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...
IQ and Chess: The Real Relationship
Sort:
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.
How long have you been playing, and how much time and study have you given to it?
Feb 10, 2013
0
#126
IQ: 151
USCF: 1895
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The information on this thread may be outdated by now, but let's give it a bump anyway.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. :)
rdecredico wrote:
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
AnthonyCG wrote:
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.
IQ never = chess
period
intersting informative article
[COMMENT DELETED]
A meaningful relation between chess rating and IQ can only be established if the player's experience with chess playing is held constant, since even a genius who has just learned the rules of chess will have a low Elo score. Other factors as well would have to be held constant, such as number of hours spent in chess lessons, number of games played, level of social development (which influences the time a person can spend on non=productive activities such as chess), etc.
Dec 22, 2017
0
#139
There are many bad assumptions in this "article". I was going to critique it till I saw how old it was and really... your writing is rather onerous. Suffice it to say, work on your assumptions (hint: they're weak), gather better data instead of relying on one study that doesn't even support your baseless conclusion. Do some statistical analysis on your data to make sure it's valid, you're working with a couple of bell curves, an intro stats course should give you all the background needed. And don't bring up garbage metrics like Levitt's.
Also, why is it so popular to say IQ tests don't measure intelligence? And I only say that because of how vehemently you argue that the two are barely related. Everyone knows IQ tests aren't a 100% accurate reflection of intelligence, but they correlate, strongly, and so does IQ tests and success. Someone with a IQ of 85 better start developing those muscles because they are not going to be able to grapple with multivariable calculus in this lifetime, no matter how hard they try. And no, they aren't going to score off the charts on some hypothetical "creativity" test. You'll notice that the people coming up with truly new, unique ideas in our culture do not generally score poorly on IQ tests unless those ideas are not improvements on old ideas, not practical, not useful, etc. Anyways, that's another rabbit hole for another time.
Apr 8, 2018
0
#140
Your understanding of IQ is flawed. IQ only measures your 'potential' to excel in any given field. The IQ you are born with is the same as the one you die with, it has been proven that it can't be trained or improved. It affects your ability to learn things, understand things, solve problems etc, hence the capacity of a person to excel at chess is higher for those with a higher IQ, of that there is no doubt. However IQ, being all about potential, still requires the person to put in the effort and hard work to realise that potential. Your IQ score is also dependent on the type of test so the actual score is irrelevant, only the percentile score on any given test e.g. top 2%.
As it happens, I recently had a formal test at the age of 36 and have decided to take up chess again after longing for something to challenge me and scoring well on the test. Haven't played regularly since I was about 16!
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.