An idiot (assuming he wasn't immensely idiotic) slowly following the paper-printed instructions to execute the program that constitutes the 'Deep Blue' chess computer program could, eventually, beat any chess player in the world. Of course, one must discard the time rules of chess for this, but my example shows that intelligence, here, is a matter of computing speed rather than anything abstract.
The timing element seems to be a key part in IQ tests. I say this partly because of the IQ tests I've taken, I ran out of time twice, only completing a third test when I realised that I had to simply do it quickly. Oddly, there seems to be a trade off; that the optimum is to complete the test a few seconds before time runs out. This very trade off indicates the highly subjective measurements made in IQ tests.
The word intelligence is loaded with human prejudice. We assume that the intelligent people are better people without really knowing what intelligence is. For me, intelligence is imagination, the ability to foresee and predict, but if this is combined with speed, then, as my trade-off inference indicates you can see that the further one must be able to see, the better or more distant the prediction, the more time the computation will take.
Intelligence seems to be an abstracted layer of life, an alternative to physical prowess, which humans can use to battle other humans; as in chess; but chess as a game has stark limits. Poker is perhaps more interesting because it involves much more subtle and complex judgements of an opponent. Can a game be designed that really pits one human against another? Perhaps the answer to that question is the origin of most animals' mating rituals.
