Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Chess and IQ Relationship


  • 8 months ago · Quote · #21

    Twinchicky

    http://www.jlevitt.dircon.co.uk/iq.htm

    Also take a look at this... The chess IQ formula is an ELO formula based on your IQ, not a different number:

    Elo ~ (10 * IQ) + 1000

    Where the symbol ~ means "Given years of hard work and effort". ~ could also be replaced witgh ≤.

    That puts most people at a potential of 2000, and me at a potential 2400 IM... although I doubt I'll ever reach 2200.

  • 8 months ago · Quote · #22

    ChezBoy

    I dont have a low IQ....Tongue Out

  • 8 months ago · Quote · #23

    ElTerremoto

    btickler wrote:

    By definition, talent is not taught, it is inherent in the individual.  

    This is talent only in a mythical sense.  There are not talents that aren't evolutionarily driven "inherent" in anybody.

  • 8 months ago · Quote · #24

    btickler

    ElTerremoto wrote:
    btickler wrote:

    By definition, talent is not taught, it is inherent in the individual.  

    This is talent only in a mythical sense.  There are not talents that aren't evolutionarily driven "inherent" in anybody.

    I didn't say whether the concept was a good one or not ;).  Nevertheless, that is part of the definition.

    As for the juggling argument...the "natural talent" would be superior finger dexterity, or balance, or what have you...and yes, someone born with stubby short fingers or a misshapen inner ear (enough to affect balance) would be "lacking in natural talent" for juggling.

    And as for the retort about Flowers for Algernon being <1% "true"...it doesn't matter one iota what real world examples you choose to quote later:  using a fictional short story that contains not a lick of science in it (I know the story quite well) and then trying to prop up a scientific argument with it is ludicrous.  You might as well say that the great wall of china predates the pyramids because the opening song of the Big Bang Theory implies it ;)...

  • 8 months ago · Quote · #25

    ifoody

    Anyway, it works opposite, IQ defenitly help in being a good chess player. Just as an example, judit polgar's IQ is 170, Bobby Fischer has an IQ of 180, and kasparov has an IQ of 190.

  • 8 months ago · Quote · #26

    small_potato

    ifoody wrote:

    Anyway, it works opposite, IQ defenitly help in being a good chess player. Just as an example, judit polgar's IQ is 170, Bobby Fischer has an IQ of 180, and kasparov has an IQ of 190.

    Those IQ figures are total rubbish. I suspect they were posted once on some random blog and copied across the internet as they seem to be quoted everywhere. Kasparovs IQ was measured to be about 135, which is good but not exceptional. There's probably a loose correlation between IQ and chess ability but memory is more important than IQ when in comes to playing chess.

  • 8 months ago · Quote · #27

    btickler

    tigerprowl wrote:

    "the "natural talent" would be superior finger dexterity, or balance, or what have you"

     

    That is not jugggling.  There is no way to know what you are labeling until someone actually does it.  When they do, then you can label it "juggling".  Then you can judge people based on what that "Jesus" figure did way back when. 


    Until YOU the person puts manmade labels on some act, it is NOTHING.  It is not superior, it holds no aura. Another person can use a different technique.  Why couldn't that make them more talented?

     

    "using a fictional short story that contains not a lick of science in it (I know the story quite well) and then trying to prop up a scientific argument with it is ludicrous"

     

    If 1 premise is faulty, it doesn't mean the other is faulty.  I can see you are set in your "theist" mindtrap.  There is ONLY 1 way to do something, only one supernatural being.  If person A achieves task 1, then anybody that is different from this person afterwards must be labeled not talented.  After all, there is no science that can explain why we hold forks differently.

    Ok, so by your logic, a 5' tall man and 7' tall man both have the same potential to play basketball well.  After all, height is not the equivalent of basketball, and by extension has no effect on basketball.  Gotcha.

    As for the "thiest" baloney...I have not said or even implied a word about thiesm.  Find another straw man...

  • 8 months ago · Quote · #28

    LuftWaffles

    tigerprowl wrote:

    In application, chess and listening to music forces a person to wait and absorb what they are doing.  Any activity which accomplishes this makes a person think again without reacting on impulse.  That is what separates the social classes. 

