Does being good at chess make you 'smart', or does it just make you good at chess?

Reverse psychology?

Ironically, I did read the study (that you accused me of not reading).

I didn't accuse you of anything.  I asked if you read the study.

Furthermore, I am quite well versed in studies as I have conducted many quasi-studies myself (To say that I am familiar with control groups and blinding would be an understatement).

I think that it's awesome that we have someone here who is not only familiar with the study, but is also knowledgeable about study design.  Can you please tell us what you feel were the flaws in the study that resulted in it coming, in your informed opinion, to the incorrect conclusion?

Also, I would have to disagree with the last point you asserted there. There is indeed a distinction between chess intrinsically helping one become "smarter" and the chess discipline taught making one "smarter." If it truly would be "illogical" as you claim, then why are there many chess players considered of "lesser than average 'smart-value?'" If your claim was correct, then everyone who plays chess should become "smart" (as a result of playing chess). Reductio ad absurdum to this would be all of the chess players we have all encountered who are not "smart." Playing chess also has to do with things like your love for the game of chess that we all here love; this has nothing to do with intelligence directly.

It seems like a simple answer, but if you ask sincerely, then the answer is that dumb people who play chess would be dumber if they didn't.  That is, if the study I posted is correct.  But using an example of dumb people playing chess says nothing about whether or not chess makes you smarter.  

This thread gives me a headache.

Chess, as far as it correlates with intelligence, is an idea riddled with very common misconceptions. Chess is a skill, and like any skill it can be honed and practiced to the point even an 8 year old can master it and become very good. Unfortunately, most people who are perhaps limited in their own mental capacity automatically assume if someone is good at chess they must be a genius, or that they are perhaps very clever; again this is just a common misconception. 

I agree that though chess may strengthen certain areas of cognitive ability, it does not encompass the somewhat broader spectrum of what intelligence actually is. For example a person can be great at chess, but if that is all they have ever practiced in life, they would be an invalid in most other areas; by that same rationale someone might be well versed at many things and perhaps be a polymath in their own right, but have never played chess or studied it beyond a few improvisations. Would this mean that this person is stupid? Not by any means. It would of course only mean that they haven't studied chess, or taken steps toward mastering it. The same can be said of IQ tests and how the only indication of intelligence they actually give is via the number of idiots who actually believe they give an accurate measure of intelligence. If a person were to practice IQ tests, and train his or her brain in the particular ways of thinking needed in order to answer questions on IQ tests, would this person, now with a high IQ, be a genius - or would they just be good at IQ tests? It is ignorant to assume we can by way of a simple test surmise a definitive measure of intelligence, just as it is ignorant to assume a person who has mastered a particular skill is a genius based on this mastery alone.
There is of course a fine line between many facets of the intellect like common sense, cleverness, street-smarts, wisdom and cognitive ability. A person with great cognitive ability for example may be very good when it comes to logic, but may crumble trying to comprehend even the simplest concepts of philosophical ideas. This is because different areas of the brain are used for different things, and neuroplasticity together with specialisation leaves vast areas of the brain unexplored. An intelligent person and a person with an expanded consciousness are both very smart in their own rights, but can be said to be thinking on different wave-lengths entirely.
If one were to take a more voluntaristic view, we can recognise that, though deceiving at times, intelligence almost always follows intent, and seldom precedes it. One is not good at chess because they are intelligent; their intelligence may grow as a result of the inclination and decision to take up such activities and master them. This is where the misconception resides, within the minds of people who believe there is some mysterious or supernatural anomaly at play when it comes to the intellect of an individual. They think child prodigies are just more able minded, without actually realising these children simply became obsessed with something at the appropriate time, where their mind was at a pivotal stage in development and able to absorb every detail surrounding anything that emotionally stimulated it like a sponge -

People, (with the exception of savants who actually do have differently wired brains making them stronger in some areas and weaker in others) become learned by learning. It is a choice, and the extent of their intelligence can only grow to the extent of their obsession with what they study or how many things they choose to study. Though the principles of chess may strengthen cognitive ability in some areas, being good at the game isn't by any means a great indication of genius. It used to be that the indication of genius chess granted us was a person's aptitude toward mastery and the virtues synonymous with mastery like patience, persistence and discipline - but although this may tell you a bit about a person's character, it might not give a great indication of how smart they are across the board. Another way chess might have indicated a person's intelligence was the idea that it is of course a game that attracts people of an intellectual mindset, perhaps prone to learning things that might require mental dexterity, but as Chess has become more and more popular of recent, and with the influx of cheaters too lazy to learn the game legitimately, that idea is becoming more and more redundant.
The idea of intelligence in the West, especially in regards to testing it, is primarily how well a brain can perform and learn, but this is one sided. It doesn't tell us anything of a person's talents or how a person thinks; it only tells us how well a person can think, how well a person can process and compute pre-existing data. It doesn't specifically address the inner workings of an individual's mind and has a long way to go before it can even begin to define intelligence itself. It also tells us nothing of how strong in particular a person's will might be, which is fundamental to determining whether someone is likely to become intelligent or not.
For those of able mind, becoming intelligent is a choice just as becoming unintelligent is, but we are somehow brainwashed in society into believing it is something you are born with. Though people's brains may vary on a genetic level minutely, it is always the will that drives how much a person knows, and knowing how to play chess is the tip of a much larger iceberg of many different mental abilities and indicators of a person's susceptibility to becoming highly intelligent. But as it stands, it would be very stupid to think you are very smart, merely because you are good at chess...

I'm sure you, as I have, have met people who are dumb as rocks but exceptional chess players. On the contrary, there are some geniuses out there that absolutely suck at the game. The principle is simple: If you want to be good at chess, study it... Or cheat... It depends where your moral obligations reside.

Sure. Take it or leave it. At least it is more than you've gotten from OP.

This question is older than our world. I believe that this game has nothing in common with intelligence. Of course, you're gonna have some brain work, but it doesn't necessarily mean that you're smarter than me if your rating is higher. In many, many cases.

If there is any indication that chess doesn't equate to intelligence, it is the state of this website. I can barely post a comment without it bugging out every time. Genius design.

But yes I agree. There are tons of brilliant people out there that admit to being abysmal at the game. You really need to put time in to study it in order to master it, and at the end of the day it is a choice. 

One of my favourite examples illustrating the common misconceptions regarding chess is from Derren Brown. He plays a group of IMs and GMs simultaneously and beats most of them even after implicitly stating, and I quote, "my chess is sh**" - the trick was that he was mirroring, and while they all thought they were playing him, they didn't realise they were actually playing each other, and they were anxiously trying to work out how he was so good... 

Being good at chess generally means you'll win more games. Being smart means you'll find more productive use of your time . . .

This.

Einstein was only rated 1426 making him a patzer but he was pretty smart in real life.

Then you have Carlsen who is rated 2845 but can’t string a sentence together.

Does being good at chess make you 'smart', or does it just make you good at chess?