I do not believe in IQ tests. It takes a bunch of school questions, and school answers to find out somebody's IQ. There are tons of people who have done well in all areas of life without the need for a lot of schooling.
Lower-IQ Grandmasters?
Sort:
<<A person with IQ 50 for lets say if he spends lots of time and dedication in chess, he can become a GM>>
Do you really have any idea of how stupid and basically brain dead IQ = 50 is?They used to classify it verbally, as in idiot, moron, imbecile etc. I think, if I remember right, IQ 50 is more moronic than a moron. Probably an idiot or imbecile.
Isn't a horse brighter than IQ 50?
Aug 23, 2018
0
#265
kaspariano wrote:
I do not believe in IQ tests. It takes a bunch of school questions . . .
Let me stop your right there.
You're already incorrect.
Aug 23, 2018
0
#266
Optimissed wrote:
<<A person with IQ 50 for lets say if he spends lots of time and dedication in chess, he can become a GM>>
Do you really have any idea of how stupid and basically brain dead IQ = 50 is?They used to classify it verbally, as in idiot, moron, imbecile etc. I think, if I remember right, IQ 50 is more moronic than a moron. Probably an idiot or imbecile.
Like I said, this topic will probably reach a huge number of posts because people who know nothing about it will endlessly come here to give opinions that make no sense.
btickler wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
btickler wrote:
Anyone claiming to be or know someone with a 150+ IQ (less than 1 in 2500, yet we have several people claiming such right here in this thread...) needs to pony up some kind of evidence. I'm flat out saying you are full of shit if you don't/can't. Online tests? Self-administered tests? Laughable.>>>
Interesting. It's amazing (no, it isn't!) how angry some people can get when their cherished ideas are inadvertently challenged.
However, a thread on IQ might well attract people with a high Q?
Fun facts ... apparently the army measured my father at 171 in 1943. My wife did a Mensa entrance test well before I met her and I think she said she came out at 156. My son's a quantum physicist with a PhD in that subject. I've always known a lot of brilliant people.
So what though? I'm only relating these facts to wind you up. I've been drinking Yeni raki. Want a glass?
Cherished idea? No. Hard statistics? Yes.
1. Your father is the only source of the 171, I assume? Even if reported accurately by him, probably a clerical error at the get-go. A 171 IQ is literally 1 in a million.
2. Unscrupulous Mensa chapters inflate test results (or use "tests" that are completely unofficial) to get more paying members all the time. Online tests give inaccurate results all the time to get more web hits/impressions.
How many people have you ever talked to that reported 100 (or less) IQ? Yet...they are 50% of the population. In this thread we have 4 anecdotal IQs of 185, 171, 169, and 156...completely absurd.
Well, my father really was very bright and so am I. I take your point somewhat but I still maintain that a thread such as this might attract bright people for the interest value or entertainment value it may provide. Not very entertaining, to be sure, but more so than most threads on this site, especially when people can be easily wound up when true facts are related to them. I mean, telling lies in this context isn't to the point, since there's less entertainment value in someone getting wound up by a pack of lies; but some people may well enjoy it slightly when others refuse to accept data that are facts. On Facebook, about ten years back, I became involved in a couple of Mensa groups for a time. They were quite funny because there are a lot of high IQ groups and Mensa lowered their standards appallingly in the past 20 years or so, to gain membership. So those from higher and more select IQ groups, or pretending to be, trolled the Mensa group because, to be fair, the Mensa group was pretty dull. In fact, my wife told me she attended one or two Mensa meetings in her local area and was bored silly but that's another story. So I joined one of the higher IQ groups. I think you had to be over 160 or whatever. Some of them actually gave online tests to prospective members and this one didn't, so it was full of real weirdos. I mean, mentally and emotionally much more unhealthy people than the Mensa group had been, which was mainly boring and full of people protecting their positions.
All in all, there are a lot of bright people who are attracted to conversations about intelligence for various reasons. Some certainly want to show off or they get off on winding others up, others are merely pretending to be highly intelligent and yet, others probably get involved because they're genuinely interested in the concept of intelligence and they genuinely want to learn.
So this thread is exploring the potential difference between talent, which we might term as expertise or intelligence in limited fields, and all-round intellectual excellence, which may be much rarer, as some threads here attest. Anyway, nice talking to you and please give your feedback! 
Kasparov: 135
vs
John Nunn: 190+
Who wins?
(Kasparov's 135 is the result of a test. John Nunn's 190+ is an estimate based, in part, on his record of achievements in mathematics and his early academic achievements.)
