neneko, I wrote an earlier post that I certainly don't expect you to have read prior to your comment.  Essentially it says there is no consensus on what IQ is.  If you don't know what intelligence is, you can't measure it.  A test measuring IQ only measures how well you do on that particular test.  We're agreed on #1.

#'s 2 & 3.  Bangs head against wall.  Yes!  IQ tests have standard deviations built in, which is why it makes little sense to compare the absolute numerical scores of two different tests when you do not have their standard deviations.

I chose top 1% for IQ 190 for one test and top 0.00001% for IQ 135 for another to demonstrate the statistical meaning behind standard deviations.  The %'s are not used for accuracy, they are used to make a point.

The hundreds of IQ tests available have different standard deviations.  If I were to look for the % of the population with an IQ of 190, I would find hundreds of %'s.  So, please, may I just use 1% as an easy, round number to clarify a point?

Considering the examinations consist mainly of pattern recognition and verbal aptitude (whose causality may be that of pattern recognition itself), both of which have been recognized as factors in chess proficiency, there is indeed to be observed a correlation between IQ and chess aptitude, and consensus on what IQ is. IQ is arguable on the grounds that it does not accurately measure a person's true intelligence, or potential intelligence (I quoth Alfred Binet: "The scale, properly speaking, does not permit the measure of the intelligence, because intellectual qualities are not superposable, and therefore cannot be measured as linear surfaces are measured”). Thus, IQ is a concrete measure of something, yet it is only that "something" that is debatable and not IQ itself. On the base (and what some might interpret as base) axiom that pattern recognition figures weightily in both matters of chess and heretofore mentioned indefinite articles, IQ can be accepted as a general measure of one's chess potential. (Anyone equating their IQ with their current ratings has misconstrued the question.)

P.S.

I wonder what Kasparov would make of this discussion, since we are discussing the intellect of one who may be a member of this site. Anyways, the Weinstein/Einstein dispute is irrelevant.

ok now..i looked at the formula..and if i did not miss a word or smth...ur rating is

(IQ-100)X10

so,someone with a rating of 900 would have an IQ of 190!Isnt that stupid?!?!?!

Thank you LisaV, Locke and a number of others who actually understand what the question is asking. As Neneko is a highly-rated player from Sweden he is excused for totally misunderstanding the question, and totally misunderstanding my attitude to 'pattern recognition' [PR]in chess. [My understanding of Swedish  = 0 ]PR obviously has a large part to play in quickly spotting tactics. The idea that chess is 99% tactics was originally just a way of expressing the idea that without tactical ability, a person cannot play a decent game of chess. However, there are many areas of intelligence called upon to play high level chess, not just 'PR' as some would have us believe.

More review! I originally wrote... 

Does anyone have information about any direct correlation between rating and general intelligence? I vaguely recall Britisg G.M Jonathan Levitt putting forward the notion that an I.Q of 120 indicates a person could, with sufficient work achieve a rating roughly = 2000 + [I.Q - 100] x 10

Someone above couldn't even get the formula right, but bothered to contribute?! I was never talking about players with ratings < 2000! Such people, according to the formula are either of below average intelligence, or have not fully applied themselves to the task of improvement. I have no doubt that everyone using this site has at least average intelligence. However, many people here seem to have high Ego-Quotients and appear to become defensive about their lack of rating points and immediately jump to the conclusion that the original question is obviously flawed.

Thank you all :-)

I think a bunch of self congratulatory GMish players got together, and published their formula here....

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

Arogant bunch is my verdict.   I wonder if someone really did have a very high IQ - doubtless they'd play reasonably well - but would they really dedicate their time and effort to it?

I think those that are really good  - I mean the true elite - are generally driven, obsessive people, who need to prove their intelegence in a combative way, (hence vastly more male top players) which suggests to me they are fundamentally insecure.  I recognise some of that motivation in myself, but I like to play, and don't mind loosing, but I'm certainly not going to spend ages going through games, and reading opening theory - it's just a passtime / game after all.

