They might appear normal but excel in something like spatial reasoning. This myth is highlighted by looking at the Polgar sisters as the common myth is that their father wanted to prove that all it takes is training to make children exceptional at something. Unfortunately, what is left out of the story is Susan has an IQ of 175 and Judit around 170. They are geniuses and smarter than a few billion people on the planet. Vishwand Anand's IQ is estimated around 180. Carlsen's around 190-200. Bobby Fischer around 180. Even a "lower" scoring Kasparov scored 135 (above gifted) but with an exceptional memory and an astounding ability to calculate in his head. None of them are average across the board.
Learning chess just makes you learn how to play chess better, it doesn't magically make you smarter, lol
@@AJoaquin305 lol yes, i agree fully. I was just pointing out that most GMs are high IQ and that to become a GM your IQ has to be significantly higher than the general population. To be one of the best it is almost a mandatory requirement unless there is some special ability (e.g. working memory) that you posses.
I disagree learning chess will make you smarter then if you didn’t learn chess very simple logic learning anything will make you smarter then not learning it
Learning chess just makes you play chess better, it doesn't magically make somebody smarter, lol
@@AJoaquin305, I agree it's supremely overrated
No there are no innate differences between individuals and we could all be rock stars, Nobel prize winners and tech billionaires if we wanted it badly enough. Your explanation fails to convince.
There are innate differences, the best of us know how to work around them. And yes, working hard will make things go better in anything. Hard work is running in the race, natural aptitude is like a headstart, you can still beat those with headstarts, you just gotta run faster.
In respect to your examples I would argue that who you know is far more indicative of attaining those goals than what you know.
That is absurdly incorrect. If everybody was a tech billionaire, who would manufacture the product? Clean the buildings? Run a restaurant? If everyone is one thing, that leaves no one to do the other things.
Nope. Innate factors are there
Where is the proof that chess players have an higher IQ than the average? We need proof.
Just Google it, there are studies. As he said, it only accounts for a very small percentage of the variance between chess players. Hikaru Nakamura (3rd in the world in classical) has an IQ of 102 (average). IQ tests mostly measure how good you are at IQ tests, they're not a particularly reliable indicator of intelligence broadly.
IAM dealing with ADHD can chess reduce the symptoms????¿?¿??¿?¿??¿???¿????¿?
Sorry, I am not the right person to ask. If you've gotten a professional diagnosis, I would ask your doctor or psychiatrist.
All this bullshit
Just to say that there's no correlation with IQ and the game of chest itself. But Rather self-discipline, Experience, lifestyle and adaptability.... you really don't have to complicate things, just say that.😂😂😂😂
I mean... if chess skill isn't correlated with IQ, how come only humans can play chess?
This is such a wild question.
1. Computers play chess. Better than any person that has ever lived or ever will live. Your Smart Phone can beat Magnus Carlsen.
2. Humans do a bunch of things that only humans do, but aren’t correlated with IQ…
If a gorilla was given opposable thumbs it could eventually learn with time. But even with differences in iq, even the less intelligent of us is much smarter than the average monkey or canine.
@@PNL1992Yeah,but who created the computers,Einstein? It still being exclusively correlated to humans anyways,even if you consider that a computer can play chess,who programmed the computer to have the ability of playing chess?
@@oreidaazenha23 computers, the best ones, are all self taught.
And to say “a computer was made by a person, so a people are still smarter” is such a dumb statement.
Lol, I agree with the previous guy about how wild this question is.