I've never had my IQ professionally measured but I'm fairly sure it's high (I'm an engineer who never really needed to study much in school, I was a point short of perfect on the ACT, always been a good test-taker).
Here I am sitting at a 960 rating. I've played chess on and off my whole life but never seriously studied it. So does that mean I have a low IQ? Or maybe as kimberlyja suggested I'd have a high rating if I took the time to study chess seriously?
IQ x 10 + 1000 =~ top possible rating, with many years of good coaching and study, strong desire and starting young.
( =~ means very closely equal to )
2,520! That's it! Darn it.
I think they are tightly connected because I think both my IQ and rating should be higher than they are.
I have an iq of 127 and here iam, 600 points, and iv been learn chess like 2 months or so.
So i think it tells all, what a pro chess player need is complex, pre-developed plans/movements to defense yourself, and at the same time making movements that not just defense you, but makes the enemy in stress, plans plans, plans
And iq is not for this, iq just realise things, if i step there, then he/she will etc etc which makes me frustrated again because this is what a plan about, so..
In my opinion, you aren't playing as well as your intelligence would be likely to dictate, according to bell curve study.
This dude knows.
I barely read through the first post before I started to nod off!
IQ x 10 + 1000 =~ top possible rating, with many years of good coaching and study, strong desire and starting young.
( =~ means very closely equal to )
2,520! That's it! Darn it
Darn! I cant be a super-gm. only 2630
Some chess players simply have a conceited notion that, "I'm really good at chess so I must be smart (have high I.Q.)" It's vain and egotistical.
Some chess players simply have a conceited notion that, "I'm really good at chess so I must be smart (have high I.Q.)" It's vain and egotistical.
This can also work the other way, when really smart people with loads of letters after their names automatically think this must make them good at chess. Then they come to a chess club and play against an actual chess player, with the resulting carnage. This is even funnier when the 'actual chess player' is a kid.
Some chess players simply have a conceited notion that, "I'm really good at chess so I must be smart (have high I.Q.)" It's vain and egotistical.
+++
the forumla enetred by the op is wrong ...
here's the correct one: elo = (iq*10)+1000
So, working backwards, someone with a a 1240 rating here would have an IQ of 24? Judging by some of the comments (and creative spelling) here, that may indeed be likely.
the forumla enetred by the op is wrong ...
here's the correct one: elo = (iq*10)+1000
So, working backwards, someone with a a 1240 rating here would have an IQ of 24? Judging by some of the comments (and creative spelling) here, that may indeed be likely.
If the MAX rating he could reach with constant studying and playing was 1240, then yeah.
the forumla enetred by the op is wrong ...
here's the correct one: elo = (iq*10)+1000
So, working backwards, someone with a a 1240 rating here would have an IQ of 24? Judging by some of the comments (and creative spelling) here, that may indeed be likely.
If the MAX rating he could reach with constant studying and playing was 1240, then yeah.
Maybe you don't know how IQ works. You may want to see how low an IQ of 24 is, and what IQ level would be needed to learn the rules of any game, not just chess.
I have known MENSA members who never broke 1900 USCF despite spending many hours every week on the game. Taking best on how many people will come back and say they just didn't train properly?
This equation would likely be better if it gave an interval as a result, with an associated probability.
So IQ*10+1000 +/- 200 with 65% probability or something.
the forumla enetred by the op is wrong ...
here's the correct one: elo = (iq*10)+1000
So, working backwards, someone with a a 1240 rating here would have an IQ of 24? Judging by some of the comments (and creative spelling) here, that may indeed be likely.
If the MAX rating he could reach with constant studying and playing was 1240, then yeah.
Maybe you don't know how IQ works. You may want to see how low an IQ of 24 is, and what IQ level would be needed to learn the rules of any game, not just chess.
I have known MENSA members who never broke 1900 USCF despite spending many hours every week on the game. Taking best on how many people will come back and say they just didn't train properly?
I know how IQ works, because I, unlike you, are not an idiot.
I also am not advocating that dudes post, I am merely pointing out your error there.
We obviously need a better formula here.
My model:
R +/- 300 = 2000 + (10*(IQ-100))
Where R is the max potential ELO.
That puts an average person (IQ 100) at about 2000 max potential rating. (Range 1700-2300)
That puts me (IQ 140) at about 2400 max potential rating. (Range 2100-2700)
Seems reasonable, right?
PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE WILL BE EXCEPTIONS. Garry Kasparov's IQ is only around 130, and in theory his max potential rating range would be 2000-2600, but he's over 2800 because he has exceptional chess talent. There is SOME correlation between chess talent and IQ, but this correlation cannot create a 100-percent-accurate model. It can get close, though.
EDIT: Only now do I realize that I came up with the exact same formula as OP. Great minds think alike, eh?
according to that formula, my elo is about 2400. you know, i dont think im a grand master.
the ideea is that you might have 2400 elo if you'd study chess like a pro