IQ and Chess: The Real Relationship

what about iq and rubik's cube?

...or tic-tac-toe?

Personally, I don't buy into the 'iq' paradigm.

There's a notion that simply because nature can produce a disabled brain, it must also be able to produce a super brain. I do not believe this to be the case. Why? Because of how neurons work, everyone has the same pattern collecting goo in their skull. Grey matter distribution is genetic, but seeing as how the total amount of grey matter does not seem to effect intelligence, (total mass varies about 40%) I don't see how distribution should either.

In paragraph two of part 3 section B. The author states that infinity can be reached. Obviously it can never be reached.

@tonydal

I think this would be a good time for a limerick.

It's very obvious that we don't know enough to prove anything 100% true at this point, which is the reason posting this article is helpful here. This way, discussion could lead to us discovering what else needs to be discovered, etc. (and what do you know - that HAS happened!) and that's how progress could be made.

How do you think people learned anything about anything in the past? By not discussing it because they didn't know about it? If that was the case, we'd never have made any progress in ANYTHING. I think it's pretty significant to discuss something like this so that progress could be made and we'd eventually have something solid. I've learned plenty from some comments here, frankly.

I know this is an ableist example, but isn't it the neurological functionality that gives rise to autism and so forth. I mean the neurological properties do vary and in that can lend different attribute/characteristics to mental abilities. Yes, every brain (probably) works on the same principles - but can't the differences make some tasks easier? Why not chess. 

Disclaimer: I'm not ableist myself just used the example to use the most extreme circumstances; also, I have a mild form of autism.

As an experiment with 2 of my friends (one of high intelligence and one of average intelligence mathematically speaking), I made them play each other once as black and once as white. They both had no experience of playing chess. The better maths student won both games easily. This shows that with no previous exposure to chess, the better mathematician has an advantage over the other player, indicating that on an initial basis that mathematic intelligence is directly related to chess.

Though near impossible to prove that the 2 are directly relatable, this simple experiment indicates that on at least simplistic level better mathematians are better at chess.

Feel free to prove me wrong 

 Thanks for adding to the discussion! Although this would appear to be arguing against my own case, I am going to point out some flaws in this experiment (or in your explanation) to make this fair.

First of all, your definition of their mathematical intelligence is somewhat ambiguous (i.e. was it their grades, particularly in math, or was it their IQ?) You could still have a lower IQ and be better at certain aspects of math.

Second, why would you force them to play chess? :D Just kidding. If they had no experience at chess, how would they have even been able to know strategy, etc.? They would obviously need some practice and understanding of the theories before being able to play.

Third, if they're really just beginners, it is possible that both players were still making horrible mistakes, and the more 'intelligent' one (I'm assuming he was more logical in this case) was able to spot the opponent's mistakes more often.

Based on those items, I'm not proving you wrong - I just need more verification to prove that these two would be valid statistics to add to this discussion. The foundation of your experiment is valid; it just needs some more information to be proven correct.

Moreover, there are some who claim that english based understanding does more to promote chess playing ability than maybe math does - or equally contribute.

I believe there is some truth in how understanding English makes for better chess playing as well as math because english is a logical field. Maybe logic is the more important factor and not necessarily where a person is apt to apply it . . .

The problem is that mathematical, visual, and literal logic / understanding are all VERY different. Some mathematical logic will definitely blend in with visual logic (mostly in geometry). I really wouldn't see how logic in literature would connect with the former two logics, however. I would classify that logic completely outside of the realm of IQ, although people with higher IQ's often (but not always) have higher abilities in this logic as well. There are a crapload of different types of intelligence! >_>

I acquiesce with the preceding expositions. Withal, sparring in chess does, it seems, have a proclivity toward increasing ones cognizance, not only in the domain of mathematics, but in all facets of human existence.

For further abstraction on this subject, refer to the writings of  manavendra.

Disclaimer: Lest any should take me too serious, I find it imperative to disclose that the real purpose for this post is to show contempt for the overuse of pretentious language. This disclaimer is only necessary, of course, in the event that the reader has not comprehended this hitherto.

This article i found interesting and talks about this very subject.

http://www.iqtestexperts.com/iq-chess.php

your profuse overuse of multicylabiclocution is inherently illogical clap-trap NatefJay; Use of the english language should convey more - my appologies for using more jargon than you were permitted to understand with your current understanding of psychology.

Good day to you.

My ratings run a little above 1800 in working the lessons on Chess Mentor.I question the relationship between the ratings and one's ability to actually play the game.  In spite of what seems to be an indication of resonable skill, I have noticed one discouraging fact.  I try to find the next proper move, but usually my choice is wrong.  Even worse, the correct move is either the last one I choose, or is one that I would have rejected out of hand.  To be so wrong so often, and still be rated at 1800, seems to throw the rating system into question. 

The chess mentor only tests for the best move. That doesn't necesssarily mean that you're not finding good moves. The rating system only relates to your chess games in the system and though chess problems can be assigned rating numbers, this is often superfluous. Players see chess in different ways and can solve certain problems easier than others.

Also the chess mentor only tests certain facets of your game. ie you may have great defensive skills than can win games yet struggle to play successful attacking chess.

The rating system itself is good as a general overview of your chess ability but the chess mentor tests your various abilities in chess.

Hope this helps

This brings a question to my mind. How many masters or grandmaster have an average IQ?

From what i can tell, all top level GM's have a superior (well above average) intellect. If i am wrong, please give me one or two examples of players who have just an average intelligence/IQ.

World Chess Champion Garry Kasparov is alleged to have an IQ of 190

World Chess Champion Judith Polgar is alleged to have an IQ of 170

Chess Grandmaster Robert Byrne is alleged to have an IQ of 170

World Chess Champion Bobby Fischer is alleged to have an IQ of 167

These are a few examples I found and believe that they indicate  Genius_IQ160 point.

Fair point. I haven't heard of any great chess players with sub-standard IQ's. Barring idiot savants, i think it is safe to say that very good chess players do have higher than average IQ's. But then probably so do very good surgeons, architects, lawyers... coming back to tonydal's point - why choose chess as the link to high IQ? Perhaps because it combines multiple skills, e.g. logic, imagination, and 'left' and 'right' brain skills. And perhaps because we all aspire - and admire those in the 'high IQ' bracket (believing high chess rating = high IQ), as well as being able to wear this accolade as a badge in the form of rating points, and show off this skill at tournaments, with friends, online... (boiling down to one word - Ego).