(Nunn was also a chess prodigy, and a professional chess player. He has studied and written extensively on chess. He has put a great deal of time and effort into getting as far as he has gotten in chess. But there are people with lower IQs who do better, including Kasparov and Carlsen. They seem to be more gifted in chess ability or talent, despite being less gifted in "overall" intellectual ability or talent.)
The term "overall" or "general" may need to be examined and replaced. John Nunn may actually be, and probably is, at least a bit lacking in some areas, or even more than a bit lacking.
"Wider range of high intellectual abilities but a lower level of chess talent" may be a more accurate and less misleading way to describe it.
A megasavant has something to contribute:
Time is running out
that's what they don't want you to look for
but time is running out
It's your morning, DJ
--Kim Peek
Aug 23, 2018
0
#271
DeirdreSkye wrote:
Pondisoulenso wrote:
Kasparov: 135
vs
John Nunn: 190+
Who wins?
(Kasparov's 135 is the result of a test. John Nunn's 190+ is an estimate based on his record of achievements in mathematics and his early academic achievements.)
(Nunn was also a chess prodigy, and professional chess player. He has written extensively on chess. He has put a great deal of time and effort into getting as far as he has gotten in chess. But there are people with lower IQs who do better, including Kasparov and Carlsen. They seem to be more gifted in chess ability or talent, despite being less gifted in "overall" intellectual ability or talent.)
Are we are talking for Kasparov and Karpov at their peaks.
Not difficult to answerr , Kasparov woudl win. Nunn at his peak lost a qualifying match against Portisch and that was the closest to candidates he went. His best position was No 10 according to chessmetrics(wikipedia says No 9) , a position he hold for only a month. He was below 11 next month and never aagain close to 10.
In their games , Nunn never won(3 defeats , 2 draws).Nunn mentioned Kasparov(and Hubner) as his nemesis in one of his interviews.
Nunn was 3 times world chess solving champion (still No 4 in the ranks , rated 2716) , he was London champion U-18 at the age of 14 and Oxford's youngest undergraduate since 1520 at the age of 15.
His ability to learn fast , his chess talent and his intelligence are beyond any doubt.
Why such an intelligent guy never went even near in challenging the world championship is certainly a mystery for a game with such strong correlation between chess skill and intelligence. Note that according to him chess was always his passion.
not it isnt. you make it sound like being a top 10 player is the easiest thing in the world. he could have been a "mere" top 100 player and it would disprove nothing.
are you fools dense? NECESSARY VS SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS! no one said you absolutely needed an IQ of 190 or even 160 to be the world champion (Although the strong correlation is there and a theoretical minimum as a necessary condition is highly likely although we dont have that level of data of world champions).
let me give you an example of what you guys are doing. IT is well known that the very top chess players are nothing short of awesome at blindfold chess. (some greater than others) but by virtue of being Super GM's their blindfold is always "really good" (whether some lower GM or even IM's who are really good at blindfold are superior to one or two super GMs at it is irrelevant). Now there is a positive correlation between chess strength and blindfold play as established above, but this correlation cannot be extended to become a neat correlation.
Richard Reti at his peak for example was a top 10 player, maybe even top 5 but he was never a world championship contender , yet he was able to play 29 chess games simultaneously blindfolded. Should this fact be taken to disprove that there is no correlation between being extremely strong in chess and blindfold strength? ok what about the necessary condition that all super GM's can play very strong blindfold (whether they choose to or not is irrelevant).
Exactly, yet people are doing the same faulty inferences against IQ that you woudnt do in the example above.
Aug 23, 2018
0
#272
DeirdreSkye wrote:
darkunorthodox88 wrote:
DeirdreSkye wrote:
Pondisoulenso wrote:
Kasparov: 135
vs
John Nunn: 190+
Who wins?
(Kasparov's 135 is the result of a test. John Nunn's 190+ is an estimate based on his record of achievements in mathematics and his early academic achievements.)
(Nunn was also a chess prodigy, and professional chess player. He has written extensively on chess. He has put a great deal of time and effort into getting as far as he has gotten in chess. But there are people with lower IQs who do better, including Kasparov and Carlsen. They seem to be more gifted in chess ability or talent, despite being less gifted in "overall" intellectual ability or talent.)
Are we are talking for Kasparov and Karpov at their peaks.
Not difficult to answerr , Kasparov woudl win. Nunn at his peak lost a qualifying match against Portisch and that was the closest to candidates he went. His best position was No 10 according to chessmetrics(wikipedia says No 9) , a position he hold for only a month. He was below 11 next month and never aagain close to 10.
