I wonder though if there is any real correlation in between IQ and chess skills. Meaning that although strong players may have higher IQ, a higher IQ does not automatically guarantee a GM level skill. It all depends on how early a player starts playing (seriously). As you get older, certain undeveloped neural pathway potentials are lost, forever. That is why it is so hard to learn a second language when you are older or say, to learn to ride a unicycle, learn to play an instrument, etc. Even our beloved Judith Polgar was learning the Ruy Lopez when we were happy to sing along with Barney.

I was puzzling over the move pattern of a knight when my friends were playing the  Pokemon Trading Card Game. Is that too early, or too late?

Nice pictures men!

Carlsen's statement that he doesn't calculate moves smells of bull crap to me.  I think that is ridiculous.  Maybe that is true to an extent, but I'll be he is oversimplifying this a lot.  Otherwise why does he look at the position for several minutes.  Is he staring at the board try to get in touch with his feelings every time? 

---

 You bet Markle!  I'd love to be # 50 in the world at anything.

By the way she is undisputed No. 1 among women...Try to name any other female chess players who tried to beat guys all the time, Vera Menchik discounted (Capa gave her a hard time anyway).

---

He didn't state that - I saw an interview with him where he said it depended on the position. Most of the time he only needs to look three or four moves ahead and make an assessment of the resulting position (this is where the real 'sensing the position' comes into it). Only in very sharp, tactical positions will he - or any other top player - need to make very lengthy calculations. I'm sure he's capable of calculating very long lines indeed, it's just unnecessary and a waste of time in most positions.

---

LOL, so suddenly we should award people titles based on their relatively strength, rather than the absolute one?

She has a normal GM title anyway, and was once rated eighth in the world, so she's hardly a shabby player.

Magnus Carlson is good at playing a board game way to much.............Are you people truly that self absorbed (no lives), that you even debate this subject and try to relay what you write as being a ( I wish list about your own percieved idea's that if you all try to read each other's? I hope you can identify that you are all saying the same thing.

Anyone does way to much of anything and has some natural ability in that area as well......Guess what?? There is an immense possibilty that they will be better than most others in that chosen field.

It's the same as be great at anything else (anything).

Do you honestly think he is brilliant enough and may come up with a new fuel source and way's to prevent starvation and war????????

I would not have enough time in my life to write down everything he can't even do!

I really hope you have all understood and try not to be clever and write rubbish to prove to yourself how brilliant you and he is, just because you all agree. 

---

I don't even know what you're saying.

@renumeratedfrog01 I am not sure what your comment is. How the words "relative strength" or "absolute strength" entered this discussion? I do understand what "LOL" means though...I am glad you are having fun. What I was trying to point out, belittling someone for being "only" the 50th, while not considering that she is playing against men would be slightly unfair in general. But, hey, she is still 50th by her own choosing and I never heard her point it out as an excuse either. By the way I think she is actually the 35th ranked player.

---

 I think this forum topic should be a blog because as I was reading it, it sounded like it should be a blog, rather than a forum.

-BlueGator456

---

This entire post is just steaming of insecurity and jealousy.  

That's our George1st... 

---

100% hooey.  None have ever evidenced any such level.  Chess ability is not directly related to IQ.

---

No no, Carlsen isn't going to prevent starvation and war so he can't be as smart as guys like Kasparov and Fischer. Even if I doubt those numbers that often are presented on the Internet and rarely have any connection whatsoever to some actual test. I think Fischer's number is based on Brady talking to a professor from Fischer's old school after he had become World Champion, and this professor made an estimate of Fischer's IQ.

---

The only thing players like Carlsen do is to recall lines given to them by programmes? :-)

By the way, Carlsen was asked about his IQ in an interview:

Question: Mr Carlsen, what is your IQ?

Carlsen: I have no idea. I wouldn’t want to know it anyway. It might turn out to be a nasty surprise.

Question: Why? You are 19 years old and ranked the number one chess player in the world. You must be incredibly clever.

Carlsen: And that’s precisely what would be terrible. Of course it is important for a chess player to be able to concentrate well, but being too intelligent can also be a burden. It can get in your way. I am convinced that the reason the Englishman John Nunn never became world champion is that he is too clever for that.

Question: How that?

Carlsen: At the age of 15, Nunn started studying mathematics in Oxford; he was the youngest student in the last 500 years, and at 23 he did a PhD in algebraic topology. He has so incredibly much in his head. Simply too much. His enormous powers of understanding and his constant thirst for knowledge distracted him from chess.

Question: Things are different in your case?

Carlsen: Right. I am a totally normal guy. My father is considerably more intelligent than I am.

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=6187

---

+1

Would you think that IQ may be analogous with the "brute force" approach? That is, a capability of high intellectual functioning would propel one to the top of chess? Look what happened during the Euwe-Alekhine rematch. Alekhine knew that Euwe had the tendency to get very nervous very easily and his strategy was to exploit it somewhat. So, you may have a PhD in math, you may be even a Nobel prize winner, if you lose your "nerves", your chess rating will still remain below your abilities. Should we know what constitutes the exact elements of chess mastery, becoming a strong player would be much easier. I do not blame Carlsen for not testing his IQ, it is a lose-lose situation for him.