     

    Good luck to those who want to argue with this guy. Certainly not my cup of tea, so I stopped reading after that.

  • 8 months ago · Quote · #29

    ThomasGRobinson

    I don't think you can correlate IQ with someone precisely. I think you can say those who have high IQ scores usually perform better in everything than average people. I don't know if you can say this specific IQ score will mean you can reach this exact mile stone.

  • 8 months ago · Quote · #30

    ebillgo

    I heard from a source that Garry Kasparov has an IQ of 190.

  • 8 months ago · Quote · #31

    sirrichardburton

    The original purpose of I.Q. tests were to determine if (and to what extent) a person might be lacking in intelligence compared to an average person. Using it for any other purpose is seen by many experts as nonsense. I remember a case where two young children were adopted by an expert in this field. Although I.Q. are suppose to stay relatively stable over one's lifetime he tutored them where they were able to test an I.Q. highly above what they first tested.

  • 8 months ago · Quote · #32

    LuftWaffles

    ThomasGRobinson wrote:

    I don't think you can correlate IQ with someone precisely. I think you can say those who have high IQ scores usually perform better in everything than average people. I don't know if you can say this specific IQ score will mean you can reach this exact mile stone.

    I think that in life, in general it's more important to what degree you apply yourself, than how smart you are. A lot of really smart people are also lazy.

  • 8 months ago · Quote · #33

    newplayer10101

    Whats with Tigerprowl writing persuasive essays in every post? Anyway, I think chess helps IQ very little, however, it does slow down the deterioration of the brain that comes with age immensly! 

    I agree with LuftWaffles, there was a guy who went to Harvard at 12, and after a legal entanglement, he finished his degree and performed menial tasks for the rest of his life.

  • 8 months ago · Quote · #34

    mmuurrii

    "there was a guy who went to Harvard at 12, and after a legal entanglement, he finished his degree and performed menial tasks for the rest of his life."     

    Waffles..... the above stated facts should resolve any questions regarding this matter?

    i rest my case, and will now crawl back under my rock.

  • 8 months ago · Quote · #35

    temetvince

    IQ can change. The brain is not static; it has neuroplasticity. Yes, IQ can be improved. Just playing a game of chess here or there isn't going to do much for you though.

  • 8 months ago · Quote · #36

    ebillgo

    In a recently released study about nature vs nurture, it is pointed out that nature( innate abilities ) accounts for 58% of the disparity of the subjects involved while nurture ( upbringing ) accounts for 29%. The study thus provides some concrete ideas about to what extent native intelligence and diligence complement each other. The report  deserves more careful reading .

    As to the relationship between playing chess and improving IQ, I think playing chess only improves one's visual - spatial intelligence. I very much doubt if it also leads to better Maths skill in general.

  • 8 months ago · Quote · #37

    iMacChess

    Isaac Asimov was probably one of the smartest people alive at his time and yet he sucked at chess...

  • 8 months ago · Quote · #38

    temetvince

    iMacChess wrote:

    Isaac Asimov was probably one of the smartest people alive at his time and yet he sucked it chess...

    That is the saddest thing I've heard all day. Poor, poor Asimov.

  • 8 months ago · Quote · #39

    iMacChess

    Yeah, Isaac Asimov talks about it (Chess) in one of his books I believe the title is "I Asimov". It's a real good book but then of course all his books are good...

  • 8 months ago · Quote · #40

    enjaytee

    ebillgo wrote:

    In a recently released study about nature vs nurture, it is pointed out that nature( innate abilities ) accounts for 58% of the disparity of the subjects involved while nurture ( upbringing ) accounts for 29%. The study thus provides some concrete ideas about to what extent native intelligence and diligence complement each other. The report  deserves more careful reading .

    I agree, it needs more careful reading. It seems, nobody understands these studies at all. Read the mismeasure of man, by Stephen Jay Gould. An old book, but still, sadly (since it should have cleared this nonsense up decades ago), relevant. And anything by Lewontin. Then re-read the study, whatever it was. 

    oh, and what accounts for the remaining 23%? 


Back to Top

Post your reply: