Again, anyone wishing to add a comment would be well advised to READ the original post! Many players here seem unable to grasp the essence of the question!

thank you for that

According to a new theory the classical IQ test is worthless because it checks only 3 types of IQ out of 8 (mathematical, lingual and form perception). The others are creativity, EQ and another 3 which i don't remember. According to these theory the success of a person in life is measured by the average of all the 8 IQ's and the success of a person in a narrow field like chess is measured by only 1 of these IQ's. So a person with high lingual IQ like Shakespeare can succeed in literature and a person with high form perception IQ like Gasparov can succeed in chess. Will they succeed or not depends on the development of their skills, on their wish and on the support from the environment.

For conclusion: in order to be chess champion you got to have: 1)high form perception IQ; 2)lot's of practice and gathering of experience; 3)support from the environment; and the most important 4)the desire to play chess. Even if you have only 2 and 4 you can reach Grand Master level, but with less probability. So high form perception IQ increases your probability to suceed in chess, but it doesn't make you a Grand Master.

Ah, and the IQ flexing commences. Firstly, as alot of people have stated, IQ tests are inacurrate. Though I believe that IQ tests give a rough indication of the testpersons mental capabilities, I dont really believe in IQ as an exact number. There are tonnes of factors in performing well on an IQ test (The health/concentration of the testperson, the variety+random luck/bad luck answering the questions, the average score of the majority of previous testpersons, etc)

 IQ is dynamic, it swings over the years. People who have done several IQ tests mightve noticed this. I guess that most of the people that whine and about the chess+IQ relation and IQ flexing in general are simply pretentious elitist douchebags who dont understand the concept of IQ.

 Also, about the IQ + chess theory: Absolute shit. Kasparov was officially tested with an IQ of 135, which is just an example to disprove that equation. Though IQ numbers, as previously said, mean little. 

 

wut wrote:

Ah, and the IQ flexing commences. Firstly, as alot of people have stated, IQ tests are inacurrate. Though I believe that IQ tests give a rough indication of the testpersons mental capabilities, I dont really believe in IQ as an exact number. There are tonnes of factors in performing well on an IQ test (The health/concentration of the testperson, the variety+random luck/bad luck answering the questions, the average score of the majority of previous testpersons, etc)

 IQ is dynamic, it swings over the years. People who have done several IQ tests mightve noticed this. I guess that most of the people that whine and about the chess+IQ relation and IQ flexing in general are simply pretentious elitist douchebags who dont understand the concept of IQ.

 Also, about the IQ + chess theory: Absolute shit. Kasparov was officially tested with an IQ of 135, which is just an example to disprove that equation. Though IQ numbers, as previously said, mean little. 

 

---

You read my article in rashness. I said:"

...the classical IQ test is worthless because it checks only 3 types of IQ out of 8 ... the success of a person in life is measured by the average of all the 8 IQ's and the success of a person in a narrow field like chess is measured by only 1 of these IQ's. ... in order to be chess champion you got to have: 1)high form perception IQ; 2)lot's of practice and gathering of experience; 3)support from the environment; and the most important 4)the desire to play chess. Even if you have only 2 and 4 you can reach Grand Master level, but with less probability. So high form perception IQ increases your probability to suceed in chess, but it doesn't make you a Grand Master."

these new IQ tests are not yet introduced to the public!!! so you can't know your real IQ. And by the way, even in the classic IQ test which checks 3/8 of your IQ, the result doesn't change with age (only slightly). About Gasparov...135 is high IQ compared with the average (100), but he probably have even higher form perception IQ as he can see 20 moves ahead.

Many really smart people are poor chess players.  No stupid people are good chess players.  That's about the only correlation IMO.

This is off the top of my head. I read the first page of this post, and part of this last page.  Some of this is surely redundant with what others have said, but maybe not laid out quite this way.

 Reference: "Now Discover Your Strengths," written by authors working for the Gallup (pole) organization.

