Relationship between Chess rating and I.Q?

There are no other solutions except the seven other symmetrical ones.

Thanks for removing the solution, that way I got to try it.  My method is in white.  I gave up on that 8 queens puzzle so I way happy to be able to do this one.

I placed the 3 black queens first, and then checked if 5 squares were not attacked.  I tried to minimize ranks and files and maximize overlap of attacked squares.  Finding a few that allowed 4, I finally settled with two in the top left corner touching orthogonally and then counted the overlap of the third.  If I could free up one square (increase overlap by 1) then it's solved.  Which happened.  Took me ~15 minutes.  Pretty quick after I thought of that method.

two different scales... IQ is not, in any way, related to "game" points. 

I found the eight queens much easier than the puzzle above. My method for eight queens is in white, and it took me about 5 minutes. I did start out thinking of the quickest way to solve eight queens, rather than lots of initial trial-and-error experimentation as I did with the 5+3 problem, but I think the strategy for eight queens is much more obvious than the one for 5+3.

I started with a queen on h1, then put a queen on the f2 (knight's distance is the closest queen's can get without attacking each other), then on d3 and b4, and then similarly for the last four ranks. When it didn't work, I just shifted the whole position up one rank (and wrapped around), and inspected if there were some alterations to repair flaws that would yield a solution. I didn't see any, so shifted up one rank again, and after shifting up the whole position for the third time, there was an obvious simple exchange that kept almost all the pieces knight's distance away with none of them attacking each other.

Does anybody know any other similar problems like these where the task is to arrange pieces and satisfy a single constraint like "no X can attack Y"?

I also found eight queens much easier.

Based on the aggregate, we can come across something that is considered the norms for a given IQ group, and so there you have a correlational relationship, not a causal one.  I do agree however that attempts to create an equation that directly comes to ones' exact rating as if these two scales are interchangeable is going to be a waste of time.  Still, a correlational relationship, although a limited one, is a relationship nonetheless.

When you start examining correlates, you run into all the quirks that accompany population studies.

Here, I think you'd see something resembling a bell curve, one that had its peak in the gifted, but far-from-genius range.

That guess is based upon a couple things.  One, that the rules which govern good chess play, taking into account positional ideas, and the vast amounts of memorization that have to be done, particularly in the endgame (and to some extent in the opening, as well), will tend to rule out those with below-average intelligence.  Though, I don't think there's anything so complex in chess that it demands genius to comprehend.

Two, that over a large population, those with genuinely elite intelligence will foul the sample by tending to gravitate toward more rewarding pastimes.  Starting empires, winning Nobel prizes, that sort of thing.

Those at the peak of the bell would be those gifted enough to grasp chess in all its nuaced glory, while still finding merit in devoting their lives to the study of something most of their species considers trivial.

@FinnDailey

I think you're right about who sits in the peak of the curve.  "Geniuses" are rare in nature, and it's unlikely we'll see a bunch of geniuses representing the bulk of who good chess players are.  We'll probably get more people who are "gifted" in chess but not necessarily the Einsteins of the world.  Great observation.

With sampling, this is why groups can't be randomly assigned.  It must consider experience and IQ.

Oh, that's neat for the 8 queens.  I did the knight thing and when it didn't work wasn't sure what to do.

why is  Einstein considered to  be the epitome of genius?? maybe Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, a dictator or some evil guy were much much smarter then him??

second why couldnt the smartest person in the world not be a chess player? do you think Einsteins theory is for everyone more interesting than chess??

I doubt it..

yes i know  Einstein did a lot of stuff, but still what does it all mean??

@TetsuoShima

Einstein was only used as a general personification, not that you must be Einstein or have specialized in Einstein's theoretical orientation to be a genius.

Nobody, at least I didn't, say you must be a high iq individual to be a good chess player or vice versa.  Correlations in this example takes a look at how chess ratings are normalized across relative IQ and experience levels.  Nothing more.

I'm sure there's a correlation, but I'm also fairly sure that your formula didn't represent that.

No comparison

In my opinion, you aren't playing as well as your intelligence would be likely to dictate, according to bell curve study.

the forumla enetred by the op is wrong ...

here's the correct one: elo = (iq*10)+1000

can you tell us please if this IQ is measured in a professional setting or is it a tested iq made online on a free website (and if so, which website?)

according to that formula, my elo is about 2400. you know, i dont think im a grand master.