In their games , Nunn never won(3 defeats , 2 draws).Nunn mentioned Kasparov(and Hubner) as his nemesis in one of his interviews.
Nunn was 3 times world chess solving champion (still No 4 in the ranks , rated 2716) , he was London champion U-18 at the age of 14 and Oxford's youngest undergraduate since 1520 at the age of 15.
His ability to learn fast , his chess talent and his intelligence are beyond any doubt.
Why such an intelligent guy never went even near in challenging the world championship is certainly a mystery for a game with such strong correlation between chess skill and intelligence. Note that according to him chess was always his passion.
not it isnt. you make it sound like being a top 10 player is the easiest thing in the world. he could have been a "mere" top 100 player and it would disprove nothing.
are you fools dense? NECESSARY VS SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS! no one said you absolutely needed an IQ of 190 or even 160 to be the world champion (Although the strong correlation is there and a theoretical minimum as a necessary condition is highly likely although we dont have that level of data of world champions).
let me give you an example of what you guys are doing. IT is well known that the very top chess players are nothing short of awesome at blindfold chess. (some greater than others) but by virtue of being Super GM's their blindfold is always "really good" (whether some lower GM or even IM's who are really good at blindfold are superior to one or two super GMs at it is irrelevant). Now there is a positive correlation between chess strength and blindfold play as established above, but this correlation cannot be extended to become a neat correlation.
Richard Reti at his peak for example was a top 10 player, maybe even top 5 but he was never a world championship contender , yet he was able to play 29 chess games simultaneously blindfolded. Should this fact be taken to disprove that there is no correlation between being extremely strong in chess and blindfold strength? ok what about the necessary condition that all super GM's can play very strong blindfold (whether they choose to or not is irrelevant).
Exactly, yet people are doing the same faulty inferences against IQ that you woudnt do in the example above.
If an an elit subsample of top 10 players , the most intelligent one can't be No1 or No2 that means that in lower rated samples can happen the same . So ,in a class of 10 kids , the most intelligent kid might very well fail(and it has happened). Assuming all players of a class have average intelligence , higher intelligence offers no advantage since the less intelligent kid might very well be the world champion and the most intelligent kid might only be 10th. That rather proves there is no correlation between chess and intelligence and theigh IQ readings might be the result of high IQ people attracted from chess(according to some of the researches already posted in previous posts).I am not saying that being 10th in the world is a failure. But when you try to get comparative results you compare players of the same level. You can't compare Nunn with me , you will compare him with players of the same level. It is certainly a failure for Nunn that he never qualified even for the candidate matches. A failure that clearly shows high intelligence is certainly not a critical or not even an important parameter for chess success. Average intelligence is more than enough(and scientific researches prove correct).
no, you cannot assume that. if for example, the top 10 players are oversaturated with very high IQ's which is quite likely, then you cannot assume anything about a wider IQ distribution at lower levels.
you have proved over and over again that you do not understand how statistical relevance works.
Aug 23, 2018
0
#273
DeirdreSkye wrote:
darkunorthodox88 wrote:
DeirdreSkye wrote:
darkunorthodox88 wrote:
DeirdreSkye wrote:
Pondisoulenso wrote:
Kasparov: 135
vs
John Nunn: 190+
Who wins?
(Kasparov's 135 is the result of a test. John Nunn's 190+ is an estimate based on his record of achievements in mathematics and his early academic achievements.)
(Nunn was also a chess prodigy, and professional chess player. He has written extensively on chess. He has put a great deal of time and effort into getting as far as he has gotten in chess. But there are people with lower IQs who do better, including Kasparov and Carlsen. They seem to be more gifted in chess ability or talent, despite being less gifted in "overall" intellectual ability or talent.)
Are we are talking for Kasparov and Karpov at their peaks.
Not difficult to answerr , Kasparov woudl win. Nunn at his peak lost a qualifying match against Portisch and that was the closest to candidates he went. His best position was No 10 according to chessmetrics(wikipedia says No 9) , a position he hold for only a month. He was below 11 next month and never aagain close to 10.
In their games , Nunn never won(3 defeats , 2 draws).Nunn mentioned Kasparov(and Hubner) as his nemesis in one of his interviews.
Nunn was 3 times world chess solving champion (still No 4 in the ranks , rated 2716) , he was London champion U-18 at the age of 14 and Oxford's youngest undergraduate since 1520 at the age of 15.
His ability to learn fast , his chess talent and his intelligence are beyond any doubt.
Why such an intelligent guy never went even near in challenging the world championship is certainly a mystery for a game with such strong correlation between chess skill and intelligence. Note that according to him chess was always his passion.
not it isnt. you make it sound like being a top 10 player is the easiest thing in the world. he could have been a "mere" top 100 player and it would disprove nothing.
are you fools dense? NECESSARY VS SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS! no one said you absolutely needed an IQ of 190 or even 160 to be the world champion (Although the strong correlation is there and a theoretical minimum as a necessary condition is highly likely although we dont have that level of data of world champions).
let me give you an example of what you guys are doing. IT is well known that the very top chess players are nothing short of awesome at blindfold chess. (some greater than others) but by virtue of being Super GM's their blindfold is always "really good" (whether some lower GM or even IM's who are really good at blindfold are superior to one or two super GMs at it is irrelevant). Now there is a positive correlation between chess strength and blindfold play as established above, but this correlation cannot be extended to become a neat correlation.
Richard Reti at his peak for example was a top 10 player, maybe even top 5 but he was never a world championship contender , yet he was able to play 29 chess games simultaneously blindfolded. Should this fact be taken to disprove that there is no correlation between being extremely strong in chess and blindfold strength? ok what about the necessary condition that all super GM's can play very strong blindfold (whether they choose to or not is irrelevant).
Exactly, yet people are doing the same faulty inferences against IQ that you woudnt do in the example above.
If an an elit subsample of top 10 players , the most intelligent one can't be No1 or No2 that means that in lower rated samples can happen the same . So ,in a class of 10 kids , the most intelligent kid might very well fail(and it has happened). Assuming all players of a class have average intelligence , higher intelligence offers no advantage since the less intelligent kid might very well be the world champion and the most intelligent kid might only be 10th. That rather proves there is no correlation between chess and intelligence and theigh IQ readings might be the result of high IQ people attracted from chess(according to some of the researches already posted in previous posts).I am not saying that being 10th in the world is a failure. But when you try to get comparative results you compare players of the same level. You can't compare Nunn with me , you will compare him with players of the same level. It is certainly a failure for Nunn that he never qualified even for the candidate matches. A failure that clearly shows high intelligence is certainly not a critical or not even an important parameter for chess success. Average intelligence is more than enough(and scientific researches prove correct).
no, you cannot assume that. if for example, the top 10 players are oversaturated with very high IQ's which is quite likely, then you cannot assume anything about a wider IQ distribution at lower levels.
you have proved over and over again that you do not understand how statistical relevance works.
Yes, I have no idea how statistical relevance works but you have no idea how chess training works. Last 6 years I work with a FIDE certified trainer. And:
1)He doesn't consider intelligence an advantage.He says that all the time to parents that bring their "genious" in the club expecting that he will have special treatment.
2)We have seen intelligent kids failing over and over again.
From a class that started 8 years ago (12 kids) , 2 of the kids(not kids anymore) are GMs and they were neither the faster learners or the most intelligent. The faster learner and the one that excelled in the early contests is still struggling around 2200. The worst kid of the class and the slower learner is now IM (needless to say that he is keeping detailed records of all the tests and contests).
So everything you know is theoretical and has to do with statistical relevance(couldn't be more irrelevant than that) and everything I know is from spending 3 hours , 4 days a week in a chess club working with promising kids and an IM that is FIDE certified trainer and trains kids the last 25 years.
Everyone that has trained kids or juniors know it very well. Intelligence plays no role. That is why when trainers like Grivas say "only hard work counts"(Grivas rejects even talent but that's another topic) people like you can't understand what he means while people like me are not surprised at all.By the way I was as ignorant as you 6 years before and I thought all chessplayers are intelligent. I am no better than you except in one thing. When authorities talk , I listen and I learn!
going back to the same "reasons" that have already been refuted.
Aug 23, 2018
0
#274
DeirdreSkye wrote:
Assuming all players of a class have average intelligence , higher intelligence offers no advantage since the less intelligent kid might very well be the world champion and the most intelligent kid might only be 10th. That rather proves there is no correlation between chess and intelligence
No it doesn't. Correlation doesn't mean an unbreakable rule, it means a general trend. For example, the hotter the weather, the more ice cream is sold. If more ice cream was sold on a 95 degree day than a 98 degree day, that doesn't disprove the correlation.
Aug 23, 2018
0
#275
Talking to a brick wall...
Hello wall, my name is Steve. Hello? Hello?
