Relationship between Chess rating and I.Q?

The only thing high rated players are genius at is chess. That's it.

And it's not really a game of talent or skill. It's just memorization.

You apparently haven't looked into what some of the former world champions and other top players did in their spare time or for their other occupations... ? 

I don't normally think of engineers or mathematicians as geniuses and society often doesn't either. That is because, it isn't generally something the public isn't interested in. Even if an engineer does invent or discover something over the top, his company or finacier will often take credit. If a mathematcian discovers something, whatever he helps discover or help figure out how to build, is credited to someone else, yet some of these people are the most intelligent, well educated and insightful discoverers on the planet. Some of them have happened to be damn good chess players...

BTW, I am convinced I see genuis differently than most people. Then again, so are most people convinced of this about themselves too...

This could be confounded by smarter people being more interested in chess, not neccessarily innate chess ability.

It's a logical fallacy to connect the dots in such a way. Chess interest has nothing to do with your intelligence or occupation.

Capablanca was no scientist, neither was Fischer. 

There is "chess intelligence", and then there is "general" intelligence.

In the opening no intelligence is required. Books have been written on almost every variation. All one has to do is memorize a few lines.

There is also lack of intelligence.

and yereslov fit right in.

Often characterised by overuse of words like ''fallacy''. 

i suppose einstein and lasker were friends becauswe of the intellectual disparity.....? lol

'Anecdote' is not the singular form of 'evidence.'

Chess players are a population, and as such have variances in their respected intellectual capacities, just as would be found in any other population of people. At question are the following points:  how does the average intelligence of the average chess player relate to the general population;  how does the average intelligence of the best chess players relate to the general population; how does the average intelligence of the best chess players relate to the average intelligence of the average chess player; and, which intellectual skills (if any) are predictive or at least correllated to chess skill?

All of those questions have been researched in great detail starting in 1927 with Djakow, Petrowski, and Rudik's famous paper. 

There is no differences between a control sample of the general population and chess masters on general intelligence or visuo-spatial memory with the exception of memory tasks are closely related to chess as played.

Doll and Mayr did find that chess masters did better on the Berlin Structural Model of Intelligence test in 1987, but their control sample and sample of master players came from a population where chess players self-select and where chess is seen as an activity for kids who are "geeks" or "nerds," rather than from a population where chess is taught as universal subject. As such their results suffer from selection bias. 

There is no  body of research showing significant correllations between general intelligence and chess talent. 

A more promising explanation for chess talent than merely test scores (regardless of the intelligence metric specifically under discussion) comes from Geschwind and Galaburda who in 1985 proposed that chess 'talent' comes not from IQ but from better connections between the structures in the brain that process logic nad the structures in the brain that process visuo-spatial information. The suggested that greater exposure or sensitivity to intrauterine testosterone in the developing male fetus leads to a less developed left hemisphere htan usual, and as compensation, to a more developed right hemisphere. Males should therefore be more represented than females in fields requiring the logical processing of visuo-spatial information such as mathematics, music and chess. And left handed people should be more represtented in these fields than the general population. 

One consequence of their theory is that lesions to the right hemisphere of the brain should affect chess skill more than lesions to the left hemisphere. Cranberg and Albert demonstrated this to hold in practice. While their study had a relatively small sample size, even patients with significant and large scale left-hemisphere lesions retained the ability to play chess. However, their sample was not sufficient to show evidence for similar large size right hemisphere lesions (though small lesions of teh right hemisphere were sufficiently present in the study and were not impacted negatively). 

PET scan research into Geschwind and Galaburda's theory has failed to uncover evidence of perdominant right hemisphere engagement, but their study involved relatively simple tasks not directly related to actual play. Tomographic scans done in 1995 had inconclussive results that in some cases supported Geschwind adn Galaburda but in other cases contradicted them. However, the Tomographic study used a position from a famous game (Lasker-Bauer, Amsterdam 1889) which is common in the chess literature and therefore may well have been known and internalized by many of the study subjects.

Geschwind and Galaburda's theory does say that left-handed (or at least non-right hand dominate) chess players should be more prevelant than the general population. Multiple surveys of FIDE and USCF players shows this prediction to hold in practice; and that no difference were fround between strong and weak players; while all chess players are more than five standard deviations above the normal population for non-right hand dominance. This is considered very strong evidence for a biological substrate to chess talent.  

 

Yes I already knew all that, and my chess playing is crap!

I haven't read all the posts in this topic, but why is it so important in the first place to find a relationship between chess rating and iq? It's  on many chess players' mind apparently.

I've tested above 140 in multiple IQ tests, though I don't believe my problem solving abilities correlate much with my chess playing. It's just a high score that demonstrates I'm good at answering IQ test questions.

I was quite terrible at chess for many years.

Practice and experience helped me to improve--my intelligence did little, except allow me to appreciate the beauty of my opponent's moves when they crushed me. :D

Many chess players was/are very smart (Lasker, Botvinnik, Euwe, Alekhine, Tartakower, Nunn)

I have ccrl rating of 3240. That means i have a iq of 224(!), by your formula.

And that too without any physical brain.

According Kasparov and others, a great lot of modern grandmasters have narrow interests outside chess, in comparison to older generations of elite players. I recall an old grandmaster putting the blame on professionalism, maybe it was GM Averbach but i am not sure.

Whoa. Deep, dude. I'm not nearly intelligent enough to contemplate this.

lol awesome joke!!

