Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Relationship between Chess rating and I.Q?


  • 2 years ago · Quote · #281

    nameno1had

    Meadmaker wrote:
    nameno1had wrote:
    DavyWilliams wrote:

    Memory and IQ  go hand in hand.  I suspect strongly that Kasparov and Fischer had great memories.  There are some people that if you add multi talented at music, sports, many multi things, their IQs would be 200+.  I think, with all due respect, Fishcer and Kasparov, if you added sports and music and other things, might not be 200+ but their memory capabilties got them 190.   

    For me this makes sense. It also makes sense to me that, in order for GM's  to be great calculators, they have to have the ability to keep many things available in the their short term memory, to recall them to the forefront of their minds, as well as the positions they've studied for years in their long term memory.

    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.

    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.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #282

    Meadmaker

    nameno1had wrote:

    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.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #283

    nameno1had

    Meadmaker wrote:
    nameno1had wrote:

    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.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #284

    Meadmaker

    nameno1had wrote:
    Meadmaker wrote:
    nameno1had wrote:

    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.

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #285

    vidhan

    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 ?

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #286

    Tmb86

    Yes, yes you would.

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #287

    AlCzervik

    baatti wrote:

    Now on a chess forum you have the luxury to immediately have a look at the rating of the given person.

    My experience is that the intuitive notion (regardless of the content or even the fact that the post is about chess) of intelligence and the rating go hand in hand.

    You would think. But, keep reading...

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #288

    vidhan

    -kenpo- wrote:
    vidhan wrote:

    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 ?

    the sentiment behind what you wrote here is spot on. you shouldn't pay attention to all these people who seemingly try to equate their internet blitz/bullet ratings to iq. more or less juvenile bs.

    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?

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #289

    zborg

    baatti wrote:

    I think intuitively that if you read a post on a forum you can come up with an assesment of the person's intelligence who has written that post. Reading a post you think to yourself: this post must have been written by an intelligent person, or that post must have been written by an unintelligent person. This is not about whether you agree with content of the post just about the quality of thinking which is represented in the post.

    Now on a chess forum you have the luxury to immediately have a look at the rating of the given person.

    My experience is that the intuitive notion (regardless of the content or even the fact that the post is about chess) of intelligence and the rating go hand in hand.

    This is an eminently reasonable conjecture.  One exception that comes to mind is that bright people who are new to chess typically have low ratings, at least until they get the hang of things.

    Personally, I believe any reasonably intelligent and educated person (say B.A. degree) can become a USCF C or B Class player (1400 to perhaps 1800) with just a fair amount of work, and study.

    But how long it takes a person to reach USCF 1400, or even 1800, varies enormously based on the age at which you start, and myriad other factors.

    Every 400 rating points represents a qualitative LEAP in playing strength.  If you start at USCF 1000, bear in mind that only 1 percent of the active tournament players in the U.S. ever make it to the 2200 level.

    So, on balance, perhaps one or even two rating "LEAPS" are possible for many competitors, with a bit of sweat and hard work.

    But after that you are probably shit out of luck, for the vast majority of aspiring players, with "intelligence" notwithstanding.

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #290

    AlCzervik

    baatti wrote:

    Can you with a bit of sweat and hard work become intelligent? Or do you have to be intelligent to become intelligent?

    Whoa. Deep, dude. I'm not nearly intelligent enough to contemplate this.

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #291

    zborg

    "Intelligence as a Syllogism" has been beat to death for more that 200 posts in this thread.  Please don't bring that construct back.

    Another example--IF pigs could fly, THEN pork would surely be a low fat food.  Laughing

    Best not to think about it.  Just laugh at it, instead. 

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #292

    beardogjones

    IQ = USCF/16.0

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #293

    zborg

    Pork, the other white meat.

    The connection between flying pigs and low fat pork sounds like a topic for another @Snakes thread.  Laughing

    Here's his latest, on lawnmowers and bikini wax.

    http://www.chess.com/forum/view/off-topic/the-speakeasy

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #294

    Crazychessplaya

    Laughing

    beardogjones wrote:

    IQ = USCF/16.0

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #295

    waffllemaster

    My layman interpretation of knowledge links it with creativity.  How can you take more than one piece of information, combine them, and come up with a new piece of information.

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #296

    Master_Po

    IQ x 10 + 1000 =~ top possible rating, with many years of good coaching and study, strong desire and starting young. 

     (  =~ means very closely equal to )

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #297

    waffllemaster

    IIRC the guy that came up with that also commented that because there are so many other factors, such a straight forward formula coudln't ever really make sense Smile

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #298

    Master_Po

    Sure he did, Joey.  Reports are between 180 and 187.

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #299

    waffllemaster

    That's right Joey, I don't believe there is an offical IQ score for Bobby.  Different internet sites that like to claim these silly numbers (I've seen 170 more often than 180 and 180+) are ones that also like to take a guess for Newton, Maxwall, et al.

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #300

    Master_Po

    Course we'll never know for sure, but I believe he did.  It seems a great legitimate educated guess, since he was far above any chess players at the time, etc. etc.

       He said Kasparov wasn't good at anything else, just chess, but that he, Bobby, was a genius on many different levels. (paraphrased) 


Back to Top

Post your reply: