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.
Super intelligent people are often non-competitive and rather lazy. I guess they have nothing to prove. While intelligence certainly is an asset for chess, a will to win is more important. Super intelligent people tend not to excel at chess or anything else unless they become motivated, then watch out.
I concur. If you are really intelligent, you see the end and the journey before you even start, it sort of takes away the thrill of the unknown. I tend to get caught up in all of the things I want to avoid, so I use other things that are still cerebral, yet on a certain level rather trivial to occupy my time(like chess,wine making,writing music). However, I am sure that the economic class of the really intelligent person in question, will go along way to determine how active they are and what they delve into.
If there are 3 groups: gifted, average and handicapped, then I must be handicapped because I'm only 1700 rating :(
1700 OTB would put you firmly in the 'normal' category along with everyone else here. Anyone with an I.Q > 100 should be able to reach an OTB rating > 1200 (say about 1500 here at chess.com) with enough self study. With coaching I'm sure they could be as much as 500 points higher.
Those who would like to imagine that academic prowess is a more accurate indicator of intelligence than chess rating would do well to consider how the 'dumb guy who always outplays them at chess' would do if he was either motivated to sacrifice years of his life toward an academic path, or if he had the same environment as the person who judges himself superior.
I have known very few truely gifted individuals but can cite a few mere 'chessplayers' for the egotists here with low ratings & high I.Q's to compare themselves... Dr.Greg Hjorth [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Hjorth ] & Ralph Seberry [ http://unauthorised.org/ralph/danny.html ] who both died long before their time :(
I have the same thing happening, but how much of chess is simply preparation? Having already learned something, doesn't necessarily make you smarter the someone who hasn't tried the same thing.
Aside from this, I find raw intelligence difficult to isolate. We can only seem to test it based on what we have learned, but that doesn't make wisdom the same as intelligence.
Definitely a couple hundred dollars...
double posting ? I am seeing this alot from you nongxha lately, what's up ?
sounds like someone still has dial-up!
I think that there is a correlation IQ/chess strenght, but, like with language, if you start to play chess old then someone who started earlier can play better even if he is less inteligent. And , of course, training methods , hard work and enviroment must be add to the equation
A lot of good points made here...too many to quote them all. I'm relatively new to the game of chess (about a year), but I think chess is largely about spatial-temporal reasoning, which effectively is a faculty of intelligence. A few things: 1. Men are generally better spatial-temporal reasoners, (of course there are exceptions), while women tend to be better at language or analytic reasoning (of course there are exceptions), and this is evidenced in the physical differences in density of the corpus callosum of male and female brains. 2. A variety of activities require spatial reasoning, so things such as driving, math, listening to Mozart, even...enhance spatial reasoning, and those who perform well with numbers, are good drivers, or are classically trained in music, etc., can also perform well in chess. Having said that, I think the only underlying factor here is enhancing that spatial temporal reasoning, which like anything else, can be done with work! If you can do that, your chess vision will also improve. Combine that with dedicated study of the game and I see no reason why anyone couldn't excel at it.
Ciljettu, that's simply not true. It has been disputed but certainly not discredited. In fact, it's been supported in recent years more so than ever before with the use of physiologic imaging and MRIs, which have produced consistent and significant differences in male/female corpus callosum structure.
Ciljettu...As a woman who speaks three languages fluently, I can respectfully disagree with you :) haha. Yes, I have scholarly links to support this, but they're through my university (clinical psych student), so I can't exactly post links that would be visible to all. Wiki has a nice summary of primary sources on this, though. The section on MRI's has a few...
Ciljettu, no problem. I too have a bad sense of direction...but I'm not sure that involves much spatial reasoning at all..(this I have not researchered though...)...BUT, spatial reasoning has more to do with your manipulation and interaction with the surrounding objects in space. So think of it like this: If you're driving, lost on a city road, you're not surrounded by the objects (the familiar objects, that is) necessary for you to navigate through in order to guide you back home, but it's not spatial reasoning's fault. You still use spatial reasoning while manuvering the vehicle around the unfamiliar location through the unknown surrounding objects. You may even avoid an accident, or remain lost for hours, driving around aimlessly ... (all of which involve the use of spatial reasoning). I'm honestly not sure, but I think a good sense of direction is largely based on memory, or if you've never been to that particular location, your ability to correctly read a map, or if all else fails, a good GPS ;)
When I am playing well I will be the first to tell you that I am a friggin' genius. When I am playing badly (and by higher-rated player's standards, I always play badly), I am simply having a bad day.
I really don't understand all the debate- there either is a correlation or there isn't. The anecdotal stuff shouldn't even factor in, as correlations are about an overall pattern and outliers will always occur.
This should be easy to look up, and I seem to remember there being a weak or possibly nonsignificant correlation between IQ and chess rating. But I'm too lazy to do so myself (another thing IQ doesn't take into account).
The only relationship between chess and IQ is this:
Really good players will be intelligent, BUT being very intelligent does not mean you will be a good player.
A lot of very smart people suck at chess, but I've never met a dimwit that played a good game.