Interesting discussion, just one thing to add:
The original question may need to be tweaked as I.Q. tests tend to stress the same kind analytical intelligence that chess demands, whereas (as someone pointed out) there are actually countless kinds of intelligence and genius (the analytical kinds are demanded by and emphasized by our techno-culture). Then, in that light, when you ask whether chessmasters are more intelligent than others, correctly meaning by "intelligence" the ability to understand and create, it starts to look like chessmasters are simply better at chess, although it would be very surprising if this did not correlate, to some extent, with being gifted with mnemonic, analytical, and visualizing capabilities. In short, the correlation between chess strength and I.Q. should be greater than that between chess and intelligence, the latter correlation being greater than zero since without memory, analytical ability and the capacity to vizualize arrays (endowments, not learned things, and definitely contributors to, though not absolutely nor uniquely definitive of, intelligence) it will be hard to excel at chess.
A 100% positive correlation is usually translated into or assigned a value of 1.
No correlation is 0.
A perfect negative correlation is -1.
So to say, "there is a correlation between IQ and chess ability" is quite loose, and potentially even virtually meaningless.
It's like the Raven Paradox: finding a green vase actually does confirm the statement "all ravens are black"; but the confirmation is extremely weak. So without qualifying the "confirmation," the word suggests something stronger than what is actually the case.
So, with chess and IQ, how strong is the correlation?
0.1?
0.3?
0.5?
0.8?
There is quite a difference....
OZmatic wrote:
Interesting discussion, just one thing to add:
The original question may need to be tweaked as I.Q. tests tend to stress the same kind analytical intelligence that chess demands, whereas (as someone pointed out) there are actually countless kinds of intelligence and genius (the analytical kinds are demanded by and emphasized by our techno-culture). Then, in that light, when you ask whether chessmasters are more intelligent than others, correctly meaning by "intelligence" the ability to understand and create, it starts to look like chessmasters are simply better at chess, although it would be very surprising if this did not correlate, to some extent, with being gifted with mnemonic, analytical, and visualizing capabilities. In short, the correlation between chess strength and I.Q. should be greater than that between chess and intelligence, the latter correlation being greater than zero since without memory, analytical ability and the capacity to vizualize arrays (endowments, not learned things, and definitely contributors to, though not absolutely nor uniquely definitive of, intelligence) it will be hard to excel at chess.
Good post, good contribution to the discussion.
Thank you.
Another point that has been touched on (especially by Carlsen and by some recent posts about John Nunn), but not completely brought out, is that there may be a negative correlation, between extremely high IQs and world-champion chess players. It may even be a strict or perfect negative correlation. -1.
Carlsen explained his view on this, and he may be on to something; but there is probably also more involved.
World chess champions seem to fall into a certain range.
Although we don't know Carlsen's IQ, there are good indications, including his own statements on the subject, that it is not spectacularly high. Early signs of math brilliance, or any other signs of unusual brilliance (outside chess), are missing. It would not be surprising if it is similar to or lower than Kasparov's. (If you compare what they do outside of chess, it suggests that Kasparov may be at least a bit ahead.)
So here are two of the greatest chess players and world champions in history, literally, and their IQs are....
Carlsen might have an IQ of around 130. You could take a thousand kids with IQs of around 130, and not a single one, even with the best approaches and the best trainers, would be likely to equal Carlsen's chess ability.
IQ and Chess AQ are two different things. That is pretty clear by now.
Carlsen's AQ is off the charts, probably over 200. It is extremely unlikely to find that level of chess aptitude in a sample of 1000 kids.
Anyone claiming to be or know someone with a 150+ IQ (less than 1 in 2500, yet we have several people claiming such right here in this thread...) needs to pony up some kind of evidence. I'm flat out saying you are full of shit if you don't/can't. Online tests? Self-administered tests? Laughable.>>>
Interesting. It's amazing (no, it isn't!) how angry some people can get when their cherished ideas are inadvertently challenged.
However, a thread on IQ might well attract people with a high Q?
Fun facts ... apparently the army measured my father at 171 in 1943. My wife did a Mensa entrance test well before I met her and I think she said she came out at 156. My son's a quantum physicist with a PhD in that subject. I've always known a lot of brilliant people.
So what though? I'm only relating these facts to wind you up. I've been drinking Yeni raki. Want a glass?
Cherished idea? No. Hard statistics? Yes.
1. Your father is the only source of the 171, I assume? Even if reported accurately by him, probably a clerical error at the get-go. A 171 IQ is literally 1 in a million.
2. Unscrupulous Mensa chapters inflate test results (or use "tests" that are completely unofficial) to get more paying members all the time. Online tests give inaccurate results all the time to get more web hits/impressions.
How many people have you ever talked to that reported 100 (or less) IQ? Yet...they are 50% of the population. In this thread we have 4 anecdotal IQs of 185, 171, 169, and 156...completely absurd.