Relationship between Chess rating and I.Q?

Another valiant effort by @Joey to "herd these cats" into some kind of sensible conceptual framework.

Kinda like Rowdy Yates (Clint Eastwood) on Rawhide in the 1960s.

Still, you have your work cut out for you.

I'll relate this back to my section on biases in a previous post because, I don't always perceive the proposed coordination when it comes to interior decorating. I'll agree to the shapes and colors jiving in certain ways but, what happens if you want to add or change one thing, that you find essential, and it doesn't match with that over priced "scheme" ?

I think I'll continue to leave my decor in the user friendly coordinated style. It is so much more practical in terms of value and flexibility, for my few needs that will change, a few times over the years, as well as, accomodating all of my wife's continually, ever changing "wants".

I am certainly happy about freedom of opinion...

I see through their ploy. I'll stick to my sense of color and shape coordination I learned from my art teacher. I'll keep my money too. Too much HGTV can't be good for you...

You'll end up broke, you won't recognize where you live and your wife still won't be satisfied...

A GM would be a 1 in 7 million outlier if the entire planet had played as much chess as the GM, but most of them have never played chess, and those who have played chess have generally played far less.

It would be interesting to know what percentage of people who have played at least 10,000 hours of chess within 10 or 15 years during their formative years are GMs. I would guess it's on the order of 1 in 100,000, or perhaps as many as 1 in 10,000, because there just aren't that many people who put that much serious effort into chess for such an extended period of time. That's just a wild guess though. Does anybody have any real data?

my dad can beat up your dad.  I also have this equation where you feed in how many servings of green leafy vegetables you eat in a week and it spits out how much you earn in a year....discuss.  OH and btw I'm bats#it crazy.

I love veggies.

The studies I've read suggest that GMs tend to have extremely good long term memory, but that there is not a lot of correlation between Chess skill and short term memory.  To take one data point, Magnus Carlsen seems to have a phenomenal memory, and has since he was a small child.

An interesting element about GM's memory:  Show a GM a board position from a Chess game, and then take it away and ask him to recreate the position from memory.  He'll do well, much better than the average person.   Show him a set of Chess pieces randomly arranged on a Chess board, take it away, and ask him to reproduce the position from memory.  He'll do no better than the average person.

Human memory doesn't appear to be organized as a "flat file" sort of database, but somehow as interrelated patterns.  A GM, having learned the patterns, can remember the games much better. 

For what it's worth, I've said that there is a weak correlation between IQ and Chess and that great Chess players don't have great IQs.  That's an oversimplification of the research I've read.  Great Chess players tend to have above average IQs, but above a certain level, the correlation weakens.  The greatest players might not have the highest performance on IQ tests.

I'm guilty of saying "GM" when what I really mean is "good Chess player".

And roughly 8 percent of the male population are colorblind dunderheads, who fail badly at "smart furniture" and "interior design."  Myself included.  

  I had a similar problem with my partner Donna's choice of granite countertops.  Allegedly they were black and gold, with flecks of silver and tan.  Once installed, all I saw in the countertop was "dark mud" colors.   Never again!

Thankfully, I have some sway over the furniture in the basement level, where the Chessnuts gather.

We use her old (flammable) lawn furniture, and it works just fine.

There is a difference between having a photographic memory and having good enough memory to be highly intelligent.Also, It is apples to oranges when comparing, having the task of returning a random piece placement that you studied for a short while and having an unchanging chess position that you can intently study to calculate variations from before choosing the best move.

In the tests performed, there was no difference in the time allowed to look at the source material.

In other words, they flashed a picture of a position from a game, and the subject was allowed to study it for a few seconds, and then asked to recreate that position from memory.  Then, they flashed an image of a chessboard with chess pieces placed randomly on the board. The subject was allowed to study it for a few seconds, and then asked to recreate the position from memory.  In neither case were they shown any images of any moves that preceded the selected position.

When the picture was an actual position from an actual game, the master significantly outperformed the novice.  When the position was randomly placed pieces, their scores were nearly equal.

The time difference is irrelevant. The difference is that you a have a picture to keep referring to for calculating a move and you end up totally dependent on memory to put back the pieces while participating in the random piece exercise. Those are two totally different things, but you are trying to use that to prove GM's can't calculate and that it is all memory. It isn't rocket science that having other memory cues would make it easier to recognize a previously studied or played position. I bet however given the same amount of time as anyone else, a GM will perform far better doing random puzzles, simply because they have awesome calculating ability.

I wish I could find the article Wafflemaster referred to in post 266, about the challenge for grandmasters at other abstract strategy, perfect information, games.  Intuitively, I would expect Chess experts to outperform others at those games, but apparently, they did not.  I'd like to see the article and see how the games were conducted.

As for the Chess recall experiment, let's make sure we understand what the experiment is before trying to draw conclusions.  The experimental setup is simple.  Show a picture of a chessboard with some chess pieces on it to a test subject for a few seconds.  Remove the image, and then ask the subject to recreate the pattern of pieces on a board.  That's it.  There's no time difference, and there's no "referring back" to the board.  The image is shown for a few seconds, and removed.

The data collected shows that Chess experts and Chess novices performed very similarly on the random piece exercise, but that Chess experts vastly outperformed Chess novices when the pattern of Chess pieces was an actual position that came from an actual game.

Now we get to a controversial element, which is the conclusions that can be drawn.  The experimenter concluded that the short term memory capacity and the ability to remember random bits of information and recall them quickly is approximately the same in Chess masters and non-masters.  However, the recall of board position from actual chess games is also a short term memory problem, and yet the masters performed much better on that test.  The conclusion of the experimenters is that the masters were "chunking" (their term) the board positions.  They would not commit the positions of individual pieces into their short term memory for instant recall.  Instead, they would instantly recognize patterns on the board, and commit that pattern to short term memory as a "chunk".  Simple example:  A novice might see a king on G1, a rook on F1, and pawns at F2, G2, and H2, and commit five piece positions to memory.  The master would see, "king side castle", and commit one piece of information to memory.  The ability to recall information from short term memory is known to be limited by the number of pieces to recall, so "chunking" improves performance on the tests, because they are actually recalling less information from short term memory.  The master is recalling information from long term memory, matching it to the presented information very rapidly, and storing the existence of a specific pattern in his short term memory.

Now, the controversial part.  What makes a great Chess player?  On that issue, there is very little agreement.  However, this ability to store patterns in long term memory, recall them quickly, and match them to presented information seems to play a large role.  This ability is not measured on IQ tests, and seems only loosely correlated to IQ.

thts not true cuz many people start playing chess late so and arnt experts so does tht mean to their IQ is 0 , in tht case mine is 40? wht if i started when i was 5 yrs would i be einstein ?

Yes, yes you would.

You would think. But, keep reading...

wht i m trying to say is tht if a person doesnt know how to play chess (exept rules) then that person's IQ is 0 and is probally one of the dumbest people in the world?