Lower-IQ Grandmasters?

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.  

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....

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. 

I saw an interview with Carlsen once, that went something like this:

Interviewer:  If you wrote a book about yourself, what is it that you would want people to know about you?

Magnus:  That I am not a genius

Interviewer:  What would the book be called?

Magnus:  I would call it Magnus Carlsen, Chess Genius.  

The guy with (supposedly) the highest tested I.Q. ever is Chris Langan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Langan He's not a famous mathematician or physicist - though he does seem to be quite good at those subjects - he's just a crank who no-one takes seriously. Clearly there is more to intelligence than I.Q. tests can measure.

If you read the talk page (i.e. editing notes) for that Wikipedia page, you will see that his IQ score is the subject of much doubt and scrutiny:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christopher_Langan

I agree it's questionable, but then everything about i.q. tests is questionable.

Have the Polgar sisters been tested for their IQ's?

Susan Polgar was one of the subjects of a BBC documentary on how IQ is *not* the end-all be-all measure of intelligence...

lol, I remember that interview, it was great. Carlsen definitely has a sense of humor.

ggggxdgggggggxgggxgdxxxgggggggggggdgggggggggggdfgggggggggggggggggggf

So sorry about your disability.

Actually Carlsen had enormous early signs of math brilliance. He was calculating at IM -level when he was 12.  Chess is a very mathematic game.    The chess mathematics is about holding many lines and variations in your head at the same time. At IM+ level you need heavy mathematical stamina, especially  when you are young, and have not learned most theory. Magnus was known as a lousy openingplayer (compared to his opponents) when he was kid and teenager, and not knowing lines   forced him to calculate, which he did very well.

I calculated through an IQ test last week, and noticed that much was very chessy. It was about calculating stamina. From that I conclude that calculation stamina is an important element in both IQ-tests and chess, and therefore its very likely that the correlation between high IQ and good chess-strenght is high.

PS: I do not really know what IQ is, but I do know that several IQ -testquestions are testing how deep you can calculate precise.

After  the preparations for WC against Anand in Chennai, Magnus improved his opening play to the very highest level.

Carlsen has spoken about intuition, specifically chess intuition. In blitz, he isn't calculating. He says it's almost as if his hand is making the moves. He is extremely good at blitz, probably better than anyone, so his views on this are especially interesting. 

He has also said that his intuition usually sees the right moves in classical chess immediately, but there is time to double-check via calculations. 

Intuition seems quite different from calculation. 

Capablanca supposedly operated very intuitively in chess.

It seems to be a quicker form of intelligence. It also seems quite important and potent in chess, especially when it is accurate. 

I'm not sure chess intuition is something covered by or even correlated with IQ tests and scores. 

Capablanca and others have spoken of being guided by an intuitive sense of harmony in chess. 

He's definitely calculating.

We could test this with the eye tracker thing. They've had people of different strengths, for example, solve puzzles while cameras tracked which squares their eyes were looking at, effectively tracking their calculation.

That's how pretty much every experienced/studied player plays chess though. Even players who aren't good enough to have a title.

 “Really, chess is mainly about intuition instincts. So when you play classical chess, at least for me, my intuition usually tells me something. It gives me an idea of what I want to play. Then I’ll have plenty of time to verify that and to calculate it in different variations, to see if I’m right. In blitz, we don’t have that luxury. So [you] have to go with what your intuition tells you, so that’s basically what’s going on. There’s not so much thinking. Of course, I’m calculating some variations, but usually I do what comes to my mind first. … I think you shouldn’t play only blitz, but playing some blitz is definitely pretty useful, especially when you’re developing as a young chess player. For me, it was very useful to develop my instinct...."

--Magnus Carlsen