Since I have some free time today, I will elaborate more on this. I noticed you never bothered reminding me to come back and explain my ideas further.

To help clarify where people make assumptions and miscalculations of human intelligence and how it relates to chess, I have decide to use the components of computers, in comparison to the human brain, to help people more clearly see where the rubber meets the road.

You may think this comparison has no way of retifying this situation. On some level that is a fair assessment, but it will only show your lack of understanding as to how the human mind works in relation to intelligence and the processing of it. I won't hold it against you for questioning the validity of my idea.

There are certainly several questions that are pondered with regard to this subject. Things like, is having an accurate memory, a sign of intelligence ? Is having a vast memory necessarily a sign of intelligence ? Is it the deep calculation ability that shows intelligence in chess ? Things like this and others are often asked to quantify the essence of intelligence and as it relates to chess.

If you take the three most important parts of a computer and compare them to the human brain, the hard drive is the main storage component that is comparable with the *long term memory in humans.

The RAM memory of a computer *(human short term memory), is the amount of memory that can be viewed, compared and calculated in conjunction, at one time. The items that are held in this memory center can be readily exchanged for different comparisons and then the data can be stored in the hard drive or long term memory center in humans.

This memory center also compares with the congitive memory and spatial reasoning center in humans. We are able to visualize only a certain amount of information at one time, while calcualting the value or meaning of these things. We have limited abilities to switch what we are focusing on to determine facts or opinions and then store our deductions.

The CPU, or computer processing unit is what actually does the calculating of the memory being used in the RAM memory. The speed of the calculations is controlled by this part. The more information that someone processes at once, the faster their "personal computer's" processor needs to be, in order for them to not appear "slow", burned out or in the chessic sense, loss on time.

It is funny how we use a term like slow, in judging the intelligence of others at times. We often may make such ascertions and yet have no clue about the depth of thought another may hold, even if they take a while. If my thoughts are more far reaching than another's, is their continually quick mouth that is saying little, showing more intelligence than mine, who later speaks of thousands of things, of better quality and in greater depth ?

So in laymans terms, if you have a computer that lacks good performance in anyone of these areas, it will likely get responses from users like, "I hate this stupid computer", or, " this dumb thing is so slow" ...

That pretty much says in a nut shell that, an intelligent computer, or perhaps more aptly described, an " intelligently " designed computer, requires a vast accurate memory, an ability for it to examine and use a large cross section of the total memory and interchange it, while storing changes and do all of this fast, in order to fit the description.

So to compare this to a human, they generally have to exhibit all of these traits to appear as intelligent. In the chessic comparison, if someone had a vast accurate memory, but an average short term memory and aren't the best or fastest thinker, they probably could be decent in OTB or correspondence games, as long as they have ample time. Does this necessarily make them unintelligent ? No. There is an underlying factor that I will get too later that says, this isn't the end all of what is intelligence, but rather shows that intelligence exists in different forms. Some of us, based on things like patience and preference, will discriminate accordingly. If you expect them to perform under time pressure or at higher levels of chess, they would need to have all of those good qualities a computer displays to do it well, or hence to play intelligently according to most opinions.

The last and perhaps most often overlooked side of the quality, of a computer's performance or human intelligence in our judgement is, the quality of information, or ideas that are found within them. This is the key factor I alluded to earlier about how intelligence can have different forms as it is expressed to us. This is a some what subjective idea in the sense that, we all won't agree on whether the information is cutting edge, genius or usefully interesting, etc. However, we all will agree that if we find the information contained in a human that is said to be of the aforementioned quality, we will say we see glimpses of brilliance, even if we don't see everything running on all cylinders. Some intelligent people aren't the best performers of certain tasks, but that doesn't make them dumb. We all have different talents, whether we are intelligent or not.

Finally, I felt compelled to say that, all of the jargon you presented about brain hemishpheres and scientific understanding, yada, yada, yada, might impress some people and get them to quickly go along with your beliefs, but you obviously failed to realize that there are others who aren't impressed. They know better. Whether it is their intuitive intelligence that tells them, not to listen to the opinions of those who don't know where a single piece of information is specifically stored in their own mind, or how to force themselves to recall it at will, others may have some understanding of how things really work and an appreciation for their designer.

We also may know well enough to not bother wasting our time trying to understand the half witted thoughts of those who want to take credit for being the first to understand how these actually work, when others have already been shown how they do work by their designer.

Food for thought...oh, by the way, I have always been fascinated by the electrochemical, spiritual aspects of brain function...G-d told me when I was an arrogant punk once, part of my problem was I thought I was so in control of my own mind, when in reality, all I could do is react to the stimuli presented to it and I couldn't even control that either. He told me, if I didn't believe him, I should try to quit thinking in order to control this and my own outside stimulations. I felt like a fool a few moments later when He pointed out that I was thinking about how to quit thinking.

BTW, since you seem to think you want the rest of us to think you are in the know, one would think that you would have saw through the follies of your anecdote. One, being the truth and whole truth aren't necessarily the same thing in conversation, but can be. Two, you did the same thing that you accused me of. Three, also an intelligent person would most likely have thought that another intelligent person would have saw these things coming. As I said before, there are different forms of intelligence, I guess I'll give you a pass...

*further anecdotal evidence...Where does long term memory end and short term memory begin ?...Maybe I'll figure it out next week and forget to tell you for two weeks after...?

And you probably didn't read it? Don't worry, I didn't either.