Extrapolating IQ scores to potential in chess - Chess Forums - Page 2

JaneBellamy · 2017-10-18T11:06:08-07:00

I recently took a real IQ test (not these fake internet ones). Two tasks stood out to me: 1) Progressive matrices where you had to guess the missing tile. It's supposed to test Logical Reasoning. 2) Arranging cubes to make the proposed figures in the least amount of time. It's supposed to

Optimissed

Oct 18, 2017

0

#21

LilBoat21 wrote:

Optimissed wrote:

Books are nowhere near as good as they used to be but obviously, old books don't always contain new lines. "The Najdorf For The Tournament Player" was probably one such.

Wrong topic, buddy>>>

Yes, I don't know if it's me (tired) my browser (dodgy) or this site (apparently dodgy) but I suspect all three.

Optimissed

Oct 18, 2017

0

#22

LilBoat21 wrote:

BeepBeepImA747 wrote:

Einstein actually had a below average IQ. He couldn't even talk till the age of 5. Just goes to show how hard work pays off.

His IQ was 160 and the average IQ is 100. Genius level IQ is 140+. The only genius without a genius level IQ was Richard Feynman who had an IQ of 125 which is considered really smart.>>>

Oh come on, who by? By whom? People with IQs of 140 tend to be (a) full of themselves and (b) not very bright. OK, they're bright enough to get decent jobs but certainly not enough to think for themselves and do it well.

Optimissed

Oct 18, 2017

0

#23

125 which is considered really smart>>

policemen in the UK need a minimum of about 120 to get the job. Primary school teachers, maybe 125. Doctors, 130-135. Barristers 140+. Decent research theorists in physics etc maybe 150+ Even my wife is about 156.

SeniorPatzer

Oct 18, 2017

0

#24

GMs Ben Finegold and Simon Williams recently had a death match and they both displayed exemplary IQs during their commentary. I gained IQ points just from watching it.

imsighked2

Oct 18, 2017

0

#25

Are we talking Intelligence Quotient or Idiot Quotient? Some days my IQ is pretty high.

Optimissed

Oct 18, 2017

0

#26

LilBoat21 wrote:

Optimissed wrote:

LilBoat21 wrote:

BeepBeepImA747 wrote:

Einstein actually had a below average IQ. He couldn't even talk till the age of 5. Just goes to show how hard work pays off.

His IQ was 160 and the average IQ is 100. Genius level IQ is 140+. The only genius without a genius level IQ was Richard Feynman who had an IQ of 125 which is considered really smart.>>>

Oh come on, who by? By whom? People with IQs of 140 tend to be (a) full of themselves and (b) not very bright. OK, they're bright enough to get decent jobs but certainly not enough to think for themselves and do it well.

What's your IQ genius?

Sources:

http://www.wilderdom.com/intelligence/IQWhatScoresMean.html

http://www.free-iqtest.net/iq-score-guide.asp

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_classification

https://www.iqtestforfree.net/iq-scale.html

https://www.verywell.com/what-is-a-genius-iq-score-2795585

>>>>>>Four of your sources are variously very dumbed-down or rubbish. The Wiki source isn't bad so far as it goes but it's very limited in scope, concentrating mainly on American models and ignoring many pioneering and/or standard European models. If you read the Wiki source carefully, you should notice that there's a big variation between the sources listed there. They can't all be right because they're contradictory. So to recap, the Wiki source doesn't tell us anything because it tries to present an overview, whilst the other sources aren't written at anything like a required level of understanding etc. I'm not sure what to suggest but if I were you, I should look at some PhD research-level treatises on the subject of intelligence and try to improve on your sources from there.

Optimissed

Oct 18, 2017

0

#27

LilBoat21 wrote:

Optimissed wrote:

125 which is considered really smart>>

policemen in the UK need a minimum of about 120 to get the job. Primary school teachers, maybe 125. Doctors, 130-135. Barristers 140+. Decent research theorists in physics etc maybe 150+ Even my wife is about 156.

