Weak relationship until you hit high elo (Titles)
Every super gm 2700+ was a child prodigy and is a genius. Their IQs are all likely 160+
This doesn't necessarily apply in every respect. I have read about child chess prodigies who were savants, so they actually had very low IQs despite their chess ability.
I have been blessed to see the relationship between intellect and chess skill first hand. Their offspring rave about their affairs to this very day, all of these centuries later...
Weak relationship until you hit high elo (Titles)
Every super gm 2700+ was a child prodigy and is a genius. Their IQs are all likely 160+
http://ratings.fide.com/top_files.phtml?id=13300474
Rating progress chart for Levon Aronian, the current world number 2. On becoming an adult at age 18, he was your regular GM, rated 2550. Still much stronger than us of course, but nowhere near the elite, and not what you would describe as a 'prodigy' or 'genius'. He kicked on and obtained his world-class level as an adult.
My IQ is 133 but I still feel pretty average at chess
Weak relationship until you hit high elo (Titles)
Every super gm 2700+ was a child prodigy and is a genius. Their IQs are all likely 160+
This doesn't necessarily apply in every respect. I have read about child chess prodigies who were savents, so they actually had very low IQs despite their chess ability.
name two of these child chess prodigies who were also savants.
Chess is mostly pattern recognition. Geniuses basically excel at remembering and manipulating larger "chunks" of patterns and seeing the relationship - logical or mathematical - between chunks. That is where they are able to conceptualize much faster than us. But unless you can apply these superior capabilities to a wide variety of abstraction situations, you are likely a "prodigy" in one particular field.
You can find the story of at least one child chess prodigy savant in The Immortal Game by David Shenk (which also has a lot more interesting chess trivia and history in it.) Actually the child chess savants should not be called "prodigies" according to this section of an online encyclopedia entry on prodigies:
prodigy
a child who, by about age 10, performs at the level of a highly trained adult in a particular sphere of activity or knowledge. In this sense, neither high intelligence nor eccentric skills by themselves qualify a child as a prodigy. Rather, it is the capacity to perform in a recognized area of endeavour in such a wayas to receive broad acclaim that defines the prodigy. Therefore, individuals who are chess prodigies or"lightning calculators" (those who have a remarkable memory for figures) but who are otherwise mentally or developmentally disabled (such as "idiot savants") are not prodigies.
What just happened with that weird display of my post?
awesomechess I asked for two child prodigy savants. Because a child may be a progidy does not mean he or she is a savant.
awesomechess I asked for two child prodigy savants. Because a child may be a progidy does not mean he or she is a savant.
Didn't you just read my previous posts? Read The Immortal Game and the encyclopedia entry I included (which somehow was formatted strangely) - the encyclopedia entry says that savants are not considered prodigies, but there are savants who are very talented in chess.
The problem is that IQ is basically how much easily measurable data do you know, and it assesses problem-solving to some extent.
But chess is just another animal. There have been uneducated, illiterate chess players who have a natural talent for the game. Mir Sultan Khan did not know how to read or write, and so read no chess theory, but is often called the most naturally talented player of all time. He even beat Capablanca.
awesomechess I asked for two child prodigy savants. Because a child may be a progidy does not mean he or she is a savant.
Didn't you just read my previous posts? Read The Immortal Game and the encyclopedia entry I included (which somehow was formatted strangely) - the encyclopedia entry says that savants are not considered prodigies, but there are savants who are very talented in chess.
There are savants who are very good in chess but "very good in chess" does not equate to prodigies is all I am saying. "talented in chess" also does not mean "prodigies"
I have a relationship with chess ratings and IQ...it is a crazy love triangle
Hi,
Chess rating and IQ should be correlated, but the relationship is unlikely to be one-to-one. This is the same reason that one person can get quite different scores on two IQ tests: all tests use a different metric. Some include verbal components, some include mathematical components, some include deductive logic, some only include pattern recognition.
Being good at chess doesn't necessarily mean you have intellectual skills that would give you a strong vocabulary, for example. Yet it is undeniable that verbal ability, on its own, is important. Yes, some IQ tests only offer logic and pattern problems, and they might correlate more highly with chess ratings than traditional IQ tests. Still, this neglects other facets of intellectual ability that are to some degree measurable, and are still important.
Even two logic tests that are different could, theoretically, lead to different scores if a particular skill is required for one that is not required for the other. So, there's no reason to believe that chess rating is a strong indication of IQ. This is the same reason that IQ is kind of a crappy meausre to begin with.
Also, modern perspectives on intelligence suggest that working memory is the primary driver of most intelligence. How much information can you hold in your head, without getting distracted? This would indeed correlate with IQ and chess rating, but only to an extent. Once information had been crystalized, and you have long term memory for a strategy, the measure becomes bogus. Then it's about how much practice you've had than how you can intellectually perform in the moment. For that reason, I think especially when it comes to high chess ratings and high IQ's the differences are more experience- than ability-based.
A genius who never reads a book is still a genius. He's just gonna be bad at reading.
The relationship between Chess and IQ:
Truly clever people don't waste their time on board-games.
The relationship between Chess and IQ:
Truly clever people don't waste their time on board-games.
How is math any different? Outside of basic geometry and arithemetic, most math is only a concern for the mathemetician.
By every definition chess players are truly clever.
| synonyms: | intelligent, bright, smart, astute, sharp, quick-witted, shrewd; More
|
The relationship between Chess and IQ:
Truly clever people don't waste their time on board-games.
How is math any different? Outside of basic geometry and arithemetic, most math is only a concern for the mathemetician.
Mathematics is baked into the nature of reality. It describes everything about how the universe changes over time from the largest scale to the smallest. Chess not so much, fun though it may be. That's one difference.
The relationship between Chess and IQ:
Truly clever people don't waste their time on board-games.
How is math any different? Outside of basic geometry and arithemetic, most math is only a concern for the mathemetician.
Mathematics is baked into the nature of reality. It describes everything about how the universe changes over time from the largest scale to the smallest. Chess not so much, fun though it may be. That's one difference.
According to the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (MUH), mathematics might not just describe reality, it might be reality.
Weak relationship until you hit high elo (Titles)
Every super gm 2700+ was a child prodigy and is a genius. Their IQs are all likely 160+