Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Relationship between Chess rating and I.Q?


  • 3 years ago · Quote · #161

    orangehonda

    tonydal wrote:

    That's because he had extra pieces tucked away in his coat.


    Ah yes, it's lesser-known that Napoleon was an amateur magician who focused on slight of hand.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #162

    Conflagration_Planet

    http://www.goddesschess.com/chesstories/blackgm.html  So much for Obama being the first black chess master.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #163

    Atos

    What would you estimate the IQ of Rybka ?

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #164

    saipranav

    In my opinion,I.Q.,progress in real life,progress in the game of chess are completely different things.

    I have read about people with 140 I.Q. who works as a waiter because their E.Q. is damn low.

    According to a particular web-site,there has to be a balance between all the quotients,or else we are as good as screwed up.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #166

    dave_9990

    Rybka is simply a large set of instructions written by humans. We all know that computers are faster by a factor of millions than human problem solvers in mathematics, however Human Intelligence is more profound than mathematical number crunching - in fact some people are smart and have low IQ, because they take a long time and solve harder problems properly (the human condition vs a machine at math).

    Chess is related to IQ but also to combat, its a battle and an opponent moving fast with sharp logical movements can often intimidate (hence not exactly IQ) . 

    Chess programs aren't perfect, they're still being developed.  In the end it boils down to incredible number crunching power that wins, I must admit that a lot of the math is skipped completely by the human visual perceptive system (the ability to comprehend an entire board at once is very helpful)

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #167

    KumarAnkur

    If a person is intelligent,he will do well in chess,however,its converse according to me,does not seems to be true.It is like that those who have courage,has a sword,but those who have sword might not be courageous. Chess no less analogous to sword here,otherwise everybody will become intelligent.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #168

    rvsakhadeo

    wjones4 wrote:

    well Mr Wizard...there may be something to the IQ correlation to chess rating. I do not think you could ever prove or disprove the theory though. One can become very good at chess through practice and studies but still have an average IQ where someone with a genius level or higher IQ may not have a strong enough interest in chess to apply themselves(or the time).

    I am a strong believer that anyone can learn anything given enough time but 

    in my experience those with higher IQ's tend to learn faster so that would give 

    them an advantage.

    I feel for the theory to be proved you would have to take into account their 

    time playing the game and the amount of studying they have done on it.

    This is an intersting theory though and I think there is some truth to it. 

    I might have to make some time to research it some. 


    Does it mean that a monkey with enough paper and an breakable typewriter plus a lot of time on hand will eventually type out a Shakespeare play ? How does practice help a chess player ? obviously by the mind absorbing the positions and the pitfalls and the standard moves which require Memory,and an Aptitude for logical thinking . Does it not mean that one has to have a better IQ to be better at Chess?

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #169

    rvsakhadeo

    wjones4 wrote:

    well Mr Wizard...there may be something to the IQ correlation to chess rating. I do not think you could ever prove or disprove the theory though. One can become very good at chess through practice and studies but still have an average IQ where someone with a genius level or higher IQ may not have a strong enough interest in chess to apply themselves(or the time).

    I am a strong believer that anyone can learn anything given enough time but 

    in my experience those with higher IQ's tend to learn faster so that would give 

    them an advantage.

    I feel for the theory to be proved you would have to take into account their 

    time playing the game and the amount of studying they have done on it.

    This is an intersting theory though and I think there is some truth to it. 

    I might have to make some time to research it some. 


    Does it mean that a monkey with enough paper and an breakable typewriter plus a lot of time on hand will eventually type out a Shakespeare play ? How does practice help a chess player ? obviously by the mind absorbing the positions and the pitfalls and the standard moves which require Memory,and an Aptitude for logical thinking . Does it not mean that one has to have a better IQ to be better at Chess?

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #170

    heinzie

    I've come up with this estimation including all the relevant factors

    your IQ * 64 = your potential chess rating

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #171

    saipranav

    heinzie wrote:

    I've come up with this estimation including all the relevant factors

    your IQ * 64 = your potential chess rating


    Can someone tell me what a potential chess rating is?

    Iam new here

    @heinzie:How did you derive that formula?

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #172

    tdbostick

    heinzie wrote:

    I've come up with this estimation including all the relevant factors

    your IQ * 64 = your potential chess rating


    That'd mean your average Joe should have a 6400 rating.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #173

    Deranged

    If there are 3 groups: gifted, average and handicapped, then I must be handicapped because I'm only 1700 rating :(

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #174

    heinzie

    tdbostick wrote:
    heinzie wrote:

    I've come up with this estimation including all the relevant factors

    your IQ * 64 = your potential chess rating


    That'd mean your average Joe should have a 6400 rating.


    As can be read from the comment above yours, the average Joe doesn't bother to verify anything they are offered

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #175

    vowles_23

    Reb wrote:
    I have been playing tournament chess since 1973 and have met many people that I believe are "smarter" than me but they couldnt beat me in chess. On the other hand, I have met chess players whom I couldnt beat that I dont think are as "smart" as me. A problem I have in this area though is how society defines "smart" people. Mant rural folks never go to college and some dont even finish high school and society looks down on these people. Society says a doctor or lawyer is "smarter" than a guy that lays brick and block or works as a plumber and their hobbies are usually hunting, fishing, camping etc. However, if the rural man and the city doctor suddenly found themselves ship wrecked and lost on some deserted island which do you think would survive?  Now, who is "smarter" ? 

