Math Wolf made a great point regarding effort I think, which is probably overlooked somewhat.

I know I could do much better with increased effort, especially on picks. I never spend more than five minutes on them (attention span). I know that is quite low from a recent thread.

Dude... did you srsly just now like... roast yourself?

No, but you made a lame attempt to roast me. You left out:

But for most people, it's likely a combination of the two.

One is never a good judge of their own intelligence. Idiots don't realize they are idiots. But based on numerous objective factors such as standardized tests, education etc, I'm quite certain I am of at least above average intelligence. As I'm sure many that play this game are. It's not a game dumb people would likely enjoy.

Edited 4/29/2016 13:17:13

I'm quite certain I am of at least above average intelligence. As I'm sure many that play this game are. It's not a game dumb people would likely enjoy.

That's an interesting point. I wonder what's the average IQ of the WL community?

The vast majority of people would consider themselves of above average intelligence.

My IQ is at least like 3

Eh... I'd give you more of a 2, maybe a 2 and a half on a good day.

Intelligence is the obvious answer otherwise anybody could top the ranks, but its actually most of the time the same players (ladders, coin games, tourneys, ...).
Plus intelligence lets you apply whatever you learnt on training to its optimal way, possibly even better way than the way you were trained.
Intelligence also helps in adapting to new situations, when training gives tips for rather known situations.

Training will only get you so far.. Just like Mike said, intelligence helps you apply whatever you learn in training in an optimal way.. But, training is still needed. If you know how to do something but have never done it before then you will most likely not be the best at it.. For instance, you can learn all you want about Poker but until you play it a lot you will not be that good at it.

I think it helps to have a mathematical background. People like Odin or Giant Frog are a really good example of what I expect of a potential top player. In my opinion some experience in game theory might help with giving you a good perspective to start with, after that it's mostly practise with/against best players. I'd say it is still 90% your own analysis, I think objectivity and constantly eliminating blunders is the best way to improve.

I think it has been mentioned already, but my two things that make someone good:

BEANCOUNTING
and
EFFORT

In other news, Semice have been corrupted by my mind.

Does humility get its own category? :p

(but seriously most players that are not at the top have no reason to take their own skills seriously *ahem*, and most of the time ppl shouldnt blame luck for their loss)

I wonder what's the average IQ of the WL community?

No idea about the community as a whole really, but for top players, I'm claiming it's probably around 120.

As a reference, I'm doing a PhD in Statistical Data-Analysis and I feel that most top players are (on average) of a somewhat similar intelligence as me (again as a reference: I don't know and don't care about my own IQ, but based on my background and what I'm able and not able to do, it should be somewhere in the 120-150 range). I don't know people close enough to really guess at an individual level, but based on technical discussions with some of them, I'm pretty sure 130+ is probably not exceptional.

A higher IQ doesn't necessarily make you a better player. People with extremely high IQ's are often autistic and will not be able to always understand other player's style or thought processes, especially when radically different from theirs and lose games by simply optimizing their own tactic, but not taking into account the variability that an opponent may display.

Also note that IQ is an artificial construct trying to measure something that is not easily measured. As with so many things, it's not only how large it is that matters, but especially how you use it. Someone can be very intelligent and still behave like a moron while someone of average intelligence can really seem more intelligent by using his/her capacities to the fullest.

Thanks for your input on this thread Math Wolf.

A higher IQ doesn't necessarily make you a better player. People with extremely high IQ's are often autistic and will not be able to always understand other player's style or thought processes, especially when radically different from theirs and lose games by simply optimizing their own tactic, but not taking into account the variability that an opponent may display.

This is a great point. I see this behavior exactly displayed with my daughter. She is in a gifted program and has had her IQ tested twice as part of the admission process. We have been told it is somewhere around 145 to 160 (they give you a range at her age since the tests they give to children are different and are a less precise metric when it comes to outliers).

I am teaching her chess. I am an above average chess player but certainly no Kasparov. She shows flashes of brilliance in her strategy, but will often lose by failing to adapt to changing tactics or gets so lost in what *she* is trying to do, gets blind sided by an alternate and sometimes inferior strategy.

What counts as effort (in terms of time)? An average of 5 minutes per turn? 10 minutes? 30 minutes?

For the top 10%, the most important factor is training/diligence. If you look at the people at the top of the ladder, you'll find a lot who've played 3000+ games. It's not unheard of to find people who've played more than that. It's rare to find someone in the top 50 (who's not an alt) with less than 1000 games.

I'd give creativity a spot as well, at least 10%. There's only so much you can learn from other people.

@ Mike: cool example! I had similar experiences with classmates (math students) and a little myself, but your story really summarizes it very nicely. :-) Good luck to your daughter, may she become a grandmaster one day.

@ Jz: I'm not so sure about that, but I'll admit that I may be biased. I was top 50 in the ladder when I had barely touched a 100 games and top 10 before I had 500 and I'm certainly not alone there. I think the fact that ladders are available for non-members, who need hundreds of games (or a few lottery games) to be allowed to play, probably skews the results.

Intelligence and learning is different.

With learning, you can can find a few case scenarios.


Vivacité (quick-thinking) of the spirit is a thing like in team sports.

In a game with a person of average intelligence and high experience vs. a person of high intelligence and average experience, I think intelligence usually wins. Low intelligence and average experience vs. average intelligence and low experience might be a different matter; but since you're asking about top players, I think the deciding factor is probably intelligence most of the time.

Effort (or bean counting) is also very important, and probably a more difficult question; but the OP wasn't asking about that. :)