Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Magnus Carlsen – “I am chaotic and lazy” (2010)

en.chessbase.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 92 posts

Re: Magnus Carlsen – “I am chaotic and lazy” (2010)

#81

Post by V-2 »

fenomas wrote: post #70
V-2 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being smart is one thing, but does intelligence account for his chess accomplishments? The urban legend of Kasparov's IQ being in the 190 range is still purported, but once he was actually examined (an initiative of "Der Spiegel" magazine) it turned out his IQ was 135 or so. This is highly intelligent, of course, but that's like 1 in 100 or 1 in 150, so people with higher IQ are still dime a dozen. Personally I'm of…

> Personally I'm of an opinion that IQ doesn't mean much Opinions certainly vary there! My first "real" programming job interview began with an IQ test, and passing it was basically what got me an offer. The company owner scored the test in front of me, and said "Not bad.. five points above the minimum I'd consider hiring for a developer position."

:)) The idea that there's some number that can be attributed to every person is surely appealing

Re: Magnus Carlsen – “I am chaotic and lazy” (2010)

#82

Post by BrianEatWorld »

fenomas wrote: post #70
V-2 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being smart is one thing, but does intelligence account for his chess accomplishments? The urban legend of Kasparov's IQ being in the 190 range is still purported, but once he was actually examined (an initiative of "Der Spiegel" magazine) it turned out his IQ was 135 or so. This is highly intelligent, of course, but that's like 1 in 100 or 1 in 150, so people with higher IQ are still dime a dozen. Personally I'm of…

> Personally I'm of an opinion that IQ doesn't mean much Opinions certainly vary there! My first "real" programming job interview began with an IQ test, and passing it was basically what got me an offer. The company owner scored the test in front of me, and said "Not bad.. five points above the minimum I'd consider hiring for a developer position."

Did you find that work environment to have been positively affected by the owner's strict standards for IQ?

I ask because I tend to agree with the OP. IQ tests assign points based on specific types of questions, which I'd argue aren't valuable in all circumstances. I think the point Magnus was making is that he doesn't think IQ is directly relevant to Chess, despite any correlation between those with high IQs and those who have been successful at the game.

I have worked with plenty of people with high IQs in academics and I can't imagine trying to work with them in an office. If anything, the job to which you are referring would have me worried due to such such strict adherence to an objective score that can fluctuate over time. Isn't five points right around the normal confidence interval for IQ tests?

Re: Magnus Carlsen – “I am chaotic and lazy” (2010)

#83

Post by taurath »

mcv wrote: post #48
sayemm wrote: post #5

Interesting how he says that extremely high IQ may even be a disadvantage: And that’s precisely what would be terrible. Of course it is important for a chess player to be able to concentrate well, but being too intelligent can also be a burden. It can get in your way. I am convinced that the reason the Englishman John Nunn never became world champion is that he is too clever for that. At the age of 15, Nunn started s…

I find it odd and funny that he considers a career in mathematics a distraction. He later says there's more in life than chess, but in this quote he doesn't seem to realize that. I doubt I'd want to be world champion if it required giving up all those "distractions".

If you're just talking about becoming a chess champion, it is.

Re: Magnus Carlsen – “I am chaotic and lazy” (2010)

#84

Post by sayemm »

mcv wrote: post #48
sayemm wrote: post #5

Interesting how he says that extremely high IQ may even be a disadvantage: And that’s precisely what would be terrible. Of course it is important for a chess player to be able to concentrate well, but being too intelligent can also be a burden. It can get in your way. I am convinced that the reason the Englishman John Nunn never became world champion is that he is too clever for that. At the age of 15, Nunn started s…

I find it odd and funny that he considers a career in mathematics a distraction. He later says there's more in life than chess, but in this quote he doesn't seem to realize that. I doubt I'd want to be world champion if it required giving up all those "distractions".

And when it really comes down to it, I'd argue that's the personal sacrifice that's required to become great at anything.

Just like PG says in The Anatomy of Determination - http://www.paulgraham.com/determination.html

Re: Magnus Carlsen – “I am chaotic and lazy” (2010)

#85

Post by innguest »

V-2 wrote: post #81
fenomas wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Personally I'm of an opinion that IQ doesn't mean much Opinions certainly vary there! My first "real" programming job interview began with an IQ test, and passing it was basically what got me an offer. The company owner scored the test in front of me, and said "Not bad.. five points above the minimum I'd consider hiring for a developer position."

