I'm familiar with that paper. Did you actually read it?
First, it noted that there is no correllation between intelligence and chess ability in adult players.
Second, this paper is looking at children.
Third, quoting from the paper, with respect to players with high levels of chess ability (emphasis added):
"The results of the hierarchical regression analysis using age, experience, practice and IQ or intelligence subtests as predictors of the rating are presented in Table 3. The most surprising result was that IQ negatively correlated with chess rating, indicating that the children with lower IQ scores were better players in the elite subsample (see Model 2). Age, on the other hand, did not play a significant role in the chess rating prediction (Model 1 and 2). But practice had a large positive impact on the rating (Model 3). Intelligence had moderately negative and significant influence when practice was not included (Model 2). After the inclusion of practice, intelligence lost some of its negative impact on chess rating. Experience, on the other hand, became a moderately and significantly negative predictor when it was added (Model 4). Again, this probably reflects the association of experience with age (r(23) = .64, p = .001) and practice (r(23) = .46, p = .028) which can also be seen in the relatively high VIF value for experience. Model 3, which included practice, explained altogether 60% of the variance in the chess rating, 30% more than the previous model (Model 2) did with age and IQ. The full model with experience as the final predictor explained 70% of the variance."
In the discussion section, the authors note that "These results suggest that the differences in the amount of time spent on chess between less and more intelligent players in the elite subsample may not be as large as one would expect if intelligence was particularly strongly correlated with chess skill."
And after pointing out that the population of children studied had fairly impressive IQ scores in general (which would be expected when looking at a sample of players from a country where chess instruction and participation is not mandatory, the authors notes that: "Our study demonstrates that the role of intelligence in the acquisition of chess skill should not be assessed separately from other relevant factors."
nameno1had -- do you have any actual studies or research to back up your barrage of text?
I have the feeling that you're really good at parroting research results without actually understanding how "research" is actually done. It would be pretty funny if it turned out you never actually used a statistical program such as SPSS.
If you recall the discussion that you and I had some time ago, I explained you that the reason of the lack of hard evidence of chess --> IQ is that there are so many other factors that make it impossible to do this test.
Particularly, practice.
A person with a higher chess rating is NOT (necessarily) more intelligent that a person with a lower rating. But you can be sure that if two people put in the same amount of practice (ceteris paribus) the person with highest IQ will end up with a higher rating. Or, same thing, will end up with the same rating with less practice.
This is common sense. But I just happen to have found an academic source. A serious study on chess/IQ correlation where they managed to control for practice. The result is that there is a statistically significant positive correlation between IQ and chess skills. PROVEN.
Of course the researchers tell us that practice is still the dominant factor - I had no doubt about it.
http://v-scheiner.brunel.ac.uk/bitstream/2438/642/1/Does%20Chess%20Need%20Intelligence-revision-finalINT.pdf