there used to be this guy at my school, he was the best chees player in that region, but he only got an OP6, you'd expect something higer than that if you had a rating in the 1900ish area, so that obviously proves it wrong.

There seems to be much discourse about IQ not relating to ability at chess. However, this is not true. In the social sciences, and psychology, the field to which this discussion pertains, there are no absolutes. If a simple majority display a trait or behaviour it is accepted as generally true, while not universally.

IQ, as has been prior to this post expounded, is not an accurate means of discerning intelligence. It is simply not something quantifiable through tests of kind that are typical in the realm of IQ. IQ, strictly, is a measure of an individual's ability to recognize patterns, and this is quite helpful in chess. That doesn't mean that a brilliant mind, in an quantitive definition (i.e., according to IQ tests) will always be good at chess, and that one who is simply average according to our faulty system of measurement will not surpass their putative potential. Yet by far there is a correlation between ability and potential and IQ, simply because one can more aptly recognize patterns. This has no effect on acutal intelligence in the least.

Anyways, any attempt to force into an equation enormous variations in genetic and environmental factors, utilizing an already fallacious system, will undoubtedly be met by failure. Ah, those crafty mathematicians tryong to encroach upon the field of social sciences. As seen by the debunked mathematical theories on linguistics, this never accurately portrays anything in the world of individual variation as there are no absolutes.

RedSoxpawn wrote: it is like playing poker what is the chance that you will get a full house, or all kings. it is over 1,000% last that I recall

---

o.O

mpt_fz wrote:

I say that the correlation is about 0.6-0.75, but no more.

 

---

o.O

To the goobkid...you mentioned that the guy who was very good at chess did poorly at school.

Bobby Fischer did poorly at school because he wasn't interested [IQ = 184]. What are the chances the guy you refer to just couldn't give a shit about boring old school compared to the excitement he derived from chess? It astonishes me how people who do well academically [like many of us here I suspect] think that lack of performance at school 'obviously indicates lack of intellect' and that skill at chess is a poor indication of intellectual ability [usually because the 'academics' commenting here are mostly lousy chess players?]

I postulate that good results at school indicate a 'mind dedicated to doing what is expected of it by parents' and little more. If we play chess we must do so because we enjoy it. If we enjoy it, surely that implies we are motivated to do well...otherwise the activity becomes senseless 'wood-pushing'. If we are motivated to do well but cannot...what does that indicate? Surely...that we are not as smart as we previously thought. [But not according to most of us here!] No...chess is seen as an activity about as predictive of mental ability as basketball. Incredible :-)

MrWizard wrote:

TNo...chess is seen as an activity about as predictive of mental ability as basketball. Incredible :-)

---

 Hey! I only been playin' this here game for less 'en three moon cycles!

There is probably some correlation, but I don't know how 7 year old grandmasters fit in who might not even know their pronouns from their prepositions, lol.

so funny that no one else has caugh this...look at his formula 10x100=2000???that's bad math man...20x100 is 2000 i find this very funny...and as i have an iq of 132 which is borderline genius i have to say that iq does not have a whole lot to do with the game of chess..it does have to do with understanding and being able to comprehend the game...but i've had to work hard and long to get where i am now and i've been playing for years..but i've been teaching myself everything up until i signed up on this site

thanks again chess.com

for helping me up my game!!!!!

Poor old taxman...you should, with an IQ of 132 have read the earlier transcripts to see that the originator of the formula intended it to be used for those with IQ > 100. So try to understand the underlying principle rather than trying to take cheap shots like some kid in high-school who just wants to be a pain in the arse for the teacher. For the record, I don't know what my IQ is, but unlike so many people who have written against the link between IQ and rating, I am completely self taught [library books]and reached a rating of 1500 within 12 months and 1800 within 2 years...I was then 15. I find it odd that anyone with a high I.Q finds move selection, calculation or visualisation, planning etc 'difficult'. I suspect, as I said before, that such people are simply 'convergent thinkers' who don't have the creative spark required to play chess well. I think that the fun experienced through chess is proportional to one's rating...

Maybe we should just give IQ tests to all the above average chess players and see what 

the results are.

Then we can find say 1000 kids with above average IQ's and start them playing chess 

and train them and teach them then we can monitor their chess rating over the years.

In say 20 years we should be able to reach some sort of conclusion.

Of course every level of their lives would have to be monitored to make sure they all receive 

the same training and learning, not to mention their drive to want to learn the game 

will have to be controlled so we can be sure that we have an unbiased a test as we can.

But barring a failproof way of testing to see if there is a correlation between IQ and chess rating

I do not feel we will ever know the answer to that.

I do like the idea of all of the above average players taking IQ tests to see if they at least have above average IQ's

 

 

I am, officially, a genius.  My chess is crap, though. 

 

Note: I do concede that a high IQ should typically yield a higher capacity for chess ability.  Since the results of such tests are less specific than the requisite abilities for chess, I think the statistical edge, in practice, is likely much smaller than the original post would let on, thus dulling the accuracy of any formula applied.

Thegoobkid wrote: there used to be this guy at my school, he was the best chees player in that region, but he only got an OP6, you'd expect something higer than that if you had a rating in the 1900ish area, so that obviously proves it wrong.

---

It takes much more than one possibly fringe result to weaken a hypothesis, much less obviously disprove it.

Maybe all the chess.com members should take IQ test?

That might help solve this 

wjones4 wrote:

Maybe all the chess.com members should take IQ test?

That might help solve this 

---

Haha!  Are you offering to fund this study?

lol....no way silentfilmstar, now if I had the cash...hmmmm....well............yeah, I would do it just to see how many people here really have the IQ they seem to think they do

Don't get IQ's mixed up with egos.

lol...you got that right excalibur...my bad...maybe we need an ego test...hmmmm

I wouldn't dare.  There's no way my IQ can match up to my monstrous ego.

roflmao...ok no ego test for you then....that should save a few bucks of the total cost, if a few more people opt out, say the entire chess.com, then I can afford to do the test

 

OK. I dont think there is a certain link between IQ and chess rating.

10 years chess experienced someone who has 120-IQ can obviously win against who has 180-IQ and less chess experienced.

Regards,