FREE - In Google Play
FREE - in Win Phone Store
no, you can ask erick nicely and get rating... but doesn't that mean you are very smart to even think of that?
obviously the "i beat a kid with IQ 160" argument means nothing because the kid with IQ 160 probably did not study. However, I would bet a million dollars that none of the best chess players, Kasparov , Karpov , Fischer , and the 2 playing the world champ now ( to name a few), have an IQ around 100. I bet that they DONT have average IQ's. There is too much innate pattern recognition and intuition involved. Your typical joe of the street just cannot do what grandmasters can do no matter how hard he tries. It would be nice to believe that, and perhaps ratings as high as 2000 can be achieved by ordinary people, but the intelligence truly does play a role at the elite of the ellite levels. If you disagree with me, tell me the highest rating of a person in chess with an IQ around 100. If the rating is close to 2600 then I will have been proven wrong with at least one instance.
The only solution is for erik to add an IQ test and compile data.
I can't cite this but...I've read articles which said that IQ and ability at chess are unrelated. There are many people who excel at chess due to specific types of "intelligence", but aren't as strong in other areas.
I am waiting, along with many others, for the moment when a person with Savant Syndrome excels at chess. This will be the ultimate measure of IQ=chess, as a person with Savant syndrome will have an IQ of <80 but yet will blow the world away with his/her chess abilities.
IQ is overrated. You can play all those IQ tests and what do you have to show for it, a lot of wasted time. Just play chess to the best of your ability, learn what you can, but most of all have fun playing the game. Don't let anything else get under your skin. You can have a really high IQ and still be dumb as a doorstop when it comes to life in general.
The notion that a chess player's potential peak rating is IQx10+1000 was an attempt to explain what was observed when the rating sytem was younger. It was conjecture elevated to hypothesis. Gardner's categories can be explained as three dimensional matrixes and are fashionable. Gardner is used to get away from considering what has been thought of as intelligence. Gardner mixes what most people would call abilities with intelligence. The body of work left by Galileo or Einstein is what most people see as resulting from, among other things, their intelligence. The ability of a native of Australia to smell water that is under the ground or a Pacific islander to recognize the surface of the ocean and know where in the Pacific he is, are not what we the people mean by intelligence, yet it fits in Gardner's categories. Gardner is useful for understanding human nature and for making parents of students feel the concept of intelligence is not going to be used in a way that hurts their self-esteem. This is useful for blaming schools for learning problems students have. After all, if intelligence is broadly or diversely defined, fewer will be said to have low intelligence.
We have a guy in our club whose highest Elo was 2630. (http://www.westportchessclub.org/players.htm) I'll see if I can get him to give out his IQ or his thoughts on this question.
Anyone can acheive master, a higher IQ just makes it easier to understand more complex stuff
I have taught 18,000 kids and adults as well. Not everyone can finish high school. Not everyone can do simple arithmetic. I do not believe that I should claim that I could have achieved much more than I have proven in any given area. For example, if a player is rated 1800, that player can reasonably believe that 1850 or 1900 is attainable. For that player to claim that a rating of 1800 proves that 2200 is within his or her potential is too much for me to agree with, without knowing much more about that person.
Hopefully Bill Wall won't mind if I link to a piece he wrote on the subject:
Oddly, this was post #5 but it seems that most people did not read the linked article. One very interesting fact is that Kasparov had a measured IQ of 135. If the Great Kasparov "only" has an IQ of 135, we can say without hesitation that whatever component IQ might play in potential chess ability, it cannot be the most significant. It is interesting to note that Kasparov's memory was shown to be exceptional.
I disagree. While I agree that an 1800 rating does not prove that 2200 is attainable, it is only because it depends on how quickly the player reached 1800 strength. Everybody knows that the improvement plateaus, so one can make reasonable deductions from this, even applied to other games. I don't see why having taught 18,000 kids & adults doesn't make you an expert witness in testifying whether kid # 18,001 should have a 1400 potential, 1800 potential, or 2200 potential.
As we all know, scientists have clasified intelligence in 7 different fields. I'd say chess is about being well rated in spatial intelligence!
Kasparov also had an IQ test in the 180s. IQ tests are not a science or objective and do not measure everything. Tests vary in scales, upper limits, weighting etc., not to mention a person's general variance. Kasparov may very well be more intelligent than someone with an IQ 50 points higher and he also may not be. Read my previous post about this as well as the original thread if you're that interested.
135 is well above average and puts him in the 98th percentile of intelligence. I think your point is skewed. Depending on the scale it would not be "genius" level but it is close. 135 is a high IQ measure.
I scored a 141 on an IQ test offered on facebook. Does that mean that I should believe I could be better than Kasparov? Obviously not, there are many things measured in IQ tests (such as language) that aren't relevant to chess.
wow the average IQ on this thread alone is about 160, maybe you could all get together and solve the worlds problems in like....3 minutes?
IQ = E.G.O.
90% of people think that they have higher than average IQ's...how can this be possible?
Maybe all the people with lower than average IQ's don't have the internet :D
ozzie, did you notice "without knowing much more about that person?" That means information including what you refer to when you say "how quickly the player reached 1800 strength." You said, "I don't see why having taught 18,000 kids & adults doesn't make you an expert witness in testifying whether kid # 18,001 should have a 1400 potential, 1800 potential, or 2200 potential." Are you saying the opposite of what you mean? Without practice, I used to do a standing broad jump of 9 feet 6 inches. I would not then claim that with practice I could have reached 12 feet. (No, there was no video.)That is analogous to what I said about chess. Claims of potential, without information besides current rating, should not go much beyond what has been proven. I do admit that I predicted that Walter Browne was going to be a grandmaster when he was a 14 year old expert, but I had more to go on than rating. I also expected much from IM Danny Edelman when he was 11. As a player's rating improves, assumptions about potential should be upgraded.
how many people on this thread disclosed their IQ values!!!! I dont see where you are calculating this 160 from! I do, however, agree with your last statement that 90% of people think they are of "above average" intelligence. Although that does not mean they are :P If you happen to have a high IQ I don't see why you shouldn't be proud of it. Not to brag, but it is nice to have a vague idea of your potential compared to others. The test is not COMPLETELY useless, however vague it is.
I thought that the study said that 90% of drivers believe they are above average.
The less easy it is to measure the item, the more optimistic people are. Obviously nobody is going to question someone when they say "when I was 8 I was measured at 124" or whatever they say. This also pops up in poker and as I mentioned, driving.
But then there's chess - which is what this website is all about. If you claim to be an "1800 USCF" player, one could search through your games and find out whether this is in fact true.
So I think this discussion has perhaps a bit too much "noise" and not quite enough "signal".