Chess vs IQ - Chess Forums - Page 9

llama47

Feb 19, 2021

0

#161

Dynamic_Beast wrote:

BlackLawliet wrote:

Hello everyone,

I was curious about what the correlation between Chess and IQ was, so I decided to make this thread. If you are willing to, it would be helpful if you could post your IQ ONLY if tested by a psychologist, (No results from online tests, etc.), your rating for the time control which you play play most, (No variants), and how long you have been playing, (Amount of years + Left-over amount of months. If you are comfortable, age would be helpful, but not required.

If I get enough requests, I will post another thread sharing the data.

Thankyou!

The existence of correlation between intelligence and chess has been proven already

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160913124722.htm#:~:text=The%20study%20found%20that%20intelligence,at%20lower%20levels%20of%20skill

You're using the word proven incorrectly.

llama47

Feb 19, 2021

0

#162

BlackLawliet wrote:

duntcare wrote:

this forum is a lie, 110 iq is already pretty genious, imagine random people going like oh i have 150 iq or even 130 iq is pretty much a lie, a few could be but bruh

Actually, a 140 IQ is considered genius amongst most psychologists because of the fact that it is in the top 99th% percentile. Also, you half to take into account that people with higher IQs are going to be the ones posting their IQs because they probably have some pride in their IQs.

You're using the word half incorrectly.

llama47

Feb 19, 2021

0

#163

Ok, that's my 30 seconds in this topic. Thanks and bye lol.

BlackLawliet

Feb 19, 2021

0

#164

binomine wrote:

I don't think you can correlate the two, but if you want some data...

My son's IQ is 137 measured and his rating is 167.

I have no doubt he is a genius and the things he puts together are insane, but if the computer wasn't correcting his illegal moves, he probably wouldn't be able to play at all.

Interesting. If you don't mind me asking, what's your son's age and how long has he been playing for?

binomine

Feb 19, 2021

0

#165

BlackLawliet wrote:

binomine wrote:

I don't think you can correlate the two, but if you want some data...

My son's IQ is 137 measured and his rating is 167.

I have no doubt he is a genius and the things he puts together are insane, but if the computer wasn't correcting his illegal moves, he probably wouldn't be able to play at all.

Interesting. If you don't mind me asking, what's your son's age and how long has he been playing for?

Not a problem, he's 7 now, but I tried for about 3 months when he was six, absolutely no interest. I figured if I forced him to play a bit, it would pique his interest, but nah. No drive to problem solve and win nor does he care if someone checkmates him.

His schoolwork is phenomenal, so I believe his IQ test as accurate. Heck, we don't even know his current reading level, because the teacher had to stop testing.

To him, roblox is better than chess.

BlackLawliet

Feb 19, 2021

0

#166

binomine wrote:

BlackLawliet wrote:

binomine wrote:

I don't think you can correlate the two, but if you want some data...

My son's IQ is 137 measured and his rating is 167.

I have no doubt he is a genius and the things he puts together are insane, but if the computer wasn't correcting his illegal moves, he probably wouldn't be able to play at all.

Interesting. If you don't mind me asking, what's your son's age and how long has he been playing for?

Not a problem, he's 7 now, but I tried for about 3 months when he was six, absolutely no interest. I figured if I forced him to play a bit, it would pique his interest, but nah. No drive to problem solve and win nor does he care if someone checkmates him.

His schoolwork is phenomenal, so I believe his IQ test as accurate. Heck, we don't even know his current reading level, because the teacher had to stop testing.

To him, roblox is better than chess.

I see. I feel like at his young especially if he doesn't want to play chess, even with a high IQ, he wouldn't be very good or improve much.

mpaetz

Feb 19, 2021

0

#167

I still don't know how the Kasparov 190 IQ was measured. Was that on Stanford-Benet? I've also seen an internet site claiming Magnus Carlsen has the identical 190 IQ. (This site also offers a 24-minute online IQ test.) Nowhere is it recorded what kind of test either took. It might be wise to mistrust some unsubstantiated "fact" seen on perhaps-untrustworthy internet pages.

Nepotamy

Feb 20, 2021

0

#168

Those estimates of 180-190 for Kasparov and Carlsen shouldn't be believed as there is no evidence.

opterayon

Feb 20, 2021

0

#169

A word of caution: no need to have emotional attachments to numbers like IQ or Elo rating, as such an obsession may actually hinder your intellectual development. You're plenty smart enough to learn whatever it is you want to learn, even if that thing is Chess. Please also bear in mind, both numbers can always be improved. Always.

Have a great day everyone.

binomine

Feb 20, 2021

0

#170

BlackLawliet wrote:

I see. I feel like at his young especially if he doesn't want to play chess, even with a high IQ, he wouldn't be very good or improve much.

