my original name was BeeRainDone.

I couldn't think of a good one and all of the run of the mill names were taken....

i wasnt looking at the list of "banned" for cheating folks. geez. i must have seen at least 2000 names. They apparently have a very effective way of catching cheaters. Its everyday. Good job Chess,com. What was this thread about again? oh yeah, im a genius.... thanx. I know. I know. Oh stop. I know. Yeah. Oh stop. Im not that smart. Oh. youre smart too. Ok stop... 

I'm sorry... I was watching tv, did you say something?

haha. what? so, when u are playing online games try playing upside down, from the other persons point of view. its kinda weird. then watch the game after when ur pieces are on the bottom. its kind of a cool way to see the game literally from a different perspective...

I used to read the newspaper upside down for the hell of it....

good job. now we are talkin intelligence. haha.....

The IQ of GM's have been studied with respect to their chess skill. The first paper on this appeared in 1927. In that paper, Djakow and his associates tested grandmasters, including several world champions and some of the elite players of the day, they found no difference between the highly talented group and a control group of adult non-chess players. 

The relationship between chess and visual-spatial intelligence has been tested and there is no correllation.

Chess players, including grandmasters, have been parts of studies using the Guilford-Zimmerman Spatial Visualization Subtest, the Berlin Structural Model of Intelligence, The Shape Memory MV-1 Test, the Intelligenz-Stuktur-Test 2000 R, the Raven Progressive Matrices, Digit Span Task, the Corsi block-tapping test, the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (among child GMs), and none of them found a correllation between mental capacity and chess ability. 

There is 90 years of research on this. 

There is no correllation between IQ and chess ability in the chess playing population. 

Indeed, identifying why there is no relationship between general IQ and chess ability has become a really interesting area of investigation for that reason, and has contributed significantly to the current body of theory around what components make for expertise (chunking theory, template theory, apperception-restructuring theory, long term working memory, and so forth) and how those elements are created in individuals with normal IQs.

The big differentiators for chess ability is the amount of deliberate practice alone. But that is still only moderately associated with chess skill even when a number of other factors, such as practice with others, competative games played, and the number of chess books owned were entered into a regression analysis. 

What's really fascinating is that Ward, Hodges, Williams and Starkes did a review in literature across domains, and using the same criteria, the same level of correllation holds for other sports and activities as well. 

One possible explanation for why intelligence isn't related to chess ability may have to do with selective drop-out. That is, the population of active tournament chess players' intelligence distribution has already been accounted for in the sample because only those people whose intellictual abilities put them in the range of players likely to be successful tournament players remain tournament players, all others having given up the game, thus giving researchers access to only a restricted range. 

But that explanation seems to be lacking as Bilalic, Gruber and others have found that the correllation between chess skill and intelligence in children is slightly negative!! The smarter kids tend not to practice as hard or as long, and thus their skills quickly drop behind the less intelligent peers! 

Great post @Kingpatzer.

You prove (yet again) that chess players are clearly Smarter Than the Average Bear.

Despite your herculean efforts, that bias is likely to remain a constant in these endless threads on chess and intelligence, however construed.

Thanks for all your good work.  Is anyone listening?  Q.E.D.   

how about poker?

I would say intuiton, luck and control over ones outward appearance of thoughts and feelings is more important than intelligence in poker. One of the most important assets to have to give you the edge in poker is, no fear of losing. You can bluff indifinitely....and a bad hand and bet won't show outwardly...

@KingPatzer "The big differentiators for chess ability is the amount of deliberate practice alone."

Certainly chess success couldn't be THAT easy!! :)

Most likely there is a cutoff at some 110-130 IQ, where if you have more then this it will be of little significnce, but if you have less you will probably not reach the highest levels. The proof of this is, Kasparov had IQ 135, and can anyone name a rated 2400+ player with less then 120 IQ?

In poker luck only is a factor in the short run. Intuition is what?

In poker on the internet you cannot bluff via how you look.

Very good math ability helps in poker.  Also, you must be able to

memorize every card played that you can see.

Also perserverance is very important and by that I mean being sharp on every hand for a long period of time.

I used to win a lot of $ at online poker but then when my ability to stay very alert waned so did my winnings until I started only breaking even and then quit the game.

solitary practice is correlated with chess success!

Does that make chess the solitary vice? 

If I play chess too often daily will I go blind or grow hair on my palms?

If I play chess too often daily will I go blind or grow hair on my palms?

Yes, you'll go blind and grow hair on your palms, but you'll be good at chess!

I was only referring to poker in person, I wouldn't waste my time playing online...I would trust an money exchanges, especially in any amount worth playing for...the lack of being able to study your opponent, in a sense makes it a different game from the game that was invented for which the need of a "poker face" arose...

I think your statement is accurate. It takes intelligence to play intelligently, but it only takes you so far because of the huge need for memorization and experience. They simplify the need for the intelligence it would require of a less experienced person, in order to draw the right conclusions in a given situation.

BTW, if you think intuition is luck or chance, that is completely wrong. We can sit and debate it's origins, but I'll go with my intuition on this one, that it won't reach an answer that satisfies us both...

Intuition comes from experience.

At any rate whether IQ is correlated or not it's worthless if it isn't utilized correctly.