 Two working definitions, the second I can best describe with a formula:

 Strength (AKA talent) - inherent ability, depending on the particular alignment of synapse connections in your brain.  (Well described in NDYS.)   There are many strengths and probably many ways to name and describe them.  (NYDS focuses on those relating to professional achievement in businesses.)  

Skill = strength x work.

I think of intelligence in terms of strengths and skills in specific categories.   Social intelligence, cognitive intelligence, etc. 

Chess rating probably correlates best to skills in a number of specific categories.  Assuming the work has been put in, then chess rating would likewise correlate to talents in those same specific categories.

 I picture the formula something like:

Chess rating = k1s1 + k2s2 + k3s3 + ...  

where k = weighting (aka importance factor) and s = skill.  The skills might be such things as pattern recognitions, photographic memory, logic, strategic thinking, tactical thinking.

If you want a formula for chess rating as a function of talent, then work needs to be included as a factor:

Chess rating = work(k1t1 + k2t2 + k3t3 ...)

I can't remember what was in IQ tests, except patterns.  I also don't know what my IQ is.

Unless the strength categories in the IQ test align well with the strength categories in chess, I doubt that chess rating will correlate very well to IQ.

  

Frankly, I have been pretty disappointed with opinions expressed in this thread. "Wut" claimed that the idea that IQ & Chess Rating are somehow connected tried to disprove the idea by claiming that Kaparov's I.Q is 135. A simple 'google-seach' of "IQ of garry kasparov" will indicate his I.Q=190 Such blatant errors have been widespread through the entire thread...which is why I feel inclined to complain about the general standard of response.

Examining the posts provided by the participants [and checking on-line ratings] has only strengthened my belief that ability at chess is proportional to intelligence [and of course the desire to play well]  

So many players with low-ratings seem to think that chess-ability is based very largely on 'pattern recognition' and obviously understand little about strategic / schematic thinking let alone the ability to calculate and retain variations quickly.

Anyway, it's been fun.

Actually what i was trying to state is that there in fact is a connection between IQ and success in chess,but that your IQ  whenstanding on its own means little, and that includes the equation of chess and IQ in the first post.

 About the kasparov thing, I believe Bill Wall posted an article somewhere that actually verifies kasparovs IQ is 135. And then again, who fucking cares? IQ is just a number anyways.

A strong correlation? No. But any game will have at least a slight correlation to IQ (or intelligence, which I dont believe IQ to be an accurate representation of) for example, checkers (draughts) and cards, even monopoly, but like I said, not a strong correlation.

The most recent tests I have done indicate my I.Q. at around 148. That would be surprising if you looked at my online rating to be under 1,000. However, I have not been playing this game long, and will not necessarily be any good at it. Intelligence does not determine whether you are good at chess or not. However, I believe someone who is intelligent will have an EASIER time becoming better; someone with lower intelligence will be able to reach the same greatness, in my mind- it will just be a little harder-going.

there may be some relation betwen IQ and chess but not more then learning and  thinking faster but at this point i should say that thinking faster may even be worse then thinking slower.people often see slow thinking humans as stupid but they are not! fast thinkers jump to the conclusion where slow thinkers stop and examine every new situation.so slow thinkers and low IQ might even be better then fast thinking and high IQ.but that does't even matter because IQ just shows how smart you are -how much you study and know.the real goal should be  how good you can accualy think and how much of what you learn you accualy understand and use-how wise you are! i personaly belive there is no formula that can determine how WISE you are and there never can be since IQ never stops be it rising or falling

Chess rating has nothing to do with IQ because the IQ depends on 4 categories:

a, memory

b, visual ability

c, verbal ability

d, analytical powers

and obviously the b and c has nothing to do with chess

 

how do we get to know our IQ ??

According to the IQ test, I should be at a weak GM level if not better.  I learned chess when I was 3 years old (basic movements, but no real strategic thought), but I wasn't obsessed with it up until 7 years later.  Then I withdrew from chess 3 years after that because I lost a major tournament, and then got back into it 4 years after that.  I'm 20 now, still classified as 'gifted' (IQ-wise), yet still not able to break the 1800s.  Do you think that if I was obsessed with it ever since I was 3 and never let it go, I would be a GM at this point?  I wonder what kind of life I would lead, and whether or not the me as of today would even accept that chess-driven lifestyle.

