Relationship between Chess rating and I.Q?

I don't get it either...if this recent post's numbers are accurate, and they seem quite feasible, then the thread is over:

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/relationship-bewteen-chess-rating-and-iq?page=97#comment-108704669

Only Elroch seems to be trying to discuss the correlation numbers since.

A .3 to .4 correlation is considered "weak". So if nobody can produce better numbers, the answer to the thread holds up from near the beginning...there's a weak correlation between the two.

What this proves goes towards your "inverse" point. People will continue to try to pontificate regardless of whether they (a) know diddly squat, or (b) are just talking in circles about an issue where somebody else has already answered far better than they ever will.

P.S. If it holds up, then saying the average GM must have a genius level IQ or that super GMs and world champs must be in the 160-180 range will be proven to be ridiculous. Some posters already knew this, and said so in the first 30 pages over a decade ago.

So here's an idea for chess.com : sticky post.

Have some way for the "best" answer to a question be pinned to the top of every page in the thread. How to decide on "best" and who gets to do the pinning are implementation details left to the high IQ types running chess.com.

It's not all a waste of time though. There's a lot of chaff in here, but every once in a while someone posts a thought worth chewing on.

The numbers should be pretty feasible, a few studies I found land in the 0.3 to 0.5 range - significant, moderate correlation. Only way to get different or better data would be to find or conduct a study that has a wider representation of the higher elos and/or controls other variables like amount/quality of training etc.

Of course there are wild fantasies floating around how GMs are superhuman with unlimited iq, but I don't think that was a serious expectation for anyone who has any understanding on the relationship between variables and how correlation works in this context.

I don't think the thread has to die even if you consider the OPs question answered, atleast I like to entertain related discussion around all the factors that relate to chess elo, or iq specifically.

hi

Does anyone know the Baader-Meinhof effect...? That may explain why a mind can pay attention to something previously constructed,around interests it in particular.A common example would be when you get a product like a bike, car,or a jacket in one color,and then you find out how many people around you,have a similar item.Suddenly, this red bike, or a black sedan, or whatever,appears repeatedly.These items pre-existed but you only look at them now in particular, because the same features are now part of your property.Now aply the example to Chess Greatest featured players,those having a supposed IQ higly.After you accept the idea that a correlation does exist, each time you discover a new example in a news,or publicity, linked to the idea to what you observe,or prefer to believe,or theory of your preference,you can have the sensation of a another example sustain your theory.But let me to cite data reiteratedly posted, like apports by Ziryab,explaining that,in many cases,most populars examples,as Bobby Fischer,( to observe only one as featured example),are based in unexactly data & supositions.

IQ and chess rating are not directly correlated. While pattern recognition and problem-solving skills may be aided by a high IQ, chess proficiency is based on practice, memory, and experience. Many grandmasters succeed through commitment, strategy, and in-depth game analysis despite not having particularly high IQs.

Chess doesn't represent your IQ. Chess is about remembering and recognizing patterns which it isn't hard to do, plus chess doesn't determine your IQ.

Let me add that IQ is not synonymous with intelligence.It is a terminology to describe a supposedly measurable way of performing tests.It has strong opposition in the scientific field.Inteligence is about skills aplicated in cotidianity and our real needs.That is strongly subjetive because interests and focus of each mind are variable.We can be unsmart in any activity and smart in other.Also we can to learn to be smart in a activity,depending of our interests,focus and need.A monky can overcome obstacles for a banana,but a human may need a dollar to achieve the same result, while a monkey may not be interested in a dollar.It is also possible that different individuals had a more natural predisposition to one activity than other ?....Well.. Meaningful learning,according to the theorist David Ausubel ,can accept as idea that a new aknowing can be added as relevant to another idea preexistent.Previous aknowments can condition the news aknowments.Let me put a example : If you was educated under idea that Horses are very good,is more possible that you can learn how to care horses.

As GM Hikaru Nakamura points out, he has an IQ of 107.

He is also clearly not a geek either.

So yes there is no relation between chess rating and intelligence. The main property you need is endurance. You need to be able to spent those 50,000 hours that people need to perfect a trade on chess, and you need to do it early, because later it will be just too late.

I consider it prudent : Not to accept any number as determining in any case.(as measure of real inteligence)

I think that there's a connection, but more so in the sense of a relationship between a brother and sister rather than mother and son (metaphorically speaking). In other words, their related, but through having a common cause, not one causing the other.

Nearly 17 years now!

This is still ongoing