Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Relationship between Chess rating and I.Q?


  • 2 years ago · Quote · #221

    Crazychessplaya

    Here it is:

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #222

    Tmb86

     http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1113/jphysiol.2005.100271/full 

    I just thought some specific examples in actual scientific papers might help you along the path to admitting you made a (frankly, quite elementary) mistake. You don't seem like the kind of guy who would be able to do that kind of thing though :(

    Not that there's any need to get insulting, but there's a great deal of irony in being called dumb by someone who can't grasp the concept of a non-linear correlation. 

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #223

    orsmir

    -kenpo- wrote:

     This should be easy to look up, and I seem to remember there being a weak or possibly nonsignificant correlation between IQ and chess rating. But I'm too lazy to do so myself (another thing IQ doesn't take into account)."?

    yes, this is the case. many studies have been conducted and this is exactly what was found. also I would just like to note that these studies were probably invariably talking about standard chess played in real life tournaments, and not internet blitz or bullet chess.

    grandmasters seem to have a unique ability to "chunk" patterns, store them in their heads and call them up as needed. something along these lines. it was a german study I read which stated something like this. they speculated that grandmasters may have above normal neuronal connections tying together two very specific parts of the brain which may contribute to how easily they are able to store or "chunk" chess patterns or positions in their memories.

    I think it very likely that each person has increased activity/neuronal connections tying together various different parts of brain leading to each person having different predispositions and abilities for different fields, activities etc., chess being one of these. this is the same variability that applies to people's phyisques and their according predispositions for different athletic/physical activities.

    Interesting- thank you for that. Of course, given that I'm in the 1300-1400 range after playing chess my whole life, I would like to believe there is no relationship whatsoever!Wink

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #224

    Bubatz

    Well, in Germany we distinguish between "Zusammenhang" and "Korrelation". Only in loose talk people use "korreliert" in the sense of "not independent". "Korrelation":="linearer Zusammenhang" is usually reserved for Pearson's product-moment correlation r, while "nichtlinearer Zusammenhang" is for dependencies that are better modelled through other than linear curves (like e.g. a typical learning curve).

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #225

    Tmb86

    Well it looks like I will have to admit a certain degree of error, Joey.

    http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Correlation.html 

    If I can assume you are mathematically trained as well, Bubatz. Then it would appear that correlation indeed only formally applies to linear relationships. The sciences (and everyday speech) certainly do not make such a distinction.

    Shame we couldn't have had a more amiable discussion of what was ultimately a rather pointless sidenote to the thread.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #226

    madhacker

    browni3141 wrote:

    I'd also like to know where you got this, although it hardly matters. If you let numbers tell you what you can and can't accomplish in life then you are a fool.

    Well said. Numbers, or people with silly formulas Cool

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #227

    Argonaut13

    I've just been told that the better chess player you are; your IQ would be usually high also

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #228

    ponz111

    I had something interesting happen to me. I used to be a rather good chess player but then, unfortunately,had limited brain damage.

    My "spatial" used to be in the upper one tenth of one percent--I could play blindfold etc at an early age.

    Now my "spatial" is really bad--in lower 15%-this due to some brain damage in a particular area of my brain.

    My chess playing ability has also gone down something like 400 rating points in quicker chess and 250 rating points in slow chess.

    So I am saying your chess ability is dependent on some separate factors such as spatial, memory, ability to innovate etc.

    If you have these factors then your over all IQ will tend to be higher as some of these are factored in evaluatiing IQ. If you lose one of these factors--your IQ will drop--I have lost spatial and memory [memory to some degree]. My IQ has dropped.

    [I know many will say "yes, it is apparent your IQ has dropped!]

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #229

    zborg

    Nah.  Wisdom wins out over IQ anyday.  We're glad your here, @Ponz111.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #230

    nameno1had

    I have seen some intelligent people do some very dumb things, especially whilst using very little forethought, that they were otherwise very capable of. Even the dull are capable of making a few sharp moves now and then.

    However, it seems logical to conclude if you did a study, it would show that the better you are at spatial reasoning, in conjunction with logic problem solving, you probably are going to be better at chess than those who don't do them well.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #231

    MetalFactor

    Do a sample test for it to check for correlation ^^

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #232

    nameno1had

    MetalFactor wrote:

    Do a sample test for it to check for correlation ^^

    I really don't want to put forth the effort that it would require. Thanks for considering me a good crash test dummy....

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #233

    grandmasterxpchesser

    It can and it can't, chess has so many complexity and memorization that you have to have quite a bit of understanding what goes on in chess I say it makes you smart in a way but only thinking ahead.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #234

    waffllemaster

    I don't think Fischer or Kasparov's IQ is known.  There are silly internet sources willing to claim all sorts of numbers, but is there any evidence they were tested?  Which test was used?  That's what I thought Surprised

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #235

    waffllemaster

    Yeah, IQ test is too broad, especially if it works the way it aims to.  Chess skill is too specific.  For plateau rating and IQ I woudln't expect too much correlation (after you factor out some of the problems you mentioned such as bright people quitting and such).  Learning rate and IQ I would expect to be more of a correlation, but still less of one than the masses inherently attribute to chess due to its status as a game for intellectuals.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #236

    Meadmaker

    nameno1had wrote:

    I have seen some intelligent people do some very dumb things, especially whilst using very little forethought, that they were otherwise very capable of. Even the dull are capable of making a few sharp moves now and then.