PerfectGent wrote: amrou wrote:

Chess rating has nothing to do with IQ because the IQ depends on 4 categories:

a, memory

b, visual ability

c, verbal ability

d, analytical powers

and obviously the b and c has nothing to do with chess

 

---

 absolutely wrong.

b. visual ability - has everything to do with pattern recognition so is essential to good chess. 

---

 Agreed.  Also:

a. memory - remembering the lines for openings and counters will be advantageous to you in many games.

d. analytical powers - ... ANALYZE YOUR MOVES... duh... lol ^_^ 

  Whether or not there is a 'link' between I.Q. and chess rating will be debated forever. The reason being, there is a "desire" to 'link' the two. It is the origination of that desire that needs to be addressed.

  I use chess in my work with troubled teens to raise their self esteem. "If you play chess, you must be smart", according to popular opinion. It is applying yourself and working hard to achieve your goals that makes you a better player, or person.

   I've known geniuses who have no interest in this game, it just doesn't do it for them. They play moderately well. I also know a few people whose ability to play this game is amazing, but are dumb as a bag of hammers, when it comes to personal relationships, or with other avenues of life that most people find easy. 

   So occassionally I'll arrange a match with the two types. One type is secure in his self-esteem, the other wishes to 'link' I.Q. and rating. The motivation behind wanting the 'link' is the defining aspect.

i don't think there is any relation because in theory, if a person has an I.Q. of say 200 (hypotheticaly speaking); the person just starts playing chess and he will probably suck at it- he MIGHT get better but i don't think he'll be the next G.M. hence i don't think chess rating and I.Q. don't have anything to do with each other

Ugh!

Let's review.

1.  IQ tests are flawed.  Read the approx. 50 posts above explaining why.

2.  Because different IQ tests measure different abilities, scores will vary *even for one person.*  Kasparov 190 or 135?  Different tests.

3.  If you still put credence in IQ tests, you must look at the *standard deviation.*  Does 190 on one test put Kasparov in the top 1% of the population, while a 135 on another puts him in the top 0.00001%?  If so, the 135 is much more impressive.

4.  Somebody estimated a correlation of 0.65 to 0.75 between chess-IQ.  For social sciences, that is a HUGE correlation, especially if you mean by correlation, r-squared.  Even so, correlations make no claim about causality.

 

:)  The point for the first post and perhaps some of the other posts here:  While it may be interesting to compare IQ and chess ability, the numbers tell you very little.  Even if there is a 1 to 1 correlation, a third variable could easily explain the correlation, in much the same way that ice cubes and drunkeness share a 1 to 1 correlation when you drink vodka on the rocks.

 

...off to wash down a plate of red herrings with a relaxing glass of ice cubes.

 

LisaV,

1. no, IQ tests measure exactly what they claim to be measuring. It's when people try to view them as a complete mapping of someones cognitive abilities they go wrong.

 

2 and 3 Read up on what a IQ test is. When you get the result of a real IQ test the statistics are already weight in so it's impossible for 1% of the population to score 190.

 

MrWizard, Read up a bit on what pattern recognition is. It makes you look a bit silly to argue against chess being related to it while arguing for a relation betwen chess rating and IQ.

Lol ... IQ is such a touchy subject.

 

Lets face it, some humans are smarter than others, to judge who is who may be a little unethical and, admittedly, there is no truly accurate method of doing so. 

However, to present the argument that chess players in general have a higher IQ than the average person and therefore may (probably being an acceptable overstatement, if you will) be smarter than the 'average person' (Able bodied adult without a medically deemed physical or mental defect) is an acceptable one regardless of irrefutable evidence (I say this in note of the probable inacuracies in an IQ test).

 

Hope this made sense.  I took out all my ellipses... but... umm... am now suffering withdrawals... oh and... sorry about the brackets...