Chess is a Repetitive game that does not require high intelligence

Hey! Don't get me wrong, people. I just read, copied and pasted this comment from one of the FICS (free internet chess server)

I just want to see your "violent" reactions, if any. (lol)

"GuestXSYG(U)(53): nope. chess is a repetitive game that does not require high intelligence"

I would guess that rather depends on the standard of players/game that you're talking about. Certainly, unintelligent people can play the game badly and repetitively, never learning from their mistakes.

You do need a good head to play chess though

Yes, this is true. Tatics anyone?

i believe you can develop a feeling for it. you don't have to be intelligent, though it comes in handy. Repetative, let's hope so, it is how you learn. Of course to a certain amount repetative.
generally I agree, but more as in:
High intelligence is not necessary to become a strong player, and by trial and error you'll learn what works best.
At some point you'd really have to start thinking though

 Sweet! That means I have a chance at mastery b4 alzheimers takes me

I just think that the key of this game is tactic, which i believe you can develop better when more intelegence.

Although trail and error and hardcore reptition works you will not become as strong as a player in as short amount of time then a person of higher intelegence.

I would also like to add that the sheer amount of variations and diffrent moves in this game is what makes it such a good game , even when played a millions times over.

It goes with out doubt that chess is the game of gods.

even though i am a biggener ;)

 Let's sentence this guy to thousands of games vs. Anand or other top player and watch him get trounced, repetitavely.

He may be correct in a small way. For example, we have all heard of a few savants who are geniuses at chess but cannot even use the bathroom on their own.

But there are too many variations of games to reduce it to a repetative game, as a whole.

Am I the only one that recognizes this as most likely being sarcasm?

I don't think so, it's a discussion that's been on for a while, but I generally agree intelligence is highly overrated. Therefore HIGH intelligence is not necessary at all

edit: I dont think you are the only one, but I also dont think it is meant as sarcasm

To some extent it is repetitive  at least the opening is. Once you memorize a set of moves it becomes easy to avoid or deliver a postion that will put you in the advantage for the middle game. There are certain principles in the middle game that are repetiive.

Yes chess is repetive but the game is really about predicitng your opponent and then responding in ways that will lead to a victory and that requires intelligence.

@bastiaan

Admittedly, it's hard to be sure without the rest of the original conversation. What led me to think it was sarcasm was the wording of the sentence. Structurally, it mimics the oft asserted notion that 'Chess is a game of infinite variety for the intellectually driven' or some other similar variant, while its content is exactly the opposite: a mechanism associated with sarcasm. Of course, you could also be right. He may really be making that assertion with all sincerity.

After the opening, positions are always different, so it's certainly not repetative.  If Chess is repetative then show me two identical games that are over 50 moves long.  The point is that every game I have ever played has been very different to all the others, repetative, I think not!

It's also nonsense to suggest that Chess doesn't require intelligence.  Intelligence is EXACTLY what Chess requires.  The ability to accurately analyse positions and variations (tactics) IS intelligence, and is the single most important ability that a strong Chess player must have.

It sounds to me like this guy is just either 1: teasing people into a response or 2: too stupid to learn how to play Chess.

What is the intelligence to which you refer?  Emotional?  Physical?  Mathematical? 

An 8 year old may be able to crush me at chess, but can the 8 year old drive a car?  Calculate net present value of an investment?  Name the capitals of all 50 states?  Write a 50,000 word novel in 30 days?  Design, build and wire a house?  Synthesize a drug from crystals grown in zero gravity and cure baldness?

Who cares what is takes to play chess?  Those of us who aspire to play and enjoy it will do our best to improve. 

When I played OTB a lot, I knew a senior master who was one of the stupidest men I've ever known.  He held a long string of minimum wage jobs and was always broke.  I also knew a successful doctor who was a career 1400 player.

We also know there are some GMs who are multi-talented individuals (Fine was a renowned psychiatrist; Lasker held a PhD in mathematics; Taimanov was a concert pianist), and others (no names required) who seemed to be stricly one-trick ponies.

As someone pointed out, what "intelligence" are you talking about here?

Like most things in life, I prefer to think that there are some things we have a talent for and some things we simply don't.

Ma'am! I would not dare to provoke a kebab-attack!

LOLZ, well, if it doesn't require good intelligence, I can teach a monkey to win against you~ depends on the time it will take~

You get what I mean~?

I don't want to be offensive but sometimes, some people are good at tactics, but for people with a slower mine, they just think slower and have harder time on understanding things (like some people in my math class). Yes chess doesn't require much intelligence but they will need the intelligence to understand this game~

     It's true, a well trained monkey could play.

               if it's IQ is 140+

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_O09lH9e0g&feature=channel_page

a video done in the spirit of your comment

that might be true but to be very good, intelligence is required.