    However, it seems logical to conclude if you did a study, it would show that the better you are at spatial reasoning, in conjunction with logic problem solving, you probably are going to be better at chess than those who don't do them well.


    These tests have been done.  Surprisingly, to me at least, the ability to solve logic problems well has very little correlation to Chess ability, at least beyond a certain threshold.  Grandmasters aren't spectacularly good at logic problems, and people who are extremely good at logic problems are frequently not good Chess players.  "Spatial reasoning" is a somewhat ill-defined term, but there does seem to be a greater connection between that, at least in some definitions, and Chess playing ability.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #237

    waffllemaster

    Was an issue of chess-life... maybe a year old now?  Where titled players including GMs were given games similar to chess in their perfect information, zero-sum, nash equilibrium (not so sure about that last term, I'm sorta just throwing them out there now lol).   But anyway games you could always reason though to the best logical move.

    Long story short, the GMs preformed very very slightly better than a control group of non chess players.  Masters as a whole preformed worse IIRC lol.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #238

    blake78613

    joeydvivre wrote:
    waffllemaster wrote:

    I don't think Fischer or Kasparov's IQ is known.  There are silly internet sources willing to claim all sorts of numbers, but is there any evidence they were tested?  Which test was used?  That's what I thought

    It's not even relevant to the overall discussion.  For example, I would bet that there is a positive relationship between IQ and ability to do mental arithmetic.  But take the very best who have ever been at mental arithmetic and suddenly you have included idiot savants whose brains are just wired differently.  I think Fischer was a little of the idiot savant.  Kasparov is pretty bright, but his political commentary is not within a million miles close to the perfection of his chess.

    I think that Fischer probably had Asperger's syndrome, rather than being an idiot savant.   I think he was diagnosed with Asperger's.  Some of his childhood friends have stated flatly that he had the syndrome and I doubt that they diagnosed it themselves.  It is known that his mother took him to a psychiatrist, who told her that there were worse things to be obessed with than chess.  He probably told her some other things.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #239

    Chessviking1955

    Isn't assuming that a high degree of intelligence will make you a top rated chess player like assuming that an athlete who excels in one sport will excel in any activity requiring physical skills?  Possessing high intelligence should make it easier to absorb the nuances of chess, just like having superior physical skills should make it easier to master a sport.  But it comes down to practice, dedication, and more practice in both cases.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #240

    nameno1had

    Meadmaker wrote:
    nameno1had wrote:

    I have seen some intelligent people do some very dumb things, especially whilst using very little forethought, that they were otherwise very capable of. Even the dull are capable of making a few sharp moves now and then.

    However, it seems logical to conclude if you did a study, it would show that the better you are at spatial reasoning, in conjunction with logic problem solving, you probably are going to be better at chess than those who don't do them well.


    These tests have been done.  Surprisingly, to me at least, the ability to solve logic problems well has very little correlation to Chess ability, at least beyond a certain threshold.  Grandmasters aren't spectacularly good at logic problems, and people who are extremely good at logic problems are frequently not good Chess players.  "Spatial reasoning" is a somewhat ill-defined term, but there does seem to be a greater connection between that, at least in some definitions, and Chess playing ability.


    The type of logic problem, as they can vary in requirement potentially, can require different types of reasoning.This is where my previous post that you quoted, has it's merits. A chess puzzle is a type of logic problem. In fact, it appears that all three types of reasoning are used in solving them to a degree.

    Here is an explanation of the different types of reasoning.

    DEDUCTIVE, INDUCTIVE, AND ABDUCTIVE REASONING:

    Inductive reasoning, is a kind of reasoning that constructs or evaluates propositions that are abstractions of observations of individual instances.

    (This occurs in solving chess problems as ideas are proposed by us in abstract ways for each possibility.)

    Inductive reasoning contrasts with deductive reasoning in that a general conclusion is arrived at by specific examples.

    ( We use deductive reasoning when we compare specific examples of memorization, to see if the current problem's circumstances are the same, to help us decide how to deal with them.)

    Abductive reasoning, is a form of logical inference that goes from data description of something to a hypothesis that accounts for the data.For example, the lawn is wet. But if it rained last night, then it would be unsurprising that the lawn is wet. Therefore, by abductive reasoning, the possibility that it rained last night is reasonable.

    ( We use this type of reasoning as we strategize. We use the facts we can see, as they pertain to a chess problem in front of us, to help us figure out what we don't know. We then come up with a theory(after or during the comparison of possibilities) for how to solve our problem, based on our consideration of the facts. We do this before we test it by(calculating/visualizing), to see if our theory can become a plan that we implement into action.)

    I would agree that just because a GM might be really intelligent, that doesn't necessarily make him a good detective, professional problem solver, or even good at other types of brain teaser puzzles, but I am willing to bet that most GM's, "strictly based on their intellect", would make good candidates for those things.

    I don't only base this on their raw intelligence, but on intangibles that go hand in hand with intelligence. Things like patience, that we exercise as we solve problems, are often credited to us an intelligence. It isn't that they are intelligence in it's raw form, but patience is necessary to use intelligence over a prolonged period of time. Generally speaking, one must also be intelligent enough to realize the fruit of patience, and intelligent enough to choose to couple it with the rest of their intelligence, in order to get the most out of their wit.


Back to Top

Post your reply: