Relationship between Chess rating and I.Q?

Being smart makes you better at chess to the exact same degree it makes you better at any given endeavor, on average.  Being good at chess in turn means nothing in terms of being smarter.  There is no unique or direct correlation.  That's what past studies have shown.

There's no point in speculating otherwise unless you are actually running a scientific study of your own.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCN4rDnm6Ws

 lol

Most chess players I know have above average IQ, but nothing spectacular. I've taken certified IQ tests, and I can say I'm moderately/slightly above average, yet a lot of people with higher IQs have failed to improve much in chess. 

My EQ is pretty good though - I'm really good at relating to people. This doesn't translate much into chess skill, I wouldn't think. Maybe... 

I coached high school kids that generally had OTB regular ratings of 700-1500.  The smarter kids had better retention and they often benefited by studying the game more seriously, but there wasn't a strict correlation between IQ and rating.

I coached Cross Country in the Fall, the Chess Club in the Winter, and Varsity Fast-Pitch Softball in the Spring, with an assistant helping with the Chess Club when had other sports. I was also USCF TD for our county's five Swiss tournaments each year.  I had a lot of fall athletes: football, soccer, field hockey, cross county, etc. who didn't play a winter sport,, knew me as a sports coach, so they came to the chess club.  Some were not too bright, but were surprisingly good at chess: they understood the nature of competition and the need to be aggressive without being overly aggressive.

The formulas of MathewMunro seem to be more or less correct from the mathematical perspective (excellent idea!):

IQ = 100 + (15 x (Chess Rating - 1200)/200)

Chess Rating = 1200 + (200 x (IQ - 100)/15)

However I would change these formulas tying IQ 100 to Elo 1300 rather than to 1200. And 15 IQ points = 200 Elo points are nice and round but something like 12 IQ points = 200 Elo points should be more precise. Levitt’ suggestion that 10 IQ points = 200 Elo points is also a bit too much. Yes, we have to sacrifice nice round numbers here, sorry. The final formulas will then, I believe, be more precise (also the word potential  is added here):

Potential IQ = 100 + 0.06 x (ELO – 1300)

Potential ELO = 1300 + 16.7 x (IQ – 100)

(It is standard FIDE Elo here, not some bullet Elo!)

We can also tie it to SAT. There is some website that offers good correlation between SAT and IQ. Now it all comes together really nice.

Of course we should understand that if someone started to play chess early or played a lot of long games gaining a very large Elo, this correlation will be skewed i.e. Elo will be relatively large vs a comparatively low IQ. The same holds for someone who had been doing a lot of puzzles, challenging math problems etc. but didn't play chess. His/her IQ will be relatively large against a relatively low Elo.

The most extreme cases are GMs vs people with extremely high IQs who don't play chess. All extreme cases skew these formulas too much. Other things being equal, these are very nice formulas!

They might be called “potential IQ based on strength in chess”

and “potential ELO based on IQ”

Nakamura would have a potential IQ of 190 (it is skewed of course)! By the way, it is way better to have ELO 2800 because Elo ratings are real while IQs are somewhat abstract in terms of their value. I mean you are better off having a PhD and some scientific achievements or a GM title, rather than an impressive IQ test result

And these are all potential IQs and ELOs. I mean if you have an ELO of 2300, you ain’t achieved anything yet when it comes to IQ. So it’s not yet 160!

Similarly, if you have an IQ of 160, you have to work a lot to achieve ELO 2300. It ain’t achieved; it’s potential!

And making such achievements is very difficult i.e. reaching high IQ and high ELO!

Now then someone will say that IQ is fixed. Yes, it is more or less fixed, and ELO is also more or less fixed unless you are a child or a relative novice in chess who has not yet reached a nice ELO. My friend went from ELO 1200 to 1600 in a couple of years. If you do a lot of challenging puzzles or non-standard math problems, your IQ will also go up.

yeah, I don't know why, but I have a tested I.Q. consistently between 140 and 160 all my life, but have played chess for years and never get above 1750 in chess, I think you use the creative side of you mind as much as the rational....plus when I am looking at the chess board....I'm always thinking....hhhmmmm, that's interesting, or what if....and distract myself from my original plan

Chess rating and IQ have little relationship. Sponsor a young promising NM or IM into college. I doubt if he would graduate as a Cum Laude or even in top 5% of his class.

universityofpawns,

To improve IQ, I believe, we have to solve serious logical puzzles on a regular basis. I mean really challenging puzzles that require a lot of time. Study the solutions as well or better yet study the IQ tests and how to improve in that area. The same with chess. We have to study chess books, do tactics but above all play long games. Sometimes I feel I’m getting dumbed down by playing one minute chess games or even blitz games! I guess, some of us might often be being lazy and reluctant to play serious long games or we simply don’t have time for that! As a result there's no improvement.

It is hard to invest a lot of time and effort in these things so we are getting stuck. It's easier in childhood to move fast if we are interested and completely focused on something specific otherwise it doesn't work either and our achievements are barely visible.

One more thing. If a person is not interested in puzzles, math or sciences, IQ might suffer a lot. However, the person may still be superintelligent. The same holds for chess. If someone is not really interested in chess and doesn't devote a lot of time to it, no miracles should be expected regardless of how high IQ he/she has. So we should not expect scientific achievements from GMs. There's no direct connection. I mean those formulas are for potential IQs and potential ELOs.

And IQ means little to me. ELO means a whole lot. PhD and scientific achievements are good. High subject SAT scores are nice. Abstract IQ tests are no better than some math problems. In fact knowing math, like abstract algebra or theory or probability is a lot better than doing primitive problems on IQ tests. These problems are sometimes inconsistent and have little value in terms of improving intelligence. It's all like bullet chess. Severe time control, a lot of fun and nothing more to it.

Another interesting thing is that Elo as equivalent to IQ is not uniform either. Some players are good at tactics, others are good at strategies, just like some people are good at one type of IQ questions and not good at another type of questions. There’s definitely a correlation between IQ and ELO, although it’s just a potential thing as I wrote before. That is a person with a good ELO can improve his/her IQ a lot, especially if starting in childhood. And a person with a high IQ can gain a high ELO, especially if starting in childhood. But if a very intelligent person is not really interested in hard sciences and math, or if he/she is not really interested in chess, then there will be no miracles, no high ELOs or IQs.

Any ideas about the suggested formulas