The Myth of Chess Genius

Chess is often seen as a game for geniuses, with its complex strategies and deep thinking required for success. However, this notion of chess as a game for geniuses is largely a myth. In reality, chess does not necessarily make you smart, and it is not naturally tailored in favor of smart people.

One reason for this myth is the psychological concept of the "sunk cost bias." This is the idea that we are more likely to continue investing time and effort into something we have already invested a lot of time and effort into, even if it is not benefiting us or bringing us enjoyment. For example, if someone has been studying chess for years and has achieved a high level of skill, they may be more likely to continue playing and studying the game because they have already put so much time and effort into it.

In addition, the concept of "deliberate practice" also plays a role in the myth of chess genius. Deliberate practice is the idea that, in order to excel at something, one must practice it repeatedly and specifically with the goal of improvement. While this is certainly true for chess, it is important to note that this type of practice is not exclusive to chess and can be applied to any activity or skill.

Another factor contributing to the myth of chess genius is the way the game is often portrayed in media and popular culture. Chess is frequently depicted as a game for intellectuals and geniuses, and this portrayal has likely contributed to the belief that one must be naturally intelligent to be successful at the game.

Despite the myth of chess genius, there are many examples of successful chess players who are not necessarily geniuses. Bobby Fischer, for example, was a world-renowned chess player who was known for his exceptional skill and strategic thinking. However, Fischer struggled with mental health issues and was not considered a genius in the traditional sense.

Additionally, research has shown that there is not a strong correlation between intelligence and chess ability. This also follows in the idea that Chess players naturally have a good memory for positions, yet studies have shown that the very same players (grandmasters and the like) who held these games in their head were often in possession of average or even a below-average general memory. A study conducted by Fernand Gobet and Guillermo Campitelli[1] found that while intelligence may play a role in chess ability, it is not the determining factor. In fact, the study found that certain personality traits, such as the ability to focus and concentrate, were more closely related to chess ability than intelligence.

While chess is certainly a challenging and strategic game, it is not necessarily a game for geniuses. The myth of chess genius is likely the result of psychological biases, media portrayal, and a misunderstanding of the role of deliberate practice in achieving success. Intelligence may play a role in chess ability, but it is not the determining factor.

1. The role of domain-specific practice, handedness, and starting age in chess. Memory & Cognition: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6598587_The_role_of_domain-specific_practice_handedness_and_starting_age_in_chess

TL;DR 

The myth that chess is a game for geniuses is perpetuated by psychological biases, media portrayal, and a misunderstanding of the role of deliberate practice in achieving success. Research has shown that there is not a strong correlation between intelligence and chess ability and that certain personality traits, such as focus and concentration, are more closely related to chess ability than intelligence. Successful chess players, like Bobby Fischer, may not necessarily be considered geniuses and intelligence is not the determining factor for success in the game.

Well, first it is important to know that just because activity X doesn't make you Y, doesn't mean that Y isn't important in X. After all, few people think that playing basketball will make you taller. 

Now, I do believe that sunk cost bias (scb) has less to do with how people view chess players in general and more to do with them viewing chess as a net positive activity, compared to other similar activities. Some part is scb, some is repeating same thing they heard from others and some because chess does make you smarter... just like any other similar activity which one take seriously would. 

Now regarding "genius", deliberate practice (always recommend Learning how to Learn course on coursera for free or just watch on youtube) and talent vs hard work. While many people do see famous chess player as extraordinary gifted in cognitive abilities like memory, planing or seeing patterns and try to apply it on a more general level, I doubt that many separate genius from hard work. The "Genius is 1% talent and 99% hard work" is pretty famous saying, after all. We could of course wonder how much one can change the personality traits one was born with but that is another topic.

You misunderstand the concept of deliberate practice. Try reading something by the scholar who developed the concept (K. Anders Ericsson) instead of reading journalists and others who mangle the concept.

I think OP copypastas but this was interesting nonetheless.

Just thinking about Naka for a second tells you all there is to know about top chess skill and intelligence.

Not really a hard concept at its core: find your specific weaknesses in performing a task( through a good feedback system, which you should have anyway) and then focus on doing and improving that subtask instead of the whole task.

Ex: If I play tennis match and see that my backhands are weak I should put more time on specific backhand training with machine and coach instead of just playing more games. 

Whether or not Fischer was a genius in the traditional sense, it certainly doesn't follow that his mental illness excluded him from that category.

"Fischer struggled with mental health issues and was not considered a genius in the traditional sense". 

I was intrigued by ur post until I read that part.  Then I stopped reading.  WTF? Fischer was absolutely considered a genius in the traditional sense. Hell, everyone knew if he decided to do anything else he would've been great at it, he just decided to play chess.  In fact, the most common time control is a Bobby Fischer invention.  The increment that is used worldwide was created by Fischer, he has a patent for the clock that allows for time to be added for each move. But even if he didn't play chess he'd be helping get us to Mars or trying to cure cancer or something.  Not a genius?  

"But even if he didn't play chess he'd be helping get us to Mars or trying to cure cancer or something"

 Lol? What makes you think he would have done something lke that? Or that he would have been  capable of excelling at those fields in the same manner as he did in chess?

 Without chess and no aim, probably never close to top of the world in anything else, it'd have been more likely that he would have ended as a pawn in an extreme right wing organisation, considering his rampant antisemitism. 

Liberals are always obsessed with bringing politics into everything. 

 Politics?

 It's common knowledge Fischer was a STRONG antisemite. Had he wandered around without aim, without chess, and coupled to his mental disorders, what do you think it's more likely? For him to end up in an extremist organisation and probably imprisoned on hate crimes, or curing cancer / flying us to Mars? 

Hate crimes?  Oh,  the concept of not treating everyone equal.   Got it.  What does his opinions have to do with his intellect?

interesting topic tbf

There is no evidence that he was and plenty of evidence that he was, at best, average. His several delusions and paranoias all stem from weakness in critical thinking. Yet, his chess showed that he was not wholly without such skills. Like most prodigies, his brilliance was domain specific. He excelled at chess.

No, hate crimes is not "not treating everyone equal". 

 Anyway his opinions and behaviour dont make him look very intellectual outside the realm of chess. Definitely not "taking people to Mars" material as you fantasize.

If you're really interested in psychoanalysing Bobby Fischer, this is not a bad place to start.

Very good video. 

Well, I wouldn't be analysing him, I'd be outsourcing that to Dr. Grande. 

I will come clean on this though: Bobby Fischer was a bad example. I like Fischer. Though I personally have met better examples in local and national tournaments, I could not for the life of me remember their names, and if I could I doubt you could find much if any info on them.