I highly doubt that your wife is almost as smart as Einstein and Hawking, they both have an IQ of 160 which was been proven by many sources.>>>

Good for you. Doubt away! Have a nice day.

lifantseu

Oct 18, 2017

0

#28

go below

lifantseu

Oct 18, 2017

0

#29

be, dont try to control.

lifantseu

Oct 18, 2017

0

#30

be, dont try to control.

Optimissed

Oct 18, 2017

0

#31

<<<I highly doubt that your wife is almost as smart as Einstein and Hawking, they both have an IQ of 160 which was been proven by many sources.>>>

No, that was unfair of me. I'll try to explain. What you seem to miss is that Hawking and Einstein were mathematicians. I'm not a mathematician ... I got "A" level maths at school, that's all. My wife didn't even sit her "O" level maths. They're English qualifications, btw. But anyway, lay-people tend to believe that mathematicians must have something extra-special, but maths is actually a talent. For instance, I was very talented at table football and table tennis, because I have very fast physical reflexes. My son, however, has a PhD in theoretical (quantum) physics and has done ground-breaking work in that subject. Yet his IQ is probably about the same as my wife's whilst mine is somewhat higher. But I'm not a mathematician and neither is my wife, but she's brilliant at the work that she does, which is mainly psychology. Do you understand my point?

m_connors

Oct 18, 2017

0

#32

Enjoyed the graph posted at #42 by LilBoat21. I must confess, however, that I think my IQ may have slipped a few points after having read this discussion.

Optimissed

Oct 18, 2017

0

#33

Understanding the human psyche is difficult, because in effect, it consists of a measuring device trying to measure itself. It isn't an easy subject for most people to achieve an objective view about, and that includes most of the people who are doing/publishing research on the subject. It's a very soft science in that logical proofs haven't been worked out and so prestige is up for grabs, often by people who merely sound nice. It's extremely naïve to imagine that most published research isn't somewhat badly done.

universityofpawns

Oct 18, 2017

0

#34

http://examinedexistence.com/does-playing-chess-make-you-smarter/

Merim Bilalic, a member of the German researchers team from the cognitive psychology department of the University of Tübingen, stated in an interview that the experts’ brains handled the chess tasks quite remarkably compared to that of the novices. The study inferred that expertise is an acquired–and not an innate–skill. It drew a very sobering message: constant exposure to the game cultivates intellectual adeptness.

Optimissed

Oct 18, 2017

0

#35

universityofpawns wrote:

http://examinedexistence.com/does-playing-chess-make-you-smarter/

Merim Bilalic, a member of the German researchers team from the cognitive psychology department of the University of Tübingen, stated in an interview that the experts’ brains handled the chess tasks quite remarkably compared to that of the novices. The study inferred that expertise is an acquired–and not an innate–skill. It drew a very sobering message: constant exposure to the game cultivates intellectual adeptness.>>>

Pattern recognition. Simple as that and very predictable.

NM dpnorman

Oct 18, 2017

0

#36

I was going to write "inb4 every poster claims to have 150+ IQ" but it looks like every poster beat me to it.

Yes, I'm sure all these 1200s have IQs of over 150, just as sure as I am that all the people in this thread and their spouses are all 150+ IQ as well, as they're all claiming. Quite sure

oregonpatzer

Oct 18, 2017

0

#37

The original poster asked the question about whether IQ correlates to chess skill, and I responded with my honest opinion, but since then a new question has come to my mind. Does penis size correlate to chess skill? From my own personal experience, no, but I invite you to present contrary views.

FBloggs

Oct 19, 2017

0

#38

If your IQ is higher than your chess rating, you're either really smart or really bad.

PaulB234

Oct 19, 2017

0

#39

There is a very strong correlation but it is not one to one

poodle_noodle

Oct 19, 2017

0

#40

PaulB234 wrote:

There is a very strong correlation but it is not one to one

Except... obviously this is not true.

Probably a very mind correlation considering Kasparov was 135 IQ but like... 7 SD from the norm on chess