Any others with high IQ suck at chess.

The OP has played only 7 games in 2-1/2 years on Chess.com?  What's up with that?

is that the best thing you can do in math ? what's up with that ?

The OP apparently has a made-to-order tutor at home.  His son.  A little sweat, and a touch of O.C.D. should do the trick.  So get with the program.    

The OP's son could tutor you too.  Your Live Chess needs work.

lol

some great respones here! ok, i'll come clean to the fact i've never finished a chess book i'd start. my son does study reguarly. i play exclusively somewhere else. bottom line is that i'm lazy when it comes to chess and just like to play bullet and blitz. truth is, i tell myself that laziness is the main reason i'm so bad. that if i really tried, i could get much better. but i'm starting to feel now that i'm so old that my chess progress would be very limited no matter how much i studied. i mean why try and "remove all doubt" kind of thing :)

My experience has demonstrated that a high I.Q. equates to not being very bright

Too true - the type of people who score highly on IQ tests tend to be the type of people who actually care about IQ tests.

I would have to agree with your harsh but true example. : )

This site has taught me that there is no correlation between intelligence and chess.

By the evidence of this site, there would seem to be a correlation between high IQ and inane posts, though.

Maybe your IQ is not as high as you think.

Its call tunnel vision where i come from. Not seeing what was, what is happening now. and what is to come. i notice that a move that was made 3 turns ago is affecting me now. and forces me into doing something that will help them in the turns ahead. ( playing against high ranking players). trying to unravel the linar path is a skill leant over time, but once done you can redirect there momentum into your favour. thats why i suck. still learning how.

this person hasn't been educated in terms of chess. don't ask me why because you won't get an answer, but I have spent some time reading all about chess, listening to what professionals say about this and that for a while now. I have come the to conclusion that there are a hell of a lot of misconceptions about chess. how exactly it is related to IQ is one of these. the first thing people need to understand is that internet blitz chess is not the chess played in real life in real tournaments. everyone have that down? seems obvious, but some people refuse to accept this as truth, equating the two as equals. in fact unless you have achieved master level, blitz is nothing more than a video game. there's a little more going on in a blitz game between masters, but even there "video game-esque" type factors come into play most of the time, but to a significantly lesser degree. the second thing, most everyone can achieve GM level with persistent dedicated training, but not everyone will able to acheive super-gm status of 2700 FIDE and above. the people that do are endowed with incredible visualization and spatial analytical abilites, I believe this is one type of intelligence of many. this being true, it is readily apparent that someone can have a high overall iq but only ever be a decent player and not a super gm.

another example. if chess were as closely linked to iq as some people think it to be, then it would follow that some student from an ivy league school who knows how the pieces move, knows what castling is and knows the importance of the center, but nothing else and hasn't spent any time doing tactics, playing or learning about strategic themes would be able to easily defeat someone who scored lower than them on iq and standardized tests but who has studied and played chess for a considerable amount of time and attained master or expert level. I don't think this would be the case, I think the master/expert, with the lower overall iq, would demolish the novice ivy leaguer just about every time, something like 9 of 10 even. unless the ivy league student just happened to be one of the relatively few people on earth who possess the extraordinary visualization and spatial analytical abilities that super-gms have but just never really got into chess for some reason or another.

and this has even been proven, in that many IMs and GMs have held simuls at top colleges, beating just about everyone. those kids attending highly selective schools aren't stupid, have very high iqs, but they still get smashed at these simuls. this simply wouldn't be the case if chess were as closely, inextricably linked to iq as some people suggest. obviously there is something else to it.

maybe some people don't want to hear it, but I actually think if you are learning chess and aren't progressing, getting close to master level and above after some time, then you are doing something wrong, not working hard enough, not taking your practice and studying seriously enough and lack a certain amount of one or all of the following, proper guidance, self discipline, and focus.

That's an absolutely absurd statement: "Most anyone can achieve GM level with persistent dedicated training?"  You do realize that there are around 1250 GMs in the world out of the 500 million people who play chess?  It's the rough equivalent of saying that anyone who trains hard at soccer will play for the World Cup.

no it isn't. and what you stated is not analgous to what I stated. the real reason there are relatively few official GMs is that first of all chess isn't as popular as soccer, second there is a whole involved lengthy bureaucratic process a person has to go through in order to attain an official FIDE GM title, not to mention traveling half way across the world most times in order to play in official FIDE GM norm tournaments. because of this it may seem absurd, but it is true. if someone spends all their time studying and playing chess with the proper guidance, focus and self discipline, money isn't a factor, there's nothing to distract them, then they will be able to obtain the GM title. of course people don't exist in luxurious bubbles, where they are completely isolated from the chaos of the world, well most people don't. what most people won't be able to become are super-GMs like carlson, aronian, kasparov, karpov, anand, ivanchuck, moro, radjabov, grischuck, nakamura and the rest.

omertatao, spend some time working with an "average" GM and see just how wrong you are.  Or, better yet, talk to an IM or an FM about how any average Joe could make GM if they cared.  Ignorance isn't really an excuse for what you're saying as knowing nothing about a field doesn't give you right of way to disparage it.  My only suggestion to you is to become a GM and then tell everyone else how easy it is.

yeah keep misconstruing what I am saying. and deliberately not responding to anything specific that I have stated. did I ever say it was "easy"? no, don't think I did. what I stated, which you completely ignored, was that it requires a lot of persistent hard work with proper guidance, focus and self discipline with money not being an object and there being no other distractions, not exactly the circumstances the average joe finds himself is it? and I have spoken to IMs and GMs about this and they confirmed what I am saying here. the truth is, most people don't/can't put in the hard work and time it requires to become a GM. it is attainable by most anyone, what isn't attainable by just anyone is carlson kasparov status. now go ahead and misinterpret everything I wrote while not responding directly to any of it.