LisaV, Did you completely ignore what I wrote or just misunderstand on purpose? What I was complaining on wasn't that you used exactly 1%, it was that your point is wrong. The standard deviations are already counted into a real IQ test (not one of the silly online quizes). It is already calculated into the result for a reason, so that you can compare the score of two different tests. Wich means that you're not going to score 135 IQ on one test and 190 on another. The IQ-scale is a way to score how well a person do on the test compared to other people in the same group wich means that it is impossible for 1% of a test group to score 190 on a test since the definition of 190 on the IQ-scale is that you score among the top 0,001% (not sure about the exact number). So what you are saying is that 1% of the people doing a certain test might score among the top 0,001% of the people doing the test, I hope you realise how silly that sounds. Just read up on what a IQ test is and you'll see my point. Also some people claim that IQ relates to intelligence some claim it doesn't, either way that's beyond the scope of a IQ test so saying that IQ tests are flawed because they might not really measure intelligence is like saying that turtles are worthless because they can't climb trees.

MrWizard, I like your attitude, everyone that disagree with you are not understanding you. That's quite some ego you got there, you know there is a possibility that people might understand your point but still disagree with you. For the pattern recognition you've claimed in several posts that it relates to memory and that's simply wrong. I guess you didn't bother to look up what it is after all. Also it's funny that you can see that I misunderstood your original question from my post seeing as I didn't touch that subject. I just tried to correct you on your ideas of pattern recognition since you seem to think pattern recognition equals memorized patterns.

neneko, you are assuming real IQ tests have the same standard deviation.  They don't.  Hence the explanation with *exaggerated* numbers to clarify the point.

Are we understood now?

I can understand your being put off by Mr. Wizard's attitude toward you.  I can also understand taking him to task for doing so.  Can I, however, gently suggest that you reread the first sentence of your post and keep it in mind while you reread what you wrote to Mr. Wizard?

Have their been studies on correlation between tennis ability and I.Q. (sp. women's tennis - or else factoring for speed [of serve etc] ? I mean the part which is not speed needs significant intelligence, I think.

btw I do *not* believe I. Q. has a high correlation with intelligence. I do not try to quantify intelligence, so this statement as it stands is perhaps not statistically refutable or confirmable - but maybe it is - you ask the person's peers how intelligent they consider the person to be, on a scale of 1 to 10. Tell the peers before polling that you are not talking about I. Q. - they should interpret intelligence as they see it [eg when they use the term *intelligent* in "s/he is quite intelligent"].

LisaV, What you're thinking about is the spread of the devation. There are two that's actually used. This wouldn't motivate a change from 135 on one test to 190 on another and it doesn't in any way make every unique IQ test uncomparable.

As for Mr Wizards posts. Maybe you should look back at his older posts before you comment (same for mr wizard himself since he seems to have forgotten what he wrote).

and finally for everyone that feel the need to tell 'their' IQ in this thread. The average IQ in threads like these usually land on around 150-180, but pleae keep it up.

CowboyNoel wrote: My 2cents     I have heard of studies where verbal ability correlated better with the ability to play chess well. 
You sayin cuz I aint no english major I can't play chess no how neither?  ;)

Interesting thought.  I can see some analogies now that you mention it.  There is nearly an infinite variety of word sequences that might be used.  There's sort of a tactical and strategic nature to composition.  There's also the ideas of efficiency and tempo. 

I think the question generally of what tallents and skills apply well to chess is an interesting one.  (I understand, the OP was asking specifically about IQ.)

I think that given a reasonable degree of strength in the rest of the skills required, photographic memory would be a big differentiator.   If you can see and compose right in your head, that has got to help.  Me, I have a flash memory that lasts about 5 seconds.  I definitely have to compensate with practice practice study study.

 I was in direct conflict with LisaV, actually. I support Neneko's position. (Neneko is a "she".)
Pattern recognition constitues almost the entirety of chess. As you stated, tactics are an important part of chess, and pattern recognition aids this, but what are positions other than recurring patterns? IQ, which measures pattern recognition, and not true intelligence, thus creates a pattern between potential rating and IQ which you seem unable to detect.

As for the "many areas of intelligence", your causality is faulty. One of the main processes most aptitudes rely upon is pattern recognition.