:)) The idea that there's some number that can be attributed to every person is surely appealing

There are many numbers that we attribute to people: height, age, hours worked in a week, and so on. Why would intelligence be the one special thing that we can't measure?

Re: Magnus Carlsen – “I am chaotic and lazy” (2010)

#86

Post by czr80 »

innguest wrote: post #85
V-2 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

:)) The idea that there's some number that can be attributed to every person is surely appealing

There are many numbers that we attribute to people: height, age, hours worked in a week, and so on. Why would intelligence be the one special thing that we can't measure?

Indeed. Since we can so easily measure empathy, perseverance, innovativeness, drive and confidence (to name just a few more) with simple numerical scales, it does seem strange that intelligence is this weird exception. I blame political correctness myself.

Re: Magnus Carlsen – “I am chaotic and lazy” (2010)

#87

Post by dmurray »

baddox wrote: post #46
calvins wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ratings system in chess is what makes it easy to get a competitive game. You just have to play a handful of games in order to get a rating (whether in real-life tournaments or online), and then you know that playing somebody with a rating within 100 points of your own rating will usually result in a good game where both sides have chances to win and neither will consistently steamroll the other.

Is the ratings system really that useful even at lower levels? Is there not a lot of non-transitivity, where three players would consistently beat the next like A>B>C>A?

Not at all. I'd say it's practically impossible if you need each of those relationships to be a 70%+ favourite.

Re: Magnus Carlsen – “I am chaotic and lazy” (2010)

#88

Post by fenomas »

BrianEatWorld wrote: post #82
fenomas wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Personally I'm of an opinion that IQ doesn't mean much Opinions certainly vary there! My first "real" programming job interview began with an IQ test, and passing it was basically what got me an offer. The company owner scored the test in front of me, and said "Not bad.. five points above the minimum I'd consider hiring for a developer position."

Did you find that work environment to have been positively affected by the owner's strict standards for IQ? I ask because I tend to agree with the OP. IQ tests assign points based on specific types of questions, which I'd argue aren't valuable in all circumstances. I think the point Magnus was making is that he doesn't think IQ is directly relevant to Chess, despite any correlation between those with high IQs and tho…

It's a great question, but I can't answer it because I declined the offer. ;) My impression of the office was that it was being run like a fiefdom, and not a fiefdom I wanted to join - the IQ test was one of several things that gave me that idea. He seemed to have a lot of smart people in the office, but I can't imagine who was talking to the customers. (And if it was anyone I met, including the owner, then I can't imagine how they kept any customers..)

Re: Magnus Carlsen – “I am chaotic and lazy” (2010)

#89

Post by calvins »

baddox wrote: post #46
calvins wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ratings system in chess is what makes it easy to get a competitive game. You just have to play a handful of games in order to get a rating (whether in real-life tournaments or online), and then you know that playing somebody with a rating within 100 points of your own rating will usually result in a good game where both sides have chances to win and neither will consistently steamroll the other.

Is the ratings system really that useful even at lower levels? Is there not a lot of non-transitivity, where three players would consistently beat the next like A>B>C>A?

Yes, I agree with dmurray that it shouldn't happen consistently. I haven't seen it, and I've found the ratings system to work really well in practice. I'm roughly an intermediate level player, so can't speak to lower levels in particular, but I've never heard anybody complain about not being able to find competitive games against others with comparable ratings.

The only times that happens as far as I know are when the rating really doesn't reflect the current skill, which can happen over the board with juniors that are improving so quickly that their rating hasn't caught up yet, or people who haven't yet played enough games for the rating to be accurate (e.g., a brand new account on a site that starts with a rating of 1200, which is solved by not playing people who haven't played enough games yet).

Re: Magnus Carlsen – “I am chaotic and lazy” (2010)

#90

Post by V-2 »

innguest wrote: post #85
V-2 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

:)) The idea that there's some number that can be attributed to every person is surely appealing

There are many numbers that we attribute to people: height, age, hours worked in a week, and so on. Why would intelligence be the one special thing that we can't measure?

Because the abstract concept of "some inherent mind's ability to usefully process information", and an innate one, distinguished from the mind's acquired performance (which could be a result of training, education etc.) is much more complex than height or working hours.
Post reply on HN