I had to lol with your use of IMHO!!!

Cognition involves more than one part of the brain. I don't want to diminish the abilities of GMs and all of the analytical and logical skills needed for quality chess. But understanding all the other uses of your grey matter is not a 'lefty liberal' conspiracy - a lot of good research has gone into trying to understand the whole brain.

To summarize Nash (an excellent chess player who does rate well on interpersonal intelligence ...), about the first year of learning chess is spent developing higher order thinking skills (analysis, evaluation, creating), with a lot of pattern recognition development (which often is realized as 'intuition'). But after that, a huge amount of time is poured into memorizing databases and openings, etc. Memorization is a lower order thinking skill - still important, but not what makes someone a genius. Genius would be knowing how to use all that memorized knowledge creatively.

I understand from your posts that your view of what comprises intelligence is extremely narrow.

To answer your question about the hypothetical 90 IQ guy, I'd say the answer depends quite heavily on how you measured that number.

By most metrics, probably not, if only because the upper reaches are going to be peppered with men who have somewhat higher cognitive abilities who ALSO spent their lives doing nothing but playing chess.

By the most evolved intelligence metrics, however, the 90 IQ is a lot more likely to become world chess champion than anyone with an IQ of say, 140 or greater.  Because a person with such a high level of intelligence would be far too highly evolved socially to dedicate the necessary portion of his all-too-limited lifespan to such a trivial pursuit.  When you take a more advanced psychological view of things in this way, the man of slightly-above-average intelligence is far and away the most likely to rise to "world class" in a comparitively low-reward endeavor such as chess.

The exceptions are, of course, borderline autistics who take a fancy to chess, like Fischer.  Such a person can have godlike powers of comprehension, analysis, and recognition, but still be able to focus solely upon a life of trivia with no sense of loss.

Magnus Carlsen does not have a team of grandmasters working for him! I don't have the full details of his team, but beyond the aid of a GM-strenght second (and his dad, who takes care of the practical arrangements), I think he's more or less on his own when playing tournaments. I recommend you read the book Wonderboy by GM Simen Agdestein, if you want facts instead of conjecture.

Because a GM dad is just an afterthought...

IQ aside there are plenty of other issues such as exposure to strong chess culture that would make anyone a better chess player.

@ciljettu - No, your concept of intelligence is akin to confusing the tail for the elephant. (Well, you were the one to reference anatomy...)

I grew up near equator, there's only 2 seasons (either sunny or look for Noah's Ark -- just non-stop rain). Thus, exposure to sunlight can't be correlated to lack of intelligence. Color or race, maybe due to pigmentation.

As to M. Carlsen's I.Q., whatever it is, let 'em be ---- as the young minds appear in pure genetic wisdom !

No, you are not alone.

This is a common perception among social conservatives, who are by their very nature, socially stagnant and incapable of adaptation.  It would go against your self-interest to recognize that which you can'tpossibly possess as anything worthwhile.

Maybe there's something to be said for arse licking. Where I used to work there were some people who were impressively gifted at it.

What is it with people and IQ? It's a couple of squares that you put in order and THAT is what judges your entire intelligence, prospects, willpower and essentially brainpower? What a ridiculous concept.

Stay away from things that are supposed to tell you how bright you are, if you have talents, exploit them, everyone does. Sod IQ, it's for people who like to sit about all day thinking how intelligent they are. Get on and do something.

</rant> 

Clejettu isn't a social conservative.  He's a navel-gazing utopian lefty who believes society should foot the bill while his daughter writes poetry and plays with feathers for a living.

Aha, so the retards who come up with this crap finally wised up a bit.

Like a sugary cocktail

@Kodfish, yeah playing stupid boardgames earning millions and becoming a world renowned champion. You've achieved........

Turkishcoffee and Ciljettu, you are so right. The social engineering by the Marxist Globalists that control the western nations and are implementing a World Government would have everyone believe that noone is special and everyone is the same, nurture over nature which is not the case. Frankly I'm also suspicious of the motives of Judit Polgar's father, I suspect that the Communists searched for a born female chess prodigy and then got the father to announce he was testing a theory that anyone can be a chess genius. Talent is born not made, no matter how much training the average child gets he will never be a Magnus Carlsen or a Judit Polgar.

_yiquan_ you realize you're commenting on posts made a year ago, and you're basing your disagreements on complete guessing/personal opinion anyway.

I have heard it too. Kasparov has an IQ in the 130-150 range, considering possible uncertainity. IQ is only loosely related to pure chess talent. OTOH Fischer had scored 184 in an IQ test.

The Czech with highest IQ measured ever is only class C chess player unable to make any progress.

Internet is full of fake prodigies.

Smarter than you

I'm genious. Proof me wrong, loosers.

Don't underestimate killer instincts of cold-blooded predators.