Yeah,I mostly agree, but I wanted to share because many chess players claim that there is a correlation between chess and intelligence. That intellectuals are drawn to chess, because of its unique problem solving. I have one high IQ at home that isn't and I am unsure if he ever will be.

AxiomaticUncertainty

Feb 22, 2021

0

#171

BlackLawliet wrote:

AxiomaticUncertainty wrote:

BlackLawliet wrote:

goldenbeer wrote:

So you rely on a random site that puts random name with random numbers next to each others and calls them genius? Really? Spiegel didn’t design IQ test itself. Used well known scientific team to design the test, and methodology of designing such tests is very well known and it is quite reliable. You can stick with your childhood dreams that Kasparov is a super smart guy. The reality is that, he isn’t that smart.

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.

blueemu

Feb 22, 2021

0

#172

IQ tests measure the person's ability to score well on IQ tests.

Optimissed

Feb 22, 2021

0

#173

I'm completely confident I could have scored 190 in an IQ test when I was younger. As BlueEmu will testify, that is not a measure of intelligence. It's a measure of the ability to solve puzzles which are thought to have some correlation with intellectual ability. 190 just means that you're thinking clearly and well on the day. On other days, it may not be so and you score 135.

GChess

Feb 22, 2021

0

#174

IQ = Internal Quotient

That essentially means how much information your brain takes and "holds onto" ... last time I checked it has nothing to do with one's intelligence.

Dedication and Ambition are much more important. I am a mensa member. Thats all I have to say.

-GC

BlackLawliet

Feb 22, 2021

0

#175

AxiomaticUncertainty wrote:

BlackLawliet wrote:

AxiomaticUncertainty wrote:

BlackLawliet wrote:

goldenbeer wrote:

So you rely on a random site that puts random name with random numbers next to each others and calls them genius? Really? Spiegel didn’t design IQ test itself. Used well known scientific team to design the test, and methodology of designing such tests is very well known and it is quite reliable. You can stick with your childhood dreams that Kasparov is a super smart guy. The reality is that, he isn’t that smart.

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.

Optimissed

Feb 22, 2021

0

#176

IQ = Intelligence quotient, originally obtained by expressing the perceived cognitive ability of a child, expressed in years and months as the age of the average child which attains that standard, as a proportion of its chronological age. It's a function of problem-solving ability. There are some fake intelligence tests around .... fake because they are culturally biassed. Real intelligence is about solving problems that are novel to you.

What's it like being a Mensa member? My wife passed the test, scoring about IQ = 157, but she never kept up her membership and never attended a meeting.

BlackLawliet

Feb 22, 2021

0

#177

Optimissed wrote:

IQ = Intelligence quotient, originally obtained by expressing the perceived cognitive ability of a child, expressed in years and months as the age of the average child which attains that standard, as a proportion of its chronological age. It's a function of problem-solving ability. There are some fake intelligence tests around .... fake because they are culturally biassed. Real intelligence is about solving problems that are novel to you.

What's it like being a Mensa member? My wife passed the test, scoring about IQ = 157, but she never kept up her membership and never attended a meeting.

I too was able to join Mensa, but it seemed very pretentious. Not to insult your wife. I'm just talking about the very active members, many of which feel they are superior to others.

AxiomaticUncertainty

Feb 22, 2021

0

#178

BlackLawliet wrote:

AxiomaticUncertainty wrote:

BlackLawliet wrote:

AxiomaticUncertainty wrote:

BlackLawliet wrote:

goldenbeer wrote:

So you rely on a random site that puts random name with random numbers next to each others and calls them genius? Really? Spiegel didn’t design IQ test itself. Used well known scientific team to design the test, and methodology of designing such tests is very well known and it is quite reliable. You can stick with your childhood dreams that Kasparov is a super smart guy. The reality is that, he isn’t that smart.

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...

GChess

Feb 22, 2021

0

#179

I was 162 Dead on! However I really don't believe it affects any part of my life. (Besides being a nerd)

-GC

BlackLawliet

Feb 22, 2021

0

#180

AxiomaticUncertainty wrote:

BlackLawliet wrote:

AxiomaticUncertainty wrote:

BlackLawliet wrote:

AxiomaticUncertainty wrote:

BlackLawliet wrote:

goldenbeer wrote:

So you rely on a random site that puts random name with random numbers next to each others and calls them genius? Really? Spiegel didn’t design IQ test itself. Used well known scientific team to design the test, and methodology of designing such tests is very well known and it is quite reliable. You can stick with your childhood dreams that Kasparov is a super smart guy. The reality is that, he isn’t that smart.

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.