Any others with high IQ suck at chess.

Well, you can study for an IQ test, but it only helps the score a little... you're not going to score an extra 15 points or anything.

So that's supposed to make the notion sound?!...lol

No, the whole idea is silliness :p  Not only IQ to chess relation but a test purportedly measuring intelligence itself

Yes, presumably the measurers would have to be the biggest geniuses of all! 

It is true that chess skill and intelligence are 2 different things.

Chess skill is chess skill.It has to do with a lot of random facts.The most important are:

1)Where did you born.

2)How much money your parents have.  

Kasparov wouldn't be Kasparov if he was born in Somalia from very poor parents.Kasparov is Kasparov because he started play chess at 3 , having the best trainers , a ton of books  and no need to work even one hour in his whole life.

    True , others had the same chance and Kasparov is only one but can anyone say that it is because he was the most intelligent?When he lost from Kramnik he was less intelligent than him?

    Chess , like it or not , is a sport.And as a sport the result is defined by a lot of outside  and "inside" factors.The most important quality of any Great chessplayer is his personality.The ability to stay calm no matter what happens in or out of the board .

    How many of us lost a game because we were dissapointed from a bad move weplayed and mistakes start to come one after another?How many times we couldn't play next day because of a bad defeat on a previous round.

   A tournament and a chess game is a hard psychology test drive.You need to stay untouched  by everything , totally calm and ready to find the best move even if your mother died. 

     That is why some really great players (like Efim Geller or Vassily Ivanchuk) never manage to be World Champions.Certainly not because they were less intelligent.

Any others suck at chess.. period?

Everybody sucks at chess. 

Except the Chess Champion. He was too good for this site.

Now we don't know where he is.

Your two most important choices in life --

• What country are you born in? 
• Who do you choose for your parents?

Choose poorly and you're screwed.  

I am tucked comfortably on the left tail of both bell curves.

Which was why he invented velcro.

Chess.com...best comment threads anywhere!

People with high IQ suck at everything, except IQ tests.

And amusing comments!

I have seen results from three IQ tests I have taken in my life.  Two were as teenagers, and the most recent was about 5 years ago, at age 45.  I have scored well on all of them. (Enough to put me in the top half of one percent of people who have taken the test.)  I have similar results on the GRE, SAT, and ACT back in the day.  I did well in school (as in High Honors from a top engineering college).  I routinely know the answers to about 90% of the questions on Jeopardy.

I suck at Chess.  Oh, sure, I can beat most people in the general population, but among people I play against in tournaments, I almost never win against anyone old enough to shave.  I'm hoping to someday have a 4th digit in my USCF rating, but so far, that has eluded me, and I have practiced it a fair amount, especially if you count online blitz here at Chess.com, and Tactics Trainer.

Until I took up Chess, I had never met an intellectual challenge that had bested me.  I don't know what it is about Chess, but I'm just not good at it.

Well, IQ tests focus on what I think of as "abstract intelligence" -- logic, algebra, precision (perhaps even fastidiousness). I'm good at that stuff (and that's because I focus on that stuff because I like it), but another thing people consider smart, engineering, I'm really bad at because I'm just plain bad with my hands! So I would be just as bad at building something as anybody! Personally, I think abstract intelligence is actually invaluable in chess; however, I also believe that it does not let you play chess well immediately; you will only play chess with lots, and lots, of discipline. You cannot play good chess unless you have a huge database of (well understood!) patterns.

It is what it is. People who do well with IQ tests have certain abstract skills that are strong, but of course, it can't be a true authority on intelligence because intelligence has so many different shades. With that said, this fact shouldn't be an excuse to claim yourself smarter than, let's say, Einstein because you could do certain worldly things better than he could. In other words, it would be merely a piece of evidence of your intelligence; not proof of it!

Tactical thinkers to me are kind of like those people who could memorize 8 million pointless numbers.

Strategical thinkers to me are like philosophers. When I compare pluses and minuses, I look at it as two conflicting philosophies: White's philosophy could be that his pressure on black's pawns ties him down. Black's philosophy could be that those pawns gain space and take away important squares from the enemy. To me, chess strategy is like logic combined with dreamy philosophy. It's quite abstract, because you can only make approximations of what your strategy will amount to.

this response to what I wrote is complete nonsense. 

the whole "it" vs "this" thing he goes on about? are you kidding me? 

he seems to not be able to tell when someone is being facetious...

"crumpet eater" was intended to point to how sometimes people of high economic and social class dismiss anyone who doesn't speak, dress, act how they do as not having anything relevant to say. like how the person criticized me for using the phrase "hell of a", as if anyone who uses such a "crude" wording obviously doesn't know what they are talking about and has nothing of importance to say. it's a prejudice many people have and I was pointing to it in a facetious manner was all. 

but for the most part, I have no idea what the person is talking about and I don't think anything he wrote makes any sense at all or even begins to respond to anything I wrote concerning chess. in any way. I guess that is what "trollin" means? just writing some nonsense to hopefully provoke some kind of reaction?

yeah, lets get real. what exactly do you have to do to obtain the "official" title of GM or IM? yeah that's right you have to travel to tournaments in far off places. what does that mean? time and money. enough reality for you or should I continue?

I stand by my claim that if time and money were not a factor and someone who possessed intelligence, but isn't necessarily a genuis, wanted to become a GM, did all the training, work, etc , they could do it. 

"we would be overun by GMs, FMs, IMs. lol."  yeah you would be if everyone cared about chess that much and time and money wasn't a factor. 

most people could become a GM under the right circumstances and conditions with time and money not being a factor. what most people wouldn't be able to do would be obtain top 100-500 in the world status (the exact numbers can be argued about), those people are people with, I think, incredible spatial/visualization intelligence, whatever that is, everything that goes on in a chess game must necessarily be filtered through a person's spatial/visualization analytical abilties. this is one type of intelligence. there are many.