You just side-stepped everything I said. I didn't say the test was unreliable. I said it used a different IQ scale and didn't actually use questions on the traditional IQ test. Also many websites say his IQ was around 190. Did you even take the time to look into my argument, or did you immediately start typing about how my claims had no evidence to back them up?
190 is certainly not accurate, though, and those websites are in the business of "pop science" as opposed to hard, evidenciary journalism and analysis. The reality is that chess relies on working memory and pattern recognition but also on visualization, processing speed, attention to detail, general attention span, and a plethora of other factors. Assuming that the figure of 190 is accurate, Kasparov is theoretically at a level only matched by roughly 7 people on the planet. Do you honestly believe that? If you do, then there's not even a real point in trying to argue with "everything [you] just said."
First of all, you do realize that IQ tests are mainly about the attributes you said chess skills rely on. Have you ever taken an IQ test?
Second of all, why is it so far-fetched to you that Kasparov is one of the smartest people on the planet? Is that really so hard to believe?
First, I have, and I have a decent working understanding of how they work. At the same time, while you do claim that many of those elements are measured by those tests, your FSIQ is still a holistic measure and therefore may not be weighted to properly reflect the elements which are dominant in chess.
Second, it's nearly impossible to believe that Kasparov is one of the smartest people on earth, and you're truly insular if you can't see why that isn't logical. While he may be intelligent, it seems highly unlikely that one can make the claim that based on solely chess ability when chess is quite obviously not a good measure of fluid reasoning. Realistically, you could even go so far as to say that it's mostly a test of working memory, pattern recognition, and recall of memorized positions.
For example: https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/f2q8ll/garry_kasparov_takes_a_real_iq_test_der_spiegel/
Again, I'd stray from taken anything relatively unsubstantiated; however, you can see that the OP on this thread links to a pastebin supposedly from an article in Der Spiegel which cites his iq as being 135 after a battery of real scientifically rigorous tests. Would you argue that iq, the subject of this conversation, is now not a good indicator? If you'd hold to the original constraints, I can hardly see how this is at all indicative of the caliber of intelligence asserted.
You stated that the comparison between chess and IQ is a faulty one with the reasoning that chess was about memory and pattern recognition, but this makes it clear to me that you have never taken an IQ test. The vast majority of questions on IQ tests are based around pattern recognition. Also many of the questions are also based around memory. (On online IQ tests less questions are about memory, but if you are actually tested by a psychiatrist, there are many question testing memory). So really you are arguing my point when you say those things.
I didn't say that that's not the case. As I mentioned, iq tests (WISC-V being the one which I took and the one about which I know the most) typically consist of a serious of subtests with different weights. For the aforementioned test, each subtest is weighted according to its correlation with g, and the subscores for processing speed and working memory are given less weight than the fluid reasoning index and visual-spatial index. The point is not that iq tests don't test those things; rather, it's that many sections give them little weight and are given more overall weight than the sections which adequately examine them.
Gotta love being told that I've never taken a test when I've had to take them twice for psych evals
Also, you ignored my second point...
If you've taken them then you should know about the huge pattern recognition aspect of them. As for your second point, it fits in quite nicely with my first one. Since I have stated that since chess is basically pattern recognition, and so is an IQ test, I clearly believe that high IQ equals high chess ability. Using this bit of information, it's not hard to deduce that I think that if Kasparov was one of the best chess players in the world, he could also be one of the smartest people in the world. I didn't say it was necessarily true, I just said it wasn't hard to believe. As for why I "ignored" your second point was because I thought that all of this was basic logic, and that you could put two and two together.
You have to be trolling.
1) calling an iq test a measure of pattern recognition is incredibly reductive since chess ability is likely best correlated not with pattern recognition but with working memory and processing speed, both of which are given little weight on most iq tests. Consequently, the overall correlation would be there but would likely be minimal. In fact, if you bothered to check the pastebin, the notes by the journalists corroborate this idea in that they claim that Kasparov tested very well in certain areas and only at an average level in others.
2) Clearly, if your claims were correct, then finding that Kasparov's intelligence isn't exceptional (though definitely quite high) should indicate (given chess ability ~ iq) that his chess ability is also similarly unexceptional. Obviously, this is false, so don't try to belittle me by claiming that it's "basic logic."
3) You asked me if I'd taken an iq test, and I told you that I had. If you're going to just ignore someone's answer to a question, don't ask the question.
I was 162 Dead on! However I really don't believe it affects any part of my life. (Besides being a nerd)
-GC
Thanks!