Sorry I can't provide more details--my wife found that information at the UC Berkeley psychology library whe she was a student and I first became interested in chess (1971).
Note that I brought this up in answer to Opti's query about what other factors besides IQ might affect chess ability.
Sorry I can't provide more details--my wife found that information at the UC Berkeley psychology library whe she was a student and I first became interested in chess (1971).
Note that I brought this up in answer to Opti's query about what other factors besides IQ might affect chess ability.
OK thanks. I can't find any info although that relates to the argument I had recently with playerafar, who imagines in his deluded way that AI has aided internet searches. In actual fact, it has ruined search engines completely, in such a way that an AI disabler needs to be invented. That means we need a new family of search engines that are not AI "assisted" (= ruined).
I'm not getting ANY Google hits except to chess.com links. I even tried an alternative search engine.
Mainly I want to point out that I used the word "pluralism" as an example of a word that can be observed from different meanings, in the same way I can use the word "tension" with electrical or mental meaning. I am very social, I accept diversity, assembly and consensus.In many senses Im pluralist from my angle of vision,and to try no point out dictionary meanings,but personal vision.Im not philosophist academic,but take on account that the phylosophy start a lot of time before our cristian age,independently of today schools.My achivement as Philosopy is linked to magic as think systems.The title name is Magus Philosophus linked to the occulted phylosophy.Is not opposite to other sistems necessarelly but paralel.In same way that Parapsychology has teachings from psychology and tries to cover metaphysical points where psychology stops.
A players rating is usually significantly higher than his or her IQ.
In parapsicology I do not have title or degree,but I had a professional mentor.
Has anyone done a study on the inverse relationship between IQ and number of posts in this thread?
Has anyone done a study on the inverse relationship between IQ and number of posts in this thread?
I don't get it either...if this recent post's numbers are accurate, and they seem quite feasible, then the thread is over:
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.
... if this recent post's numbers are accurate, and they seem quite feasible, then the thread is over:
...
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.
Has anyone done a study on the inverse relationship between IQ and number of posts in this thread?
I don't get it either...if this recent post's numbers are accurate, and they seem quite feasible, then the thread is over:
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.
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.
... if this recent post's numbers are accurate, and they seem quite feasible, then the thread is over:
...
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.
Not sure if "best" is in any way measurable via voting! OK, change that. It definitely isn't!
I kind of agree, but not so definitively. It is a measure of some aspects of intelligence that are relatively easy to measure. Other things that can be considered part of intelligence have been measured independently. For example, emotional intelligence. Here is a list of aspects of intelligence outside of those measured in IQ tests, some of which can be measured fairly well.
There's a lot of opposition to that. Some of those are viable as parts of "intelligence" and some aren't. For instance, #6 isn't, since bodily intelligence is actually our sixth sense, with anything like telepathy being demoted to 7. A few of those things are marginally acceptable, such as musical ability. However, there's so much opposition to "emotional" and "social" as part of iq that it cannot be justly claimed as part of it. Certainly, emotional awareness is seated in a very different part of the psyche from mental ability. Social intelligence too: and the two are closely inter-related. You can't understand others without understanding yourself first. There are quite a few people who don't know that!
On the whole, it's a minefield and its better to keep it relatively simple and talk about things like emotional awareness in a different light rather than trying to herd together tigers, gazelles and unicorns.
Freud would consider moral intelligence as a function of the super-ego. Yes, it's an imaginary function but also realistic, since the super-ego consists of conditioned reflexes and resonses. Now, I don't think we'd normally presume that something which is a conditioned response is part of a cognitively transparent and deliberate mental funcion like the ability to calculate; or even like the ability to compose that which we are writing about now.
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.
^^ Don't think so, because with long lines, visualisation is inaccurate and chess is all about detail.
My (and your) visualization may be inaccurate, while Morphy's or Kasparov's is far more accurate, giving them some advantage over us.
It's just that current thinking tends to indicate or postulate that visualisation isn't dominant in chess calculation.
In the 1920s the French Chess Olympiad team was given a variety of mental acuity tests. Alekhine was on the team, as well as artist/chessplayers Marcel Duchamp and Man Ray. The only areas in which all those strong players scored in the 99th percentile were visualization and visual memory.
When you say "visualization and visual memory" - what exactly does that mean? "99 percentile in visualization and visual memory"? Visual memory is one thing, visualization would mean that you're imagining a picture in your mind. Nobody can really measure what someone else is visualizing in another person's mind and say "that person has a 99 percentile for that". That falls into the whole fallacy about iq a lot of people have - this assumption that you can simply measure things like visualization or intelligence - there's the number and there you go.
I also would bet good money it was "visual memory" they tested and you just threw "visualization and visual memory" in there to try to force your point.
Nobody said some sort of visualization wasn't important in chess players by the way, of course visualization of some sort must help, it just doesn't work like a movie of all the chess pieces going around a board would be in a good player's mind. That's the only point people are making here.
I also never heard of that study before, maybe there were other problems with it since otherwise people would have heard about it. Here's Carlsen remarking on how bad he is at such things.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Wc9hPxbDXWM
Oddly enough, I bet Carlsen might well be in the 99th percentile if he tried hard at it, the only point being made is that visualization isn't EVERYTHING, it's only one component. To be the best in the world you have to be 99 percentile at everything remotely relevant, and visualization and particularly visual memory is certainly some component to being a good chess player.