I don't think you can correlate IQ with someone precisely. I think you can say those who have high IQ scores usually perform better in everything than average people. I don't know if you can say this specific IQ score will mean you can reach this exact mile stone.
Chess and IQ Relationship
Sort:
I heard from a source that Garry Kasparov has an IQ of 190.
Jan 19, 2014
0
#24
The original purpose of I.Q. tests were to determine if (and to what extent) a person might be lacking in intelligence compared to an average person. Using it for any other purpose is seen by many experts as nonsense. I remember a case where two young children were adopted by an expert in this field. Although I.Q. are suppose to stay relatively stable over one's lifetime he tutored them where they were able to test an I.Q. highly above what they first tested.
Whats with Tigerprowl writing persuasive essays in every post? Anyway, I think chess helps IQ very little, however, it does slow down the deterioration of the brain that comes with age immensly!
I agree with LuftWaffles, there was a guy who went to Harvard at 12, and after a legal entanglement, he finished his degree and performed menial tasks for the rest of his life.
IQ can change. The brain is not static; it has neuroplasticity. Yes, IQ can be improved. Just playing a game of chess here or there isn't going to do much for you though.
In a recently released study about nature vs nurture, it is pointed out that nature( innate abilities ) accounts for 58% of the disparity of the subjects involved while nurture ( upbringing ) accounts for 29%. The study thus provides some concrete ideas about to what extent native intelligence and diligence complement each other. The report deserves more careful reading .
As to the relationship between playing chess and improving IQ, I think playing chess only improves one's visual - spatial intelligence. I very much doubt if it also leads to better Maths skill in general.
Jan 19, 2014
0
#28
Isaac Asimov was probably one of the smartest people alive at his time and yet he sucked at chess...
iMacChess wrote:
Isaac Asimov was probably one of the smartest people alive at his time and yet he sucked it chess...
That is the saddest thing I've heard all day. Poor, poor Asimov.
Jan 20, 2014
0
#30
Yeah, Isaac Asimov talks about it (Chess) in one of his books I believe the title is "I Asimov". It's a real good book but then of course all his books are good...
Jan 22, 2014
0
#31
ebillgo wrote:
In a recently released study about nature vs nurture, it is pointed out that nature( innate abilities ) accounts for 58% of the disparity of the subjects involved while nurture ( upbringing ) accounts for 29%. The study thus provides some concrete ideas about to what extent native intelligence and diligence complement each other. The report deserves more careful reading .
I agree, it needs more careful reading. It seems, nobody understands these studies at all. Read the mismeasure of man, by Stephen Jay Gould. An old book, but still, sadly (since it should have cleared this nonsense up decades ago), relevant. And anything by Lewontin. Then re-read the study, whatever it was.
oh, and what accounts for the remaining 23%?
Mar 28, 2015
0
#32
58+
29=
87
100-87= 13
I guess u could say the 13% left could come from the enviroment outside your family group. Friends, teachers, schools, readings, and other sources of interaction.
Never talk about IQ. It only brings up the braggarts.
YOU CAN'T INCREASE YOUR IQ
Peeple that play chess are smrater than peeple that don't.
Excelling at chess has long been considered a symbol of more general intelligence. That is an incorrect assumption in my view, as pleasant as it might be. ~ chess quote by Garry Kasparov
Mar 31, 2015
0
#37
I know that originaly iq was devised only to identify the below average intelligence not above average. What i find amusing is that everywhere people post their "i.q." it is nearly always in the genius range.
sirrichardburton wrote:
I know that originaly iq was devised only to identify the below average intelligence not above average. What i find amusing is that everywhere people post their "i.q." it is nearly always in the genius range.
I guess genius is a low bar.
Mar 31, 2015
0
#39
sirrichardburton wrote:
What i find amusing is that everywhere people post their "i.q." it is nearly always in the genius range.
Only an idiot would post his IQ being 48.
"the "natural talent" would be superior finger dexterity, or balance, or what have you"
That is not jugggling. There is no way to know what you are labeling until someone actually does it. When they do, then you can label it "juggling". Then you can judge people based on what that "Jesus" figure did way back when.
Until YOU the person puts manmade labels on some act, it is NOTHING. It is not superior, it holds no aura. Another person can use a different technique. Why couldn't that make them more talented?
"using a fictional short story that contains not a lick of science in it (I know the story quite well) and then trying to prop up a scientific argument with it is ludicrous"
If 1 premise is faulty, it doesn't mean the other is faulty. I can see you are set in your "theist" mindtrap. There is ONLY 1 way to do something, only one supernatural being. If person A achieves task 1, then anybody that is different from this person afterwards must be labeled not talented. After all, there is no science that can explain why we hold forks differently.
Ok, so by your logic, a 5' tall man and 7' tall man both have the same potential to play basketball well. After all, height is not the equivalent of basketball, and by extension has no effect on basketball. Gotcha.
As for the "thiest" baloney...I have not said or even implied a word about thiesm. Find another straw man...