20742 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Backgammon, Yatzy, and more!
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
IQ in general is nothing but a test to determine if you are smarter than a dog. Chess requires an intellect of an average 5 year old.
As a maximum, and with enough practice,I would say it's about right.
Btw, does anyone know of any GM's with particularly low or average IQ's? If the rule is that "IQ doesn't matter" then surely this ought to be the case, right?
That's ridiculous for at least two reasons. Firstly, becoming a grandmaster of chess takes a lot of years. Secondly, IQ fluctuates throughout life (and likely to increase with improvements in chess).
Further arguments against this would include differences between IQ before/after becoming a titled player, having certain cognitive strengths/weaknesses in those IQ tests (knowing which are relevant to the question), and further complications such as age differences, and IQ correlations between commencing chess play, and becoming a 'grandmaster' in terms of other factors such as age-related cognitive decline which raises further complications such as those same mental faculties being reverted through active usage . . .
Many players become GM's at an early age, 14 or 15 seems to be the earliest age. That's not "a lot of years" especially if they only "discover" chess at 5 or 6 years of age. The fact is they are "gifted" with extra talent in spatio-logical problems, or however it should be phrased. I agree IQ does fluctuate, but i also believe you can be born gifted, giving a head start to such individuals (the fact that many of them become social misfits is beside the point). I think two key factors in achieving GM level are:
1) Being gifted (much higher than average IQ), and:
2) Focussing that gift onto chess.
I'm still searching for a GM with a low IQ...
IQ is definitely a factor in chess tactics. Strategy is more about wisdom, patience and experience though.
Personally i have absolutely no patience so that's where i fall down.
It's been a while since anybody's posted here. My interest has waned, but I figure others may still maintain some interest in this topic, and there's plenty of discussion here (some constructive... some not). Fire away, boys and girls...
Agreed, kenpo. If we think of the time and dedication the best chess players devote to the game (i.e. their whole life, virtually every waking moment), it follows that they must reach the pinnacle of their art. A certain mindset (exceptionally analytical), combined with above average IQ, plus years and years of study and dedication, has to bring results.
i have an IQ 126 and i don't play chess very well...
How long have you been playing, and how much time and study have you given to it?
I know some people with IQs higher than their actual rating...
I think the "junk" comment had a lot to do with the various undocumented opinions you offered as bases for your argument. Still a good read.
The information on this thread may be outdated by now, but let's give it a bump anyway. Contributions to this topic are always appreciated.
Long time no see, chess.com. :)
IQ is a bunk number.
Research and statistics indicate otherwise. It's far from perfect, and is only limited to a small percentage of 'overall intelligence,' but it's considered a good predictor for various socioeconomic and educational trends.
Don't deny the research - objectively question it.
James flynn has an interesting ted talk on the subject of IQ that everyone should check out whether you subscribe to it or not
I believe that the small group of arrogant people that think that chess makes them smarter than others will always leave a bad impression on threads like these even if the thread isn't meant to further that train of thought. Even if there is a real relationship, most people will not bother to comment because threads like these tend to attract those types of people - people I like to avoid or thrash in a chess game.
Most or many chessplayers are better in maths than the average population, and they gets fond of chess because they feel that they are good at it.
I want a certification that shows that I am very smart, so I thought I should get myself an impressive chessrating.
I myself know that chessrating is not a value that describes an amount of smartness or intelligence. Most of the rating reflects amount of learning. You can build, build and build rating by learning, practicing, studying, playing,
but non-chessplayers doesnt know, and they mistake high chessrating for high intelligence.
So I can fool them, and make them believe that I am intelligent. I want to throw this illution on them.
If you test all the GM´s for intelligence, my guess is that all of them are scoring very high. I have read thay Kasparov has 185 or 190. So, there is a relation between intellligence and super chessperformance.
Lot of ntelligence + lot of chesslearning = lot of good chess
It's not even just things like emotional intelligence -- even if we go by "traditional" intelligence like math, science, etc, there are so many subdivided skills within those. Imagining a 3d object may get you some IQ points but not help you with appreciating chess prophylaxis. In fact, there are a lot of IQ test questions you could probably answer without also appreciating chess prophylaxis (essentially, proactivity in general). Or without knowing how to manage your clock -- like whether you look for a combination or save your time. There are just so many different intellectual skills out there, and obviously they will correlate with each other, since intellectual people tend to dabble in many different "brainy" pursuits from time to time, but there is a ton of room for variance between all of those things. For example, you may specialize in one particular area, and so one or two skills may be much greater than all of your other skills.
And yes rdecredico's statement above bears repeating. A statement whose lack of understanding is not inconsistent with a high IQ score! Especially those bragging about it
Thumbs up to Dhalsim he has made some valid points.
Now fellow chessplayer ....' get ..over ..here " you are from Italy Wasn't yr Prime Minister the infamous Balastroni who chased young girls ? Well I can understand your point about IQ's better now.
IQ tests signify that SWIFT "correct " answers signify intelligence.
Some people cant read but they are prodigies ( very right brain thinkers ) and they would fail an IQ test. IQ tests are based on the premise you are educated and are exposed to such styles of questioning.
Now DOGS are very intelligent . Us humans belong to a lower range of frequency senses ...but dogs surpass us they belong to the higher frequency range of sounds etc, they feel and SEE more acutely then us.
If I left you miles away from home without maps or other communication tools like a dog could you get back to base ?
Yes a 5 year old if taught properly can play chess . Bobby Fischer was a child prodigy at 13 yrs old like Magnus . However these GM's are ABOVE average in their RIGHT BRAIN HEMISPHERE functions and if they have a good left brain they are smarter than an IQ of 100 which is AVERAGE
In fact along with Kasparov those three have very high IQ's 160 + but retested many times ( Kasparov ) proved to be about IQ of 140
Indeed, IQ will correlate with things. Just like how strong chess players tend to be strong blitz players. Some skills in one area will probably help another in some way. But there are enough differences between classical chess and blitz chess that an amateur who's really trained/specialized at blitz can regularly beat titled players in blitz games, at least those who spend a lot less time on blitz than he does. Yet despite those blitz skills, not stand a chance against the titled players in classical tournament chess.
One big problem with this article: the levitt equation. I love the idea, but he does not specify which test is used to measure IQ, this important as different IQ tests have different scales, 140 on one test may equate to 120 on another, what would be a better equation is to base the final (potential) chess rating on a persons IQ percentile (on any accurate, well founded test), for example to test at the 96th percentile (top 4%) might equate to an ELO of 2300.
Does most of the world really love the stalemate factor?
by Scottcc a few minutes ago
Why Knowing Your Openings is Important at Higher Levels!
by dpnorman a few minutes ago
Don't english me!
by MEXIMARTINI a few minutes ago
by Craftsman112 a few minutes ago
by VintagePawn 3 minutes ago
History of obtaining points
by FunnyFighter 3 minutes ago
Millionaire Chess 3
by mdinnerspace 5 minutes ago
All The Reasons We Hate V3!
by LegoPirateSenior 7 minutes ago
Chess legends. Where would be Carlson's position in a list?
by FunnyFighter 10 minutes ago
Origami chess set
by PlayChessPoorly 11 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2016 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!