Does chess serve as a gauge of intellectual prowess?

It's a complicated cycle.. But I think being work ethic is the main point of this whole thing..

Many people fall in to a cycle of love/obsession/inner passion for things like music, art, science, sports, chess... These things are hobbies for some and they can become an all consuming thing where you just want to do only that one thing for some period of your life... For me that thing is music and chess is a hobby I picked up at age 28ish...

Anyways I think it's not a question of intelligence but the capacity for work you can enjoy putting in and that dosen't feel like work but like you are doing what you like doing, and you can do it for many hours on end...

Those who were mature enough to reach this level of seriousness and passion, combined with work ethic, at early age become prodigies (in chess, music, math, anything)

So it's all about how early you mature in to having an obsession towards something... This correlates with intelligence as others have said, often those who are mentally advanced at a young age, or are different in some way or another due to life circumstances, backround, or other things-- have some social oddities and this thing becomes their source of happiness... To the point that they put in insane amounts of work and they enjoy the process and people are like how but they just do...

But my opinion is that everyone has this inside of them to some degree... Like some people will look at my 20,000 online blitz games and say "you're insane, that's alottt", and to me it's like "yeah that's litterally worthless I was just having fun, I only played 1000 rapid games which is nothing... some people put in more hours on classical chess and tactics so they actually become good"... so it's all relative... but I'm still much more "effortlessly hard working" than some of my friends who are 600-1200... I'd they are more intellegent than me though... I'm just more obsessed... which is maybe a bit stupid in some ways

Not at all,

I don't think skills from chess can be transferred

You need muscles to lift weights and you also need things like bones. Does that make the idea that you need muscles wrong?

Prodigies are those children who show an unusual aptitude for something and so are encouraged and trained in that field. No one knows the way it occurs; probably the way their neural pathways developed are unusually well-suited for the thought processes inherent in the understanding of the subject. Five-year-old Aram Khachaturian had just started piano lessons when he displayed the ability to play a piece he had just heard and compose some variations on it. There are rare individuals like this that just seem to pick up math or music or chess "at first glance".

As for work (even if it is fun for someone) being the key, remember that chess prodigies Capablanca and Spassky both admitted to being lazy and not bothering to study the game much. And there are people who can solve difficult, multi-step math exercises in their head faster than they can be typed into a calculator. No amount of work will give most mathematicians the ability to do this.

I'm not saying dedication and work are not helpful, but they don't provide the total explanation.

No, but that doesn't mean that it is the total and unique factor that will yield a definitive correspondence. Of course in the case of something as simple as lifting weights it is more important (and obvious) than in an endeavor such as chess that requires a wider range of talents

Fair enough.. the reason we are all here right now is some kind of obsession/passion for chess.. to the extent we are enjoying just talking about it.. maybe the "born this way" thing is right... In regards to Capa and what you describe I could compare to Arthur Rubinstein who was always saying how he loved to eat choclate and cherries while practicing and he wouldn't practice alot.. he even went to Juliard where everyone practices 8h a day and told them more than 3 is too much in a lecture he gave..

But his point I agree with, the amount of work is not what makes or breaks.. but the quality.. like what Rubinstein could go through and the types of exercises and deconstructions he did in 3 h + the other 16h a day in which he was thinking mostly about music was more than enough..

I see what you're arguing but the question was "Does chess serve as a gauge of intellectual prowess?"

It isn't asking whether it's the only gauge of it. I don't know about weightlifting ... I was exceptionally strong as a child and teenager yet when I was 17 I could only lift 140 pounds over my head and I had friends my age who could lift 160, although they probably worked out to increase their muscle mass. I wanted to remain attractive to the opposite sex and most women I knew found overly muscular people somewhat repulsive. I do think there's technique in lifting weights.

Now I'm 72 I use 70 pound weights multiple lifts. Sometimes 300 in a day. That doesn't need any technique.

It's probably the ease and quickness of understanding that makes the difference. When Menahem Pressler (pianist and leader of the Beaux Arts Trio) came to the theater where I worked he would come in in the morning to our piano storage room and practice 2-3 hours, then the other two would come in in the afternoon and they would practice 2-3 hours, then they would perform that evening. A lot of work for a 60-70 year old man who had been a child prodigy and played these pieces all his life. On the other hand, Mozart was a notorious party animal who could dash off a brilliant composition upon receipt of a commission, never even needing to revise his work.

As you say you are a musician, you know some people have a "tin ear" and could slave away for years with little result.

I hope it has generous cost-of-living increases, considering current inflation in the UK.

I'm just noting that with chess also requiring visualizational prowess, great memory--particularly visual memory, the ability to concentrate at maximum intensity for long periods, calm under stress, and more for high-level success, the single quality of intellect will be an inadequate predictor of chess strength.

I have one pension that is a static amount, one with a fixed % annual raise, one (Social Security) that has a raise set annually to reflect current inflation, two annuities that will change slightly depending on the rise/fall of the value of the securities backing them, and an IRA whose minimum annual distribution was determined when I turned 72 1/2 and will last as long as the stocks keep/gain/lose value (and I don't drain it by taking out excess funds). Glad to hear you are well set.

Well, I must say, your pension seems to have hit the gym more often than I have! It must be quite the heavyweight champion in your bank account. Don't forget to share some of those ££££ gains with your friends who are still struggling with their piggy banks at the local playground.

Oh, so you're saying the safe has developed a case of insomnia? Maybe it's just worried about missing out on all the fun nighttime adventures! It's time to call in a locksmith or a sleep therapist to help your safe find some much-needed rest. Who knew safes could be so high maintenance?

Simply, no.

Please see the endless chess and IQ threads. Look for the few posts that deal with data, rather than the opinions of the poorly informed.

I hope not

Chess challenges the mind, requiring strategy, foresight, and problem-solving skills. While it showcases certain cognitive abilities, its intellectual prowess is multi-dimensional, extending beyond just one game.