Neneko :-) The following is a response to your post which relates to me...   Perhaps you should have expressed your own thoughts about pattern recognition rather than guess whether or not I know the subject. My understanding of pattern recognition in chess centres on a chessplayer's memory of different structures. A structure could be a 'back rank mate', Bishop sacrifice on h7, g7 or f7, every two-move combination you can think of...even strategic ideas can be regarded as patterns...a pawn-storm on opposite wings, an IQP, need for queenside expansion, a blockade, an outpost for a knight, a line opening sacrifice etc etc So much for "Patterns". The "Recognition" surely pertains to one's "memory" of the many patterns alluded to above...

Chess is littered with far more examples than I want to list. Unlike many of the people who have 'disagreed' with my original post, you show a strong intellect[many really didn't understand the topic at all, which was indicated by comparing their own weak rating with self-proclaimed sky-high I.Q - which was usually laughable from their poor standard of sentence structure & content]. I thought it quite possible that English might not be your strong point as you claim to be Swedish.

Perhaps you could write a brief article on your perception of pattern recognition so that the readers can be enlightened, assuming that I am not in agreement with you from my passage above? If we are in agreement, I accept your apology for misunderstanding me as I indicated.

If you read all of my contributions to the thread, I have usually tried to bring the responses back toward answering the topic, as far too many people have concluded that I am equating lowish ratings [say < 1800] with a low I.Q! Of course it depends on whether a person actually applies themself to the task of improvement to the full extent of one's potential...and hardly any of us have that opportunity. It should be self-evident to all...but sadly is not.

Finally...it would be nice to know where you stand on the topic I raised at the very beginning! Please feel free to read my other responses to people who have wandered off on their own tangents...all very stimulating :-) 

MrWizard, I already made my point about the question at hand earlier in the thread. I just came back to correct some blatant mistakes by you and LisaV. If you had looked up pattern recognition as I asked you'd know that it's not related to memory at all. It's actually one of the things that's tested in a IQ test.

About writing an article about pattern recognition in chess. I'm writing exactly that for another site at the moment. It's a project I've been working on a while. I might post it here on this site too but probably not as a reply to this thread. That is if I ever finish it, I havn't found much time for it lately.

Hi again Neneko :-)

I'm basing my use of the term 'pattern recognition' on what I have read in one or two chess-books, nothing else. I'm aware of the old spatial-perception tests used in I.Q testing...geometic shapes with bits missing or composing a shape from several building blocks...

You didn't bother to point out my 'blatant mistakes' other than to suggest I either read your earlier posts or google 'pattern recognition'. Surely we are talking about pattern recognition "as it applies to chess"...not some psych definition...which might be more appropriately termed 'spatial perception'? 

From my own experience, I am sure I apply more reasoning to my move selection process than pattern recognition as I developed a 'method' long ago which requires me to answer a few questions about direct threats and possible future threats to pieces in order to determine a number of possible moves to play.  It's so simple even a child can use the method and play quite well.

I'd be very interested to read your thesis or whatever it is...and will read your other posts when I get a chance.

All the best

MrWizard, Pattern recognition is simply the ability to recognize patterns, not memorize them but simply to see them. IQ tests test this ability, I'd even go as far as saying that IQ test mainly test this ability. Your use of pattern recognition as if it was equal to memorizing positions is the mistake I pointed out along with LisaVs weird post about IQ tests.

I'm not familliar with the term spatial perception but this is what I'm refering to when I say pattern recognition

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_recognition_(Physiological_Psychology) 

As for the subject at hand if you didn't find my other post. I think the whole thing is a bit silly. Besides that the formula seems to be taken from thin air there are too many factors that play a role in chess skill for you to be able to directly correlate IQ to chess rating. I defently think that a person with a higher IQ got a better potential at chess but it's also a fact that people with higher IQ generally make more money, that doesn't mean that you can look at a persons paycheck and tell his IQ or vice versa. Besides all that the formula comes with a few statements about it wich makes it impossible to disprove and I'm always sceptical to things like that.

My father once saw a microcephalus beat two exelent chess players. So there, chess skill is determined by numerous factors, intelligence might help, but it isnt all