     You said it - this sums up exactly what I might have wanted to say if I could have been bothered writing it! :D

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #176

    Ziryab

    Reb's formula is better than Levitt's. If you are lousy at chess, then you are stupid in a playing room but you might be smarter than all the rest of us when we are lost in the jungle. If you are good at chess, then you are smart at chess, but like Fischer, might be a complete moron when it comes to politics.
  • 3 years ago · Quote · #177

    Darks1de

    I don't know if intelligence has much to do with OTB ratings.  There are a lot of dumb people who are good chessplayers, and it's due to the amount of work they put in and their determination to win.  I've played chess since I was 10 (I'm now 42) and won a lot of games earlier in my life that I shouldn't have won, because my "killer instinct" was so much greater.  Just as an offhand example:  when I was, say, 18 and playing in the National Open in Vegas I would easily play a theoretical draw until 2 am just because I wanted to win so bad.  I've since played many games as an adult, and the--difficult to admit truth--is that it just becomes less important:  if I have the option of drawing and going back to the hotel and having dinner with my wife I will think about it, rather than sitting there for another 2 hours in a drawish game.  That would never happen in my youth.

    There's so much more that goes into chess than merely practicing and getting lessons and knowing the game.  I have bad nerves, and when I say that I mean "Amateur nerves" and most of the players I see at tournaments have Amateur nerves (obviously not most of the GM's).  Amateurs also have no poker face.  None.  You watch a GM at one of these tournaments and you have no idea if he's winning or losing or drawing.  You look at most amateurs between moves, talking to their friends or whatever, and you can easily tell how their game is going.  Amateurs also have no strategy, even if they feel otherwise:  GM's and IM's will go into a game with a plan before the game even starts, playing either aggressively or positionally etc.  An amateur plays the same every single game, he only knows one way (the way he thinks he plays and what he thinks he's strongest at).  There's a whole host of factors that go into being successful in tournaments that have absolutely nothing to do with the actual position in front of you.  

    Then you get into the "work" aspect.  We all know successful people in life who are dumb as rocks and we wonder how they became successful, and usually chalk it up to luck or who they know, but the truth is successful people, and especially successful chessplayers, work seriously hard at it.  That has nothing to do with intelligence, that has to do with drive and motivation and determination.  I know several people who have way more "talent" than I but who are lazy as hell, who don't want to put in the work, and eventually it catches up with you.  

    Nothing replaces hard work.  Nothing ever has.  I'd rather be 50 IQ points dumber but have a stronger drive to be successful and a better work (practice) ethic.   

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #178

    Gizmodeus

    Boring304 wrote:
    Kasparov's IQ is bigger then einstein's (by the theory from above)

    That would explain the huge contributions he's made to Quantum Electrodynamics and String Theory.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #179

    sequillion

    In my experience as a tournament regular in Alberta, Canada, higher rated players tend to be what I consider smarter people by conventional standards and definitions. Having played tournament chess regulary for the last 4 years, I have met and chatted with almost all levels of players and come to what I consider to be some fairly correct generalizations. Spearman's theory of G, or  "general intelligence" seems correct.  

    "Smart" people - those possessing modest to very good memories often make for very good(1900+) chess players.  They also tend to have a good ability to visually rotate objects-- obviously an essential attribute to play well. 

    These two abilities are what I think most affect a person's aptitude for good chess. Not surprisingly, many IQ tests have sections that measure these exact skills. Object rotation,  front-to-back recall, fill in the blank block etc. 

    On a side note, and perhaps more interestingly; I have found that the best blitz players in the province tend to be the most cognitively sharp, quick witted, most educated and so on. The most obvious confound however is the problem of trying to evalute kids, as their chess skills and minds have not fully matured. 

    Basically, the higher rated players seem smart( more education, income, better read on a variety of topics, more intellectually stimulating to be around etc) The lower rated players tend to have less of the above.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #180

    sequillion

    WalkItDown wrote:
    sequillion wrote:

    In my experience as a tournament regular in Alberta, Canada, higher rated players tend to be what I consider smarter people by conventional standards and definitions. Having played tournament chess regulary for the last 4 years, I have met and chatted with almost all levels of players and come to what I consider to be some fairly correct generalizations. Spearman's theory of G, or  "general intelligence" seems correct.  

    "Smart" people - those possessing modest to very good memories often make for very good(1900+) chess players.  They also tend to have a good ability to visually rotate objects-- obviously an essential attribute to play well. 

    These two abilities are what I think most affect a person's aptitude for good chess. Not surprisingly, many IQ tests have sections that measure these exact skills. Object rotation,  front-to-back recall, fill in the blank block etc. 

    On a side note, and perhaps more interestingly; I have found that the best blitz players in the province tend to be the most cognitively sharp, quick witted, most educated and so on. The most obvious confound however is the problem of trying to evalute kids, as their chess skills and minds have not fully matured. 

    Basically, the higher rated players seem smart( more education, income, better read on a variety of topics, more intellectually stimulating to be around etc) The lower rated players tend to have less of the above.


    You think memory and education are measurements of intelligence. Enough said.


    By western conventional standards, yes, more education usually infers greater intellect, and ones memory is often a great assest in being to do well in many school subjects as well as in the work world.  Of course many different cultures have different definitions of what is "smart" or "intelligent" and therefore our thinking regarding how smart a person is usually subjective.


Back to Top

Post your reply: