Ah geez, I really don’t want to derail this, but Magnus Carlsen is not one of the “best minds of our generation”, he’s remarkably good at a game that rewards memory and pattern matching.
I don’t think even Magnus Carlsen thinks of himself in that way, no one in the chess world does, as far as I know.
Most serious chess players don’t make the mistake of thinking their skills translate very well.
Your argument just boils down to "I think not". Saying Magnus Carlsen doesnt have one of the best minds of this generation because he is "just" a chess player is like saying Erling Haaland is not one of the best athletes because he plays "soccer" not football.
If being the indisputable number 1 player for almost a decade and being in the conversation for being the GOAT of one of the oldest, most studied, more competitive mental sports in the world does not qualify you for that nothing does. I could hardly ever think of a better example.You can count PhDs in the hundred of thousands, SV engineers in the same range.There are 36 2700+ players in the world, there are 2 +2800 players.There has been only 1 WC in the last 7 years.
I have no idea also what you meant by "transferring skills" or do you think a a "genius" CS kid in Google can quit and tomorrow become a neurosurgeon? All people are specialists. Ironically is Magnum, again, who has demonstrated flexibility by topping Fantasy Football, a game played by millions.
It's you who doesn't seem to grasp anything about the world of chess. From the time commitment and skill needed to get to the very top (Some people has argued is equivalent to the effort of getting 2 PhDs)to the esteem and reputation they have in the society at large.People like Bobby Fischer, Gary Kasparov and Vladimir Kramnik, are considered veritable geniuses, in the same league of Fields Medals winners. Almost nobody in FAANGs is in that league.
Chess is not "just" memory and pattern matching (Although those are pretty impressive,many Nobel-worthy discoveries have been that),it is mental and physical stamina, imagination, ability to perform under heavy time pressure , creativity and almost all the qualities heavily linked to any intelectual work.
Like I said, I don't think it's productive to argue about this, I just think it's a trap to think of chess performance as any kind of leading indicator of general intellectual aptitude. The skills are simply not transferrable -- the things that make you good at chess don't make you good at thinking generically.
From the man himself:
"I’m not saying that I am totally stupid. But my success mainly has to do with the fact that I had the opportunity to learn more, more quickly. It has become easier to get hold of information. The players from the Soviet Union used to be at a huge advantage; in Moscow they had access to vast archives, with countless games carefully recorded on index cards. Nowadays anyone can buy this data on DVD for 150 euros; one disk holds 4.5 million games. There are also more books than there used to be. And then of course I started working with a computer earlier than Vladimir Kramnik or Viswanathan Anand."
I don’t think even Magnus Carlsen thinks of himself in that way, no one in the chess world does, as far as I know.
Most serious chess players don’t make the mistake of thinking their skills translate very well.