Can an average person ever break 2000?

 Actually i think having a FIDE rating of 2399 up to whatever you have very good chance to make a living; everything will depend on your success in tournaments.

I don't know if this has been mentioned yet but someone (I don't remember who) found a correlation between IQ and maximum possible rating (if the player worked as much as possible to improve).  The guy found the formula to be:

Max Rating = 1000 + 10*IQ

Since the average person has an IQ of 100, an average person could reach 2000 (according to his study).

Expert-level chess-players don't make much money from chess, so the average person working as much as possible to improve is extremely unlikely.

I realize this. It is more of a "if reality was no object and the person could focus on chess full-time" than a realistic model.

I'm not sure I buy this persons equation. Do you know if it was a scientific study based on direct comparison of IQ and chess rating? I can think of a multitude of variables and controls which would have to be considered in such a study. Why did he set the specific 10*IQ parameter ? IQ tests do not represent a persons actual intelligence anyway. Most psychologist will tell you that. For example, I score very high on the logic and reasoning section, but do ~average on the verbal/analogy section. Since we can agree (I hope) that Chess is a beautifully logical, creative, and spatially challenging game, do you think a person with the opposite type of strengths (i.e. in the verbal, etc. aspect) would  do just as well? I don't know! I am not implying you have to be good at science or math to be good at Chess! I am just interested, because when you say "based on IQ test" this is an immediate red flag for me. Anyway, I would love to see the link/post if you could manage to find it. I tend to think that creativity is extremely important in Chess. You may agree or disagree. This is something that is not directly tested in an standard IQ test.

Best,

Mike

This was John Levitt. As he pointed out, there was no science behind his numbers, merely conjecture. Obviously, his conjecture was that the average person's maximum rating would be 2000.

Exactly. Well said. It is a very odd thing that dumb people can be so good and intelligent people so bad.....It makes you wonder if there is any one given "requirement" that any Chess player has to have in order to become great, regardless of intelligence, or if there is one that is most important.

Patients

Determination

Discipline

Spacial reasoning....etc..?

I just can't understand why people on here can't seem to realize that just because somebody happens to be talented in one thing, chess being just one example, doesn't mean they have to be smarter in everything else. People have different talents.

We are curious. Its an interesting question.

I'd say its a combination of a good upbringing, poor social skills, phallically challenged, and lets see and predisposition to narcissistic tendancies.  

LOL! haha, nice. Im not going to argue with that....especially the nacissistic part.

The inclusion of the word "much" in this sentence made me laugh...

Madhacker, it seemed better than "any" because occasionally they win money in tournaments. However, it seems that playing chess is probably a net financial loss!

By the way, have you reached "Expert" classification?

We don't have "classifications" in the same way as the US does, but my rating is in the range generally regarded as Expert. And I can assure that my chess playing runs at a net loss!

Oh yes, you are from Wales, sorry! Congratulations on your level of skill, and it's too bad about that deficit!

When it comes to intellectual endeavours there's only one kind of talent: intelligence. Intelligence is the ability to learn and understand.

Intelligence is extremely important for chess. Sure somebody that put in 1000 hours will be better than somebody that put in 10 hours, but as long as you control for the variables of effort and methods of studying, the person with (significanlty) higher IQ will wipe the floor with the person of lower IQ.

It's funny how people keep denying this, probably because they are average at chess and they secretly hope to be something more than average intelligence.

The poster who said that he knows people great at chess that are "absolutely morons", I'm sorry but I don't believe it. Maybe you meant "socially obnoxious", but who is you to say that they are not smart?

Ok let me tell you this. If you want a graduate job you'll have to pass through psychometric tests - i.e. tests to measure your numerical, verbal, and logical abilities. For personal experience I'll tell you that practice with these tests will help a lot to perform better in them. But still, practice has diminishing returns so eventually all candidates will start from pretty much equal footing.

Now, why do you think ALL companies use them, even spending quite a bit for the services of specialized firms such as SHL?

Because ALL companies believe that your ability to answer a problem of simple math in 60 sec is a good measure of your future ability to perform in your graduate job.

And it's all about learning a mathematical pattern and applying it under time pressure. Same thing that goes on in chess.

plutonia,

Intelligence cannot be succinctly defined by anybody, your definition falls short in countless ways. There will always be someone who you consider less intelligent than you who can learn and understand something (generally, something which interests them more than it does you) faster or more precisely than you can.

Particularly your claim that people with higher IQ's will 'wipe the floor' with people with lower ones (ceteris paribus) is likely false. IQ tests, as I recall, test numerous mental faculties only some of which are relevent to the game of chess. Your claim could be correct or false depending on these weightings, or even then there could be no correspondence.

Really, intelligence means many things - and it resoundingly does not correlate on a one to one basis with ability at a particular board game. You only have to spend a few hours on the forums here to realise that.

The only trend I've noticed is that chess players tend to think of themselves as more intelligent than non-chess players.

Plutonia, are you sure you chose the right handle?  Was Polonius already taken?

Usually this is only weak chess players

check out BBC documentaries    Horizon IQ tested 6 different people I'm sure one of them was a grandmaster at chess, What was interesting was how each persons school, collage and profession had a marked effect on how well they scored in the test