Do you think snooker game requires lots of intelligents?

[mchpddl1]

Do you think better player has better intelligence?

[jrc750]

Do you think better player has better intelligence?

Maybe not, did you notice your spelling of intelligence in your thread title (intelligents)

[Bigmeek]

Look at Ronnie and you're question is answered

[noel]

Maybe not, did you notice your spelling of intelligence in your thread title (intelligents)

That's not a misspelling mate.
It's a creative hybrid union of:

intelli [ intelligent ] + gents [ gentleman ]

So saying... great snooker players have more imaginative and creative intelligence than this kind of player...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7QEU4GDrUk&NR=1


=o)

Noel

[Freddie Ng]

For me .. sometimes

[ore]

They say there are different kinds of intelligence...

[magicman]

There are definitely different kinds of intelligence. I discovered this when I was studying for my 'A' levels, and found some people in my year who'd had private education, had as many as 18 'O' levels. One girl who had 15 'O' levels had absolutely zero common sense at all. Academically bright, undoubtedly, but no 'street smart'. Another guy had 14 'O' levels but no 'emotional' intelligence, by which I mean, he had no empathy, no understanding.

[Nugget]

I agree about there being different types of intelligence. I think Bigmeek was having a bit of a dig at Ronnie, but when it comes to solving problems on a snooker table there is no one better. His ability to come to a table with colours out of play, reds in clusters or blocking other reds, and clear up where most would fail is (almost) as much about planning and shot selection as execution. You watch him doing this when he was younger and he would hardly pause for thought.

It could be that after seeing so many similar situations he chooses the best options instinctively, but not all players can do this quite so well - Willie Thorne loves to tell you when they don't! O'Sullivan may not be educated (how many top players are?) but I wouldn't say he's unintelligent.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...5927858479238#

The above link is to a documentary about a female chess Grandmaster which looks at how 'genius' can be manufactured under the proper circumstances. There may be some similarities between the way someone like O'Sullivan makes the correct decisions quickly and the way the chess player evaluates the best moves. In the documentary it's shown that the part of the brain normally reserved for recognising faces is being used for pattern-recognition in chess, enabling accurate decision making much faster than with a conscious evaluation process. Maybe a stretch but I think it could be accurate to an extent. Either way, it's worth watching.

[noel]

QUOTE=Nugget;481468]I agree about there being different types of intelligence. I think Bigmeek was having a bit of a dig at Ronnie, but when it comes to solving problems on a snooker table there is no one better. His ability to come to a table with colours out of play, reds in clusters or blocking other reds, and clear up where most would fail is (almost) as much about planning and shot selection as execution. You watch him doing this when he was younger and he would hardly pause for thought.

It could be that after seeing so many similar situations he chooses the best options instinctively, but not all players can do this quite so well - Willie Thorne loves to tell you when they don't! O'Sullivan may not be educated (how many top players are?) but I wouldn't say he's unintelligent.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...5927858479238#

The above link is to a documentary about a female chess Grandmaster which looks at how 'genius' can be manufactured under the proper circumstances. There may be some similarities between the way someone like O'Sullivan makes the correct decisions quickly and the way the chess player evaluates the best moves. In the documentary it's shown that the part of the brain normally reserved for recognising faces is being used for pattern-recognition in chess, enabling accurate decision making much faster than with a conscious evaluation process. Maybe a stretch but I think it could be accurate to an extent. Either way, it's worth watching.[/QUOTE]


Had to stop watching to say Thank You Nugget... this really is cool!
[ little bit too late for me I'm afraid but it's always good to have yet another reason to blame my parents ] *


Cheers!


=o)

Noel

* Joking!

[JayDee]

Nice video.

This might apply a little with Ronnie, or generals in the "art" of break building. Like chess, the pattern of the balls / positions are near infinitely large, but likely they have reduced patterns into sizeable chunks and recognise instantly a pattern they have worked with in the past. Ronnie would very much see a group of balls, get down on the shot without thinking probably he's already "guessed" the correct shots.

Maybe his ability to spot the next shot faster than the average pro is something that compliments the physical side of the game; he can maintain a fluid rhythm around the table, if he was pausing to think very often he might have a "hiccup" in his routine.

[Nugget]

Glad you liked the video, Noel!

Interesting point, JayDee. I remember watching a video of O'Sullivan's maximum in 1997 that he commentates with David Vine, David asks how many shots ahead he's thinking and he quickly describes the next four or five. He gives the impression that it's more instinctive than anything else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akZnBcnKU-Q

This is the longest I've ever seen him think about anything. A less familiar game, different patterns.

Getting back to the original post, I think it's too hard to define intelligence to say. I think O'Sullivan has a higher "snooker IQ" than most, but without the ability to execute the shots it would be worthless.

[mchpddl1]

Nugget i cannot agree with you anymore than that, this is the kind of intelligence on the table i am lacking, which means opportunity miss on the table. Able to see opportunity on table is something i am trying to improve ,

[1lawyer]

I think it helps more to be thick. Or maybe that is just because most pro's were down the club playing snooker instead of being in school.:snooker:

[heera2009]

I agree with nugget on having a higher snooker iq e.g ronnie, also a good eye, and some common sense, and the willingness to learn . A good example are boxers, some can barely read or write, but have a good package of the above mentioned.