Can you be a rubbish chess player and have a really high IQ?

IQ is a measure of general puzzle solving ability. Chess, essentially, is a specialised puzzle. Therefore ....

Chess is about wisdom. You don't have to be super smart to get this wisdom. It probably makes it easier but isn't absolutely necessary.

my iq is 130, and im 700 elo, so...

You have to learn how to learn chess. This isn't the best medium. A live chess club is best.

(Not a you-tube channel)

Obviously

Yes. And you can be a genius chess player with a low IQ. Chess does not equal genius, and vice versa. I am sure there are ample examples of this on Google.

Don't think that's possible.

I think I read somehwere that hikaru's iq was 102 (dead average)

Chess skill is just a matter of learning through exposure and repetition.

As the saying goes, "Synapses that fire together, wire together."

The more you practice (and study) chess, the more neural connections you are building and reinforcing - wiring your brain for chess.

The more you do it (and the more efficiently you do it), the better you will get.

IQ is practically irrelevant to this - this is the basic neuroscience of learning any skill ...

Also, if you were to test the IQ of an experienced chess player, they might score highly, which might lead you to think: "They had a high IQ - which is why they became a strong player!"

But that conclusion might be putting the cart before the horse. Perhaps their years of improving at chess improved their cognitive abilities ...

Which is to say, a modest-IQ player could see a rise in their measured IQ over time, as a direct result of the repeated cognitive load that the game exerts on their mind.

So we see Kasparov testing in the 130s, and we conclude "He became so good at chess because he has a 130 IQ". However, we could just as easily conclude "He spent decades studying and practicing chess, from his youth and upward. This must have had a measurable impact on his brain development and cognitive abilities." ...

That would be incorrect, then. A badly administered IQ test or maybe he deliberately scored low.

Few ppl seem to get that people can fail tests deliberately.

At any level over 1900, chess is about memory, pattern recognition and learned skills.

But above about 1900 it is increasingly dependent on mental ability ... that is, working out difficult, complex puzzles. Anyone can memorise and learn skill through repetition. What makes the really good ones stand out is not just strategic ability but also puzzle solving ability.

IQ is a measure of puzzle solving ability. Therefore, where everything else can be learned by repetition in any case, IQ makes a positive difference. For you to be correct, high IQ would need to prevent learning a skill. It doesn't prevent it.

of course

im rubbish

oh yeah that actually makes sense, as he was trying to prove that you don't need to be smart to play chess.

Sounds like he may have taken a "give the correct answer out of the 4 provided" test and he just went random on them all.

I've played at the Berkeley, CA chess club on and off for many years. Students and faculty from one of the world's premier universities have been members. Some of these brilliant people are excellent chess players, some stay at low levels despite years of effort.

Having a high IQ helps with learning, and a good memory is also an advantage in improving one,s game, but the idea that top players MUST have very high IQs is unproven. Dismissing any examples to the contrary as "poorly-administered test" or "not really trying" with no evidence to support such claims is twaddle.

Hiya, old chap. Glad to see you're spasmodically immersing yourself in the to and fro of this important aspect of the skills of debate.

So, you think that every IQ test in existence is administered correctly, there are no dodgy ones online etc etc? And that no-one has ever failed a test deliberately or deliberately answered the questions at random. OK, you're welcome to your opinion. You'll have the evidence, I suppose.

Just wondering if anyone would like to attempt to refute this rather conclusive argument? Perhaps someone will argue that IQ tests measure our ability to continue to hold incorrect opinions even though those opinions are easily refuted by well-directed argument? Or that IQ tests are incapable of measuring anything, or that chess doesn't consist of a complex series of puzzles?

Chess is a type of puzzle, sure. But chess-specific intelligence doesn't necessarily translate to ability in other forms of puzzles.

If we watch the video of Hikaru trying to solve a 15-puzzle online, for example, (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMDGXeRK__E) we don't see a puzzle-solving phenom in all his glory. Instead, we see a typical person stumbling through a rudimentary puzzle via little more than trial and error - and doing what most people try to do: coming up with our own heuristic method to simplify our understanding.

One would think, if we were to assume that Hikaru's chess skill suggests a high IQ (and if we were to assume that high IQ equates to high puzzle-solving abilities), that a basic numerical sliding puzzle should be child's play for him. But it wasn't.

In fact, his attempts highlight an interesting facet in his approach: he tries to find rules and techniques that can be redeployed, like pattern shortcuts, instead of actually thinking ahead and planning out his approach. He clicks and shifts randomly at times, and when that doesn't work, he scraps the method and restarts the puzzle, to try something else.

This suggests that his approach to chess is likely similar - a matter of chunking patterns and re-using techniques, after finding ones that work from all the trial and error ...

--

Or, TL;DR: Being brilliant at chess doesn't automatically mean one is brilliant at everything (or anything) else ...