Given your IQ, what's the highest Chess rating you can realistically attain?

You are right. My assumption was ill-founded. I apologize.

This is all very interesting, but for the record I didn't originate this thread. Somehow it was attributed to me. I wonder if the standardized IQ test is an accurate reflection of aptitude for specialized abilities like chess playing. Please continue your discussion under my fraudulent auspices.

 Sounds right to me also. But if I'm not mistaken, pattern recognition is one of the components of standard IQ tests.

You may very well have an IQ of ten if you don't realize that having a chess rating of 1100 (if it is your max achievable rating and you accept the formula) would make your IQ 110...

It's a little silly to have the Guinness book of world records estimate your IQ lol...  and prodigy children often see their IQs drop as they become adults for obvious reasons, for those that don't know IQ is dependant on age...

Doesn't the IQ test measure skills that would be worthless in a chess game?  Oh it does?  And the raw IQ score has little to do with what area you scored high in?  Then it's silly to try to correlate IQ and rating with a formula?  Oh ok, glad we cleared that up.

And I thought Eo____ started this topic a few months ago?  Maybe not I guess...

I think chess skill has very little to do with IQ. I'm not a bad player myself, but once I played an individual with what I think was some kind of learning disability (and an IQ most likely below 90), and he whupped my butt(much to my amazement and embarrassment lol) From my experience, much of it is the result learning the concepts when you're young, similarly to (but not entirely like) learning a new language.  

on a completely unrelated topic, my chess rating is 8 points more than 10 times my unofficial IQ. Therefore the universal formula MUST be:

R =10(x)+8

Chess ratings are fuzzy enough, bringing another even more fuzzy and suspect measure like IQ into it is as helpful as .... nothing or less.

 If EO___ started this thread, how did I wind up with it? Must be a damned clever fellow.

Like tonydal or someone said, after you delete the first post is used to give it to the next guy (obviously it doesn't quite work that way now, because you still have it).  Someone even made a thread about it for fun (don't post in topics you don't want), then after a page or so deleted his first post so the 2nd guy got it heh.

But it may not have been him, I don't remember for sure.

I'm sure it can't hurt but Kasparov's iq was slightly below genius. However, his memory was 100th percentile. I think that's what's most helpful. He could remember almost every position he had ever seen and a few hundred opening lines and theories to perfection.

Yes but electric also deleted his post but the the thread is still marked as his. No worries though, it's not kept on file.

Please don't perpetuate cliches. On Kasparov's own admissions there were several times when he forgot critical lines in tournament games. He never claimed that his memory was 100 percentile even in chess, let alone some other field. 

I love how IQ threads always turn into the im smarter than you discussions... or I have an IQ of 180.  Yeah, everybody has scored 180 on an online IQ test when they were kids and did the test a few times. 

If your like 12 or 16 and you complete an IQ test, it adds a massive amount of points just because of your age, I don't know how it works but IQ tests are highly inaccurate for the younger generation. 

I also scored  some crazy 170's and whatever else when i was 14 or 15, and go to iqtest.com and write it nowadays and im at 134. Thats a massive difference and it has everything to do with age.  

I have done my reading up on mensa too, there is a reason a lot of the highest IQs in society stay far away from groups like mensa... and its because people are extremely egotistical about their IQ number.  Mensa is loaded with people that look down on the world and everybody in it because they feel they are superior because of a higher intelligence quotient... the problem for them is they need to realize that they are socially inept compared to all the people they are looking down on, and chances are they are less happy than most of them too.

I believe some of the abilities related to IQ can and do have some affect on your overall abilities chess-wise.  I think any person that spends their life learning chess can achieve a rating of 2500-2600 if they dedicate enough time.  I do however believe that to get to the 2700 and 2800 range you need to be extremely gifted in areas such as spatial skill and pattern recognition combined with spending your life studying the game and playing a ton of games

Online IQ scores are like chess.com ratings ... they have nothing to do with the "real life" numbers, and I'd guess are both inflated.

I've never taken a real one, but I assume you have to go to some psychologist, pay them a lot of money, and take a 3 hour test.  They don't just hand them out for free :)

Really?  I must be pretty dumb because the online IQ test I took was something like 131, 136 something like that.  One of those 20 questions things.  I figured they were being generous too and that probably everyone scores 130s or something, but if you're getting 150s, wait a minute... lol

lol

No, 130 isn't a bad score, that's two standard deviations right, so yeah, that's smart.  I think it comes down to self image though, I'm comfortable with who I am, so if my real score was under 100 or over 130 I don't think I'd care.  Imagine if height weren't observable for example.  If it turns out I'm 5' 10" and you're 7' 6" you could do lots of tall people stuff day to day that I can't and would be more qualified for a pro career in basketball, but that doesn't hurt my feelings :) the point being it wouldn't make you somehow better than me... but since intelligence and IQ are a bit more mysterious I think people are more apt to attach self worth to them than they are height -- even though it's really the same stuff.

The idea that intelligence can be compressed into a number in the first place is a bit silly anyway.  I can see how a very low score could indicate a problem, or a very high score could indicate a gift, but to the average person in day to day life it seems all the scores in between would be pretty meaningless.

There's no scientific way to test intelligence. IQ tests were created to get a basic idea of your intelligence. If you're getting below 60, you're retarded, the government needed to know if you were, so they invented IQ tests.

Heh, that makes a lot more sense then -- looking it up on wiki psychologists came up with it for the armed forces, so that people who had the mental age of a child didn't also have a rifle and a license to kill.