Relationship between Chess rating and I.Q?

As you will observe from my post number 118 and 120 I made the point that I AM NOT discussing 'pattern recognition' as it might be used to describe 'SPATIAL PERCEPTION' intelligence. I also explained what the modern interpretation of 'pattern recognition' is with respect to chess! [see Post 118] Many OTB chess players are now aquainted with the term 'pattern recognition' and equate this with the type of thing referred to in the link above and of course Post 118. If Neneko had read my post 118 or 120 carefully enough, she would not have tried to point out my 'blatant error' as she would have noticed that I am well aware of the thing she refers to as 'pattern recognition' but has been referred to for decades as 'spatial perception'. If she was familiar with chess books on the subject, she would never have bothered to challenge me over this mere difference in semantics. This raised my suspicions about her playing strength, which I posted in response to her 'attack' upon my 'lack of understanding' of the subject. I now believe she is a genuinely strong player through our personal exchanges, but wish she had never adopted the aggressive stance toward me on this issue. After all, I feel a natural 'kinship' with fellow players who are honestly strong OTB players, which I believe Neneko to be. I am sorry for the less than flattering phrases I levelled at her, and hope she will understand my annoyance and forgive me? I do not want to humiliate anyone who has sincerely contemplated the topic under discussion, rather, I wanted sensible input about the intelligence of very high ranking players [i.e with OTB ratings > 2300]

I confess I did get a bit annoyed with a few people who merely wanted to attempt to refute the equation by selecting subjects with an I.Q < 100 which becomes ridiculous at about IQ=80 & below! It's also irritating to read the thoughts of any self-proclaimed genius who has worked on their chess for years and yet has trouble climbing above 1500...I'd like to know where such tests are available so I could blitz them with almost everyone else here :-) 

Hi

It has been reported that Napoleon Bonaparte loved chess but wasn't very good at it. That didn't stop him from being one of the great military strategists of his time and a very intelligent man, he just wasn't good at chess. I think with regard to chess the key factor is logic, not intelligence. Using ones Intelligence may come into it later on in a game when a player needs to be creative and make something happen, up to that point if a player has made the most logical moves (which by definition must be the right ones) then he/she will have put themselves in a position to exploit their opponents weaknesses.

I haven't read everything but just want to make a quick note. The Levitt equation is based on the assumption of extreme dedication for at least ten years. It is a formula for potential, not one's current ability. Moreover, it is an estimation and there are always exceptions. The most reliable way of applying it is backwards! For example, you can estimate that a 2300 player has an IQ of at least 130. However, you cannot estimate that a player rated 300 is below average intelligence. It is simply an unknown factor. Perhaps he has not dedicated himself enough to achieve proficiency. It's much like I can estimate that an excellent student is above average intelligence but cannot be sure that a poor student is not. In any case, I'm not certain about the validity of such an equation. I'm sure that there is a strong link between a complex game like chess and intelligence but I'm not sure such a link can be quantified directly since we have no accurate way of measuring intelligence. IQs can only show so much.

BTW: I doubt that most people bragging about their IQs on this board ever took a real IQ test. By this, I mean Stanford-Binet, Cattell or WAIS administered by qualified professionals. It's too common to find a lot of "geniuses" on internet forums.

This is a interesting topic that I too ponder some at times.. there is another major factor in playing chess well, and one is I believe is ..is simply the love and enjoyment of the game I think its a great motorvator to win, learn and acheive your best at chess and other things. Its like the maths equation where there the 2 upper and lower denominators I reckon there must be a high level of genuine desire as well, rather than just the born ability. A player of less abilty but higher passion will proably end up a better chess player than one with just their ability and little interest.

I got low grades at high school but could beat most students and teachers I played.

exigentsky- That is how I read it too, regarding the direction in which the formula seems the more workable. For in the other direction, many smart players will drop out of the data pool if they find some specific mental, emotional, character, or physical limitation (or just lack of time for it!) which could prevent them from ever reaching GM, Master or whatever a Levitt potential might suggest for their specific IQ, if it did work in that direction. It does seem more a Limitation predicter than a Potential predicter, to me. And if so, what good for anyone other than to discourage? I would not accept such a limitation and hope others don't either.

True there are IQ tests and IQ tests. For instance the online "Tickle" test, I believe the highest score possible on it is about 147 if I recall correctly (Then they kick you up to a second test if you make a good score on the first).And that being the case, some people may be actually under scored if they stop with the first test.

I have my doubts about the test tho, it since a) it is too short, imo. B)no standardized test I am aware of goes to a 147, rather a 160 or 200 would be the common ranges. c)well, because it is on the internet ...

Strangely I've seen someone score lower on it than on their Wenchler, but another who scored higher! Neither had taken it previously, so there was no "practice" or familiarity factor there.

Maybe Barrack Obama will be the first Black chess master? Why not he got the Noble Peace Prize! We I doubt it highly. Maybe the title Chess master is a greater honer than recieving a Noble Peace Prize?  Chess is pure and not spoiled with the "flavor of the month" like politics and practically everything else is.  This is just another benefit the game of chess bestows on all humanity (no matter what race you favor).

How about the first grandmaster to hold the office of president then

 There are already black chess masters.

As he didn't say GM, but just "master", I don't even believe it would be possible that no black has ever achieved this.

Look at the large number of IM, NM, GM and FM worldwide. How could no one of them be black? Some countries have almost 100% of black population, don't they have at least National Masters?

That guy must be kidding.

If Ashley is a GM it stands to reason he'd already broken the NM and FM barrier...

Actually Napoleon was a pretty good player.

I think logic does help with chess skill among complete beginners.  After a little study though that advantage goes out the window.

Ah yes, it's lesser-known that Napoleon was an amateur magician who focused on slight of hand.

http://www.goddesschess.com/chesstories/blackgm.html  So much for Obama being the first black chess master.

What would you estimate the IQ of Rybka ?

In my opinion,I.Q.,progress in real life,progress in the game of chess are completely different things.

I have read about people with 140 I.Q. who works as a waiter because their E.Q. is damn low.

According to a particular web-site,there has to be a balance between all the quotients,or else we are as good as screwed up.

completely different can be quantified as "no correlation" which I don't know if that's what you're intending to say.

Rybka is simply a large set of instructions written by humans. We all know that computers are faster by a factor of millions than human problem solvers in mathematics, however Human Intelligence is more profound than mathematical number crunching - in fact some people are smart and have low IQ, because they take a long time and solve harder problems properly (the human condition vs a machine at math).

Chess is related to IQ but also to combat, its a battle and an opponent moving fast with sharp logical movements can often intimidate (hence not exactly IQ) . 

Chess programs aren't perfect, they're still being developed.  In the end it boils down to incredible number crunching power that wins, I must admit that a lot of the math is skipped completely by the human visual perceptive system (the ability to comprehend an entire board at once is very helpful)