Does I.Q. = rating?!

I'm pretty sure IQ = Intelligence Quotient but I could be wrong.

Intelligence is internal but IQ is not. I explained a bit in my other post.

to say that IQ has no reflection on the ability to be highly successful at games that require mental participation would be foolish. it is no different than other standardised test scores in that the high score is an indicator of potential but that doesnt equate to the highest test score being the most successful student in college as measured by any variety of measures. however, a higher percentage of those that are successful will have scored high on those tests than the general group. the same would be true in chess; a higher percentage of top players are likely to have higher potential than the rest of the population. some will have achieved it with hard work and dedication but many who work just as hard will never achieve the same results. by the way hard work and time do not replace thought and progress. some people work hard on the same thing over and over again but that is not progress or learning necessarily.

I agree with amac7079. Chess tactics are essentially puzzles that require cognition and intuition - I would say that tactics are related to intelligence in some loose way. But as all skills go, tactics must be practiced and nourished in order for a player to reach their full effectiveness.

Overall, intelligence is pretty hard to measure - I'm not even sure if any of those I.Q. tests can correctly gauge a person's intelligence.

I believe that IQ statistically correlates with chess potential.

Then again, IQ statistically correlates with interest in chess also, so how do you avoid selection bias?

Haha, that's a good point.

IQ can be a multiplier of how fast you learn, but not the limit as to how much you will learn. It all depends on the amount of effort you put in and those lucky learning opportunities recieved. I couldn't get to where I am in another game without the helpful players. I'm sure the result would be the same in chess under the same situations, but it's a knight eat knight world. I guess it does rely more on IQ when you have only yourself to teach you =\

Mr_O: I believe that you are saying that there are a number of additional statistically significant variables. I agree with you.

But it almost sounds like you're saying that you _don't_ think that IQ is a statistically significant variable when measuring chess potential. I don't agree with your logic - that because IQ correlates with how quickly you learn chess (agreed), it follows that it does not correlate with chess potential. Please clarify if I misunderstood.

i have an iQ of 142 and im just an average player

I have an IQ of 416 and I'm pretty amazing at chess, so I'll leave it to the rest of you non-IQ-having-people to work it out while I go and drink cocktails and lounge in the sun.

Intelligence is ability to react in new (unknown) situations so the rating doesn't depend on intelligence as it is a result of practicing. But higer rated players are often more creative and creativity is related to intelligence. Therefore higher rated players probably are more intelligent but higher intelligence doesn't guarantee higher rating.

NOTE: IQ is accurate measurment of intelligence only for those under 20 or something like that.

rating=iq?

NO!!!

I always play chess with a friend who has higher iq of me but I always beat him!Only because I have spend more time to chess....

what if we say mental ability instead of IQ?   IQ is specific to a test. But, experience and knowledge being equal, the player with the better memory and pattern recognition skills, or critical thinking skills, is going to have an advantage.  There is a growing body of science suggesting that, indeed, practice makes perfect.   Talent (musical, chess, academic, whatever) means very little compared to the way your brain has been shaped by experience, so by wiring your brain to see the chessboard, you will achieve the most.  Strong academic skills and experience with math and critical thinking in any field can only help you.

eloihunter, good idea

I also would propose that instead of making it a personal thing (I know a guy who I beat who was smarter than me!) to make it a numbers thing.

If you take 100 people with an average IQ of 120 and 100 people with an average IQ of 100, then which side do you think will do better in a round-robin tournament?

O.K. but what test did you take? Was it an online one or a real one? The reason I ask is not to disagree with you. Its just that I took one online and it said mine was 135 , or in the top 2% , I doubt if mine is that high or even close.

  Also , why are you average? Do you just like casual chess , or  do you try to improve, do you study the game? Or are you happy with where you are?

Thanks , by the way for responding to the post..

Very good question. And one worth pursuing. Yes I.Q. does mean what you said..

thanks

I think we need some data to settle this. At least to settle it a little. Got to google, or even facebook, and take a bunch of IQ tests find the average (Or just take one that you think looks trustworthy) and post it, with your highest rating.

Also, post the number of years you have played, and/or better yet, total hours played (a rough estimate will be fine, maybe to the nearest 100 hours)

I'll go first.

Akuni - IQ (Approximate Average) - 145 Rating (Highest) 2030. - Years Played 2.75. -Hours played (Maybe) 2000-2500.

If we get enough data (with this many variables that would be a minimum of 125 following the 5x5x5 rule, however, we could get away with 27, or a 3x3x3) we can correlate the results and see for ourselves.

I suspect it may be a strong positive correlation to an inverse exponential graph between Rating and years played (Picture an exponential growth that starts out very fast and slows down as it goes) with a medium-weak positive linear correlation between IQ and rating.

Well my I.Q. is about 2000 and so is my rating, so yeah I would have to say I.Q.=rating :-D

It's not that easy. Which part of the intelligence quotient are you referring to? There are at least 8:

• 1 Gardner's Categories of Intelligence
  • 1.1 Bodily-Kinesthetic
  • 1.2 Interpersonal
  • 1.3 Verbal-Linguistic
  • 1.4 Logical-Mathematical
  • 1.5 Naturalistic
  • 1.6 Intrapersonal
  • 1.7 Visual-Spatial
  • 1.8 Musical
  • 1.9 Other intelligences
  There are many other factors that come into play: memory, experience, the ability to focus and stay focused for example. Are we talking blitz, rapid, or classical times? There's just so much else that comes into play. I can't back it up, but I would be surprised if there was a strong correlation between IQ and Elo.

Its complicated,IQs that is