Relationship between Chess rating and I.Q?

If a person is intelligent,he will do well in chess,however,its converse according to me,does not seems to be true.It is like that those who have courage,has a sword,but those who have sword might not be courageous. Chess no less analogous to sword here,otherwise everybody will become intelligent.

Does it mean that a monkey with enough paper and an breakable typewriter plus a lot of time on hand will eventually type out a Shakespeare play ? How does practice help a chess player ? obviously by the mind absorbing the positions and the pitfalls and the standard moves which require Memory,and an Aptitude for logical thinking . Does it not mean that one has to have a better IQ to be better at Chess?

Does it mean that a monkey with enough paper and an breakable typewriter plus a lot of time on hand will eventually type out a Shakespeare play ? How does practice help a chess player ? obviously by the mind absorbing the positions and the pitfalls and the standard moves which require Memory,and an Aptitude for logical thinking . Does it not mean that one has to have a better IQ to be better at Chess?

I've come up with this estimation including all the relevant factors

your IQ * 64 = your potential chess rating

Can someone tell me what a potential chess rating is?

Iam new here

@heinzie:How did you derive that formula?

That'd mean your average Joe should have a 6400 rating.

If there are 3 groups: gifted, average and handicapped, then I must be handicapped because I'm only 1700 rating :(

As can be read from the comment above yours, the average Joe doesn't bother to verify anything they are offered

 You said it - this sums up exactly what I might have wanted to say if I could have been bothered writing it! :D

I don't know if intelligence has much to do with OTB ratings.  There are a lot of dumb people who are good chessplayers, and it's due to the amount of work they put in and their determination to win.  I've played chess since I was 10 (I'm now 42) and won a lot of games earlier in my life that I shouldn't have won, because my "killer instinct" was so much greater.  Just as an offhand example:  when I was, say, 18 and playing in the National Open in Vegas I would easily play a theoretical draw until 2 am just because I wanted to win so bad.  I've since played many games as an adult, and the--difficult to admit truth--is that it just becomes less important:  if I have the option of drawing and going back to the hotel and having dinner with my wife I will think about it, rather than sitting there for another 2 hours in a drawish game.  That would never happen in my youth.

There's so much more that goes into chess than merely practicing and getting lessons and knowing the game.  I have bad nerves, and when I say that I mean "Amateur nerves" and most of the players I see at tournaments have Amateur nerves (obviously not most of the GM's).  Amateurs also have no poker face.  None.  You watch a GM at one of these tournaments and you have no idea if he's winning or losing or drawing.  You look at most amateurs between moves, talking to their friends or whatever, and you can easily tell how their game is going.  Amateurs also have no strategy, even if they feel otherwise:  GM's and IM's will go into a game with a plan before the game even starts, playing either aggressively or positionally etc.  An amateur plays the same every single game, he only knows one way (the way he thinks he plays and what he thinks he's strongest at).  There's a whole host of factors that go into being successful in tournaments that have absolutely nothing to do with the actual position in front of you.  

Then you get into the "work" aspect.  We all know successful people in life who are dumb as rocks and we wonder how they became successful, and usually chalk it up to luck or who they know, but the truth is successful people, and especially successful chessplayers, work seriously hard at it.  That has nothing to do with intelligence, that has to do with drive and motivation and determination.  I know several people who have way more "talent" than I but who are lazy as hell, who don't want to put in the work, and eventually it catches up with you.  

Nothing replaces hard work.  Nothing ever has.  I'd rather be 50 IQ points dumber but have a stronger drive to be successful and a better work (practice) ethic.   

In my experience as a tournament regular in Alberta, Canada, higher rated players tend to be what I consider smarter people by conventional standards and definitions. Having played tournament chess regulary for the last 4 years, I have met and chatted with almost all levels of players and come to what I consider to be some fairly correct generalizations. Spearman's theory of G, or  "general intelligence" seems correct.  

"Smart" people - those possessing modest to very good memories often make for very good(1900+) chess players.  They also tend to have a good ability to visually rotate objects-- obviously an essential attribute to play well. 

These two abilities are what I think most affect a person's aptitude for good chess. Not surprisingly, many IQ tests have sections that measure these exact skills. Object rotation,  front-to-back recall, fill in the blank block etc. 

On a side note, and perhaps more interestingly; I have found that the best blitz players in the province tend to be the most cognitively sharp, quick witted, most educated and so on. The most obvious confound however is the problem of trying to evalute kids, as their chess skills and minds have not fully matured. 

Basically, the higher rated players seem smart( more education, income, better read on a variety of topics, more intellectually stimulating to be around etc) The lower rated players tend to have less of the above.

By western conventional standards, yes, more education usually infers greater intellect, and ones memory is often a great assest in being to do well in many school subjects as well as in the work world.  Of course many different cultures have different definitions of what is "smart" or "intelligent" and therefore our thinking regarding how smart a person is usually subjective.

IQ ^^

Fischer never finished school, knew nothing about even high-school math. His view of world was quite blind. He had no social life. Yet he was and still is a legendary chess player, probably the best ever existed so far.

There is no formula like this. I think if you want to be good at chess and are willing to study and be patient, anyone could become a GM.

I think IQ can only help with learning to play chess. More intelligent people are just way more adaptable. But with time and experience, anyone can become a strong player.

http://www.mendeley.com/research/chess-need-intelligence-study-young-chess-players/

Here's the full study. http://v-scheiner.brunel.ac.uk/bitstream/2438/642/1/Does%20Chess%20Need%20Intelligence-revision-finalINT.pdf

I agree there is a correlation in general between the two, however, if you are really intelligent, but aren't patient, or chess doesn't appeal to you, you probably wouldn't be naturally good at. The other thing you might think about is the subjectivity of IQ tests...

Who are you agreeing with?  Most posts, including the one above yours, is suggesting the opposite.

 I tend to think that intellegent people gravitate towards cerebral things more so than those who realize before hand, that it doesn't suit them. I tend to think that the better the chess player, most often will have a higher IQ. I was trying to make mention of the subjectivity of IQ tests, an example would simply be, you could be great at chess, but do really stupid things otherwise. So, then the $64,000 dollar question is, what does any of that really prove?

To play chess you have to use your brain and think... but you also have to use your brain to drive across town.

That chess is a game for intelligent people, or that people who play are intelligent in general is a myth.  If you're good at chess it only proves that you're good at chess.

It's like saying a highly skilled tax accountant is very intelligent just because they can do taxes well.  Well maybe they've simply been doing taxes for 30 years and have developed a very specific skill set.

The best you could say, maybe, is that the rate at which a person improves their ability is linked to some specific types of intelligence.  But that is also confounded by free time and willingness to improve.