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

I thought grobe was joking.

There are two main versions of measuring IQ. stanford binet & weschler.

they use different numbers and methods.

binet 160 is roughly 130 in weshler.

so, which number do you multiply by 200?

No I'm not talking about chess.com 1200. I know the average person would never be WC or anything close, but that formula implies, that the average person would never go above 1200, no matter how much they studied. Coach or no. I simply don't believe it.   SORRY!

Half joking, half making a point.  Some got both, some neither.

Ooh, neither -- only by 20.

I notice no response to my last post, so I'll assume you realize I'm right.

According to this formula it's 1400 elo max.

Well I guess I showed them.

I hate these stupid threads about IQ scores. Get over yourselves, guys; there is more to life than being good at completing intellectual tasks with minimal effort. Besides, think of all the envious people who would literally hate you and do everything within their power to make you miserable if you were a genius. Smart people have feelings, too, and no amount of intellectualization can ease emotional pain.

The correlation between IQ and chess ability is very minimal at best. Many people who have immensely high IQ are not that good at chess. The amount of variance is too high to draw a statistical conclusion. 

Perhaps I should elaborate:

It is possible that, given an infinite pool of people with IQ at precisely 100, and then let them study chess for a very long time, the average rating they would have is about 1200. However, there would also be some proportion (albeit very small) of them that are grandmasters, and some proportion that, despite being perfectly well-functioning in all aspects, fail to grasp chess and have an ELO rating that is abysmally low.

Conversely, given an infinite pool of people with a chess rating of 1200 after having studied chess for a long time, it is likely that on average they have an IQ of 100. However, there would also be some proportion (albeit very small) of them that have an IQ of 180, and some proportion that, despite being able to play chess reasonably well, fail to think logically in other aspects and have an IQ that is abysmally low.

Moreover, given an infinite pool of people with a chess rating of 2800, it is possible that on average they have an IQ of 180. (and so on).

My point is, the variance or standard deviation is so high that such formulas are meaningless. You cannot derive a person's IQ from his chess rating, nor can you derive a person's chess rating from is IQ based on the formula because the uncertainty is simply too great. You could only say something like this, "Since your IQ is 100, your chess rating has a 67% chance that it is between 500 and 1900, based on the formula Rating = (20*IQ)-800, with an uncertainty of plus or minus 700". Which is, basically, meaningless.

In addition, you cannot "prove" that the formula is wrong because of singular counterexamples.  

As for those people who said that historical grandmasters did not have a high IQ based on the fact that some of them went insane, you should bear in mind that the higher one's IQ, the more likely for him to go insane, since IQ does not measure sanity or soundness of reason. 

 I'm pretty sure it's actually somewhere around 125 or so. But you can read junk if you'd like. I have a higher iq than him but I'm betting he has a higher iq than you....

That formula must be a joke, right? Come on people. This is insane. You think you can define peoples success in chess with just that formula. Oh boy how people can sometimes be stupid.

What do you mean?  IQ x 20 - 800 = rating is sooo accurate, it's obviously the best formula but I guess you just can't see it

Well first of all, that formula apparently showes that every human being is the same when it comes to chess and IQ. For me to believe that, it would have to have more variables. It's just too simple formula

Purple puppy I must be a moron.  

What is the IQ of a moron?

 I barely passed 2nd year statistical geography.  You are bringing it all back.  Somebody get me a bucket.  The probability of my losing ten points of lunch with a standard deviation of plus or minus 7 is infinitely likely.  (blaaarghhh...)

I question the accuracy of every formula that doesn't hold the right answer EVERYTIME

That's why I don't understand you not agreeing... it does work everytime, that's why it's so great.

Like padman said there MIGHT be some isolated examples where it doesn't quite work, but no one's found anything like that -- so yeah, I totally think this formula is the best.

Everytime - isolated examples = NOT EVERYTIME

The main problem I'm having, is that this has not been properly tested. And I mean properly. Not just some random people saying it works. For me, these kind of things are not right until proven wrong. It's wrong until proven right.

And second of all, I don't believe that human mind is that simple. That's why I said it lacks variables. What you are trying to say, is that it works everytime in everyplace for everyone.

I assume there is some correlation between IQ and strength in chess.  But no more. To become a VERY stromg chess player you must start at a very young age, learn a lot and develop a passion for the game. You need a good memory and strong nerves, both of which are not measured by IQ. You must calculate well (which is surely measured by IQ) but you don't really need good verbal skills (which are also measured by IQ).  Last but not least, in a recent interview Magnus Carlsen said that an extremely high IQ can be counterproductive for becoming a chess top star - since it diverts your interests. He gave John Nunn as an examole, who is extremely intelligent but used it to become the youngest PhD from Oxford ever, instead of becoming world champion.

Exactly.