Is there a rating limit for my average brain?

An old forum topic.  I'm still looking for it.  A GM came up with it many years back.  I can't remember who.  It's just gives someone like the OP an idea....IF he knows his IQ.

I think there IS a correlation; however, as per my earlier posts to this topic, I think chess is like art or music.  It takes a certain TYPE of ability also.  Raw IQ is only part of the story.  I could take art lessons for years, and I would improve; but I would never be an artist.  I think it's the same with chess.  So, everyone has a rating limit, as you said.  Raw IQ is one factor, another is general aptitude.

I'm not sure IQ tests really define intelligence or lack thereof.  I'm somewhat familiar with the debates.  However, ALL GMs ever tested score extremely high on IQ tests.   That's how the one GM came up with his general rule of thumb posted above.

@RedGirlZ, I just sent you a challenge.  Let's put my aged IQ against your young intelligence. 

I'd bet not.  I know there are fantastic musicians and artists that don't score very high on IQ tests; but a component of true chess talent is IQ.

I suppose someone with the TYPE of thinking ability required for chess could achieve a fairly high rating with an IQ that is not way off the scale like Fischer and Kasparov.

To put things in perspective Carlson was 13 when Kasparov played him(World Champion)

Carlson was Good very Good at 13,probably better then most.

Interesting....very interesting...natural talent.  It's  like Carlson was designed by God specifically to play chess.

Just remember that if you want to become stronger than let’s say 1800 or so, you probably are going to have to put a decent amount of effort into the game, and only you can decide if you have the time and resources to do that. 2k+ will take more and NM or FIDE CM etc requires a lot of work. Many adults can’t make the time even if it is possible

Good points dpnorman.  One can actually have the talent; but not the time to develop it.  Even Carlsen has worked very hard over the years, I'm sure.

I'm absolutely positive my rating will not go higher (on average) than it is right now unless I'm willing to do some serious studying.  Maybe I could make 1,800 before senility sets in.    It all comes down to the time involved.

I guess you could just work hard, and keep working hard, until your rating levels out in spite of your hard work.  At that point, you've probably found your limit.

The only way to improve is to be consistent. If you want to know more, please feel free to check my blog from my profile page. Thank you!

I don't really think an average person could reach 2000.  This is a difficult question because most people don't play chess.  I think the average club player is around 1400, but are club players average on the whole?  I think that chess players are drawn to chess because they're pretty smart to begin with.  So I'd also guess that chess players have above average IQ as a group.  So if the average member of an above average group is rated 1400, I find it difficult to believe that people with 100 IQ can all become experts if they study enough.  One thing I can say with certainty is that psychology grad students don't seem to be smart enough to put this question to bed. There have been a lot of studies that I've found on chess and general intelligence, and they all seem to be utterly incapable of answering this sort of question.       

Yeah, those interested in chess are above average IQ or they wouldn't be interested in the game.  I think that's true.  The average person MIGHT be able to hit 2,000 with hard work; but they would never be interested enough to do the hard work.

Not remotely true.  Are you one of the many who believe that Fischer, Kasparov, or Carlsen all have IQs over 160 (or 180...or 190), for example?  These are all completely false claims. 

P.S. There are ~1500ish GMs worldwide...they represent a vast range of people whom you should not respect any more or less than any other amateur posting their opinions.  A GM making any claims about IQ is like a lawyer writing an article about brain surgery...you might think the lawyer is smart, and you might be right...but his opinions on practicing brain surgery are garbage.

Carlsen says he thinks he dumb,Fischer was riddled with conspiracies and Kasparov was smart but not IQ160 smart.

The real question should be "Whats the ugliest part of your body" your mind thats why you will never be GM

False claims about GM IQs?  Very interesting....I will certainly look into that.  As for the lawyer/brain surgery analogy....very good point!   False claims about GM IQs...interesting.

@EnergizeMrSpock, I believe you've answered the OPs question quite well.

You reach your limit when you quit learning. Maybe if you did not quit, you would reach a tiny little bit more higher rating that month. And then again, a tiny little bit higher rating that year. Still improving, just because you did not quit, but at a much slower pace than before. But that does not mean that you reached your maximum. It just means your further improvement is slower. There is no maximum rating per person in my opinion, it is just the speed of further improvement.

800-1100: Pure trial and error playing

1100-1300: Learned some basic opening principles and common tactics (pins, skewers, forks, etc.)

1300-1400: Read a few of the "Wining Chess" series by Yasser Sierawan

1400-1700: Private coaching for a few months with an NM, meeting twice a week. Emphasis on opening principles and identifying tactics.

1700-1800: Playing a lot more frequently, reading more positional books, like "My System" and "Excelling at Chess"

1800-1900: Mostly playing, and now consulting engines to identify mistakes I missed

1900-2000: Same as above, only now I began browsing GM databases to try to recognize common ideas in specific openings

2000-2100: Began narrowing my opening repertoire and focusing more on playing "precisely" in the openings, rather than vaguely. Also began paying closer attention to endgames.

2100-2200: Same as above, though now looking at GM games to identify common middlegame plans

2200+: Same as above, only now beginning to recognize the importance of certain squares in certain middlegames. Also learning (the hard way) how crucial it is to play accurately in the openings at this level, as 2200+ opponents really begin to show a strong amount of knowledge, and a readiness to punish you for even the slightest inaccuracy.

Wow GearWound!  That's a great outline of the boatload of work involved.  Thanks for taking the time to post that.