Relationship between Chess rating and I.Q?

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.

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

"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.  

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

IQ = USCF/16.0

Pork, the other white meat.

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

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

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

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.

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 )

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

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

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.

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) 

Botvinnik was an engineer.  Taimanov was a concert pianist.  What did Fischer do to support his claim?  (He has some odd ideas when it came to non-chess things).  My guess is he saw Kasparov (current World Champion) as a threat to his reality where he (Fischer) believed he was still the world champion (or at least he liked to say so).

Fischer also said while others give 2 percent of their mental energy to chess, he gave 98%.  He was certainly very talented, but he also worked harder than anyone (I believe).

Speculation on my part, sure, but when it doesn't involve chess notation I don't trust Fischer's analysis of anything :)

Or maybe I should say, I'm less than convinced because other's don't corroborate it.  From what I recall other's main impressions of him are "hard to get a long with" and "amazingly brilliant player" nothing along the lines of "all around genius"

When thinking of eccentric genius in chess, current to 10 player Ivanchuk comes to mind.  Highly original player (that points to some kind of general intelligence to me) and other's accounts and things I've read seem to suggest he's very smart.  Of course I've never met the guy, so just more speculation on my part.

I am willing to bet, if using people who have never played chess before, of different IQ levels to play some games, to see how they compared against one another, as they played the same set of players, it would show that initially more intelligent people play better than less intelligent people. Thus they would have a higher rating than the less intelligent.

However, if you took someone with 100 IQ and had them play chess for 10 years, then compared them to a newcomber of a 125 IQ, it would probably show how experience can in some ways, negate the raw intelligence factor. This would probably be true in almost every case.

my IQ is 100 according to the online test i just gave but my rating is 1400 (IQ = 40) how is tht possible

I'm 21 my IQ is above 130 and my blitz elo is 1200 according to the notation you have mentioned 2000 +(IQ - 100) x 10

with sufficient work I can achieve 2300 elo

I have been playing for a rather long time exactly 223 blitz game and I think it's impossible for me to get to 2300 elo without being coached, I believe that even played like 10,000 games I won't be able to pass the 2000 elo range, but who knows the days might prove me wrong.

you didn't get it the notion says that the your maximum possible elo is 2000

with sufficient work you could get your elo close to 2000 and if you compare how many chess games you have played compared to a GM you will prabobly find that you haven't even reached 1% of what a GM has played in his life.

simply keep practicing and learning from the GM's games and you will certainly pass your top elo good luck.

Simply not true. serious scholarly investigation of this has not yielded any meaningful correlation or suggestion that chess ability is predictive of intelligence or the other way around. There is some evidence that certain aspects of intelligence (such as memory) correlate to performance, but when non-chess specific tests are used, master level players show no better general memory skills than average population groups. 

Indeed, one very highly cited paper by Bilalic and McLeod from Oxford even found that "It turned out that intelligence was not a significant factor in chess skill, and that, if anything it tended to correlate negatively with chess skill."

Chess players BELIEVE they are smarter than the average bear.

And that might be all we can reasonable say.  But don't let me slow down this exciting thread.  Perish the thought.  Onward Christian Soldiers!