Is Chess the true battle of intelligence? Do smarter people always defeat stupid people in Chess, or are there exceptions to the rule? Lol.

Smart and smarter people tend to trip over themselves because they think way too far ahead and can’t plan accordingly when it comes to immediate matters.

So no. Chess isn’t the Decider.

>>95894663 (OP)
The deciding factor in chess is how much chess each player has played. A very experienced (and/or book-learned) chess playing midwit will reliably stomp a genius who's never played before.

Chess is about training and playing first and foremost. Memorization. Real war is not like chess. It’s a board game.

I view chess like a test of knowledge. The more knowledgeable and better memory you have, the better your chances at winning.

One may think, wouldn't intelligence help you make better moves? Yes. It does, but the intelligent move you are making has been done so many times by others. It's at the point where experience surpasses any intelligent move you may be thinking of making.

Think about those speed chess, there's no time to sit down and analyse every move. It's a test of experience, knowledge, memory and the best players know the optimal moves at any given time because it has been played so many times.

>>95894663 (OP)
I could probably beat a newbie at chess, and I am very very stupid. So no.

>>95894663 (OP)
Chess is no more a mark of intellect than a Rubik's Cube. Both are just about memorizing combinations, starting conditions, and ending conditions.

>>95894663 (OP)
No, because a 50 year old grandmaster gets stomped by some random 9 year old every now and then

>>95894722
>and I am very very stupid
Cute

>>95894663 (OP)
No, because it's about as close to a perfectly balanced game as one can get. The true test of intelligence are games that are asymmetrical. If you can still find a way to win when you are the one at a significant disadvantage, then you're probably a pretty intelligent person. Conversely, if you're the one with the advantage and you still end up losing, that's a pretty good indicator that you're a retard.

>>95894717
>>95894725
this is a common missconseption while memory is important in chess at amateur level it's more about patter recognition that raw memorization, there is still a lot doing it well also requires room for creativity, strategic thinking, visualization skills(even strongish intermediate club players can sometimes play blindfolded for example)and brainpower to calculate moves
this "chess is all memorization" hyperbole stems for the absolute top players complaining about how much they have to prepare openings but that's not really a big issue for 99.999999 of amateur players, most know a couple opening semi decently for each color and that's it
>>95894704
this is true but it also applies to most games and sports anyway

>>95894717
>>95894725
this is a common missconseption while memory is important in chess but at amateur level it's more about patter recognition that raw memorization
doing it well still requires room for creativity, strategic thinking, visualization skills(even strongish intermediate club players can sometimes play blindfolded for example)and brainpower to calculate moves
this "chess is all memorization" hyperbole stems for the absolute top players complaining about how much they have to prepare openings but that's not really a big issue for 99.999999 of amateur players, most know a couple opening semi decently for each color and that's it
>>95894704
this is true but it also applies to most games and sports anyway

>>95894663 (OP)
>Do smarter people always defeat stupid people in chess?

No. Being good at chess just means you are good at chess. You might be a massive retard by every other metric.

This addresses on of the biggest problems I have with chess though. Chess has a pretty horrendous ratio of dickheads to common folk compared to most other games I have played.

>>95895468
>Chess has a pretty horrendous ratio of dickheads to common folk compared to most other games I have played.

I think the issue is that midwits can get really, really good at chess if they put in the hours. So it can help them feel superior to people who are objectively smarter than them, or people who spent their time mastering something more useful. When all chess mastery really gets you is the ability to beat other people at chess. It doesn't translate into any other skills or abilities. So if you were a midwit who spent all that time working on your rating, your rating becomes your personality simply due to the sunk cost of it.

>>95894725
Came here to post exactly this: Both of them have a reputation for making people look smart, or that being good at them is a sign of very high IQ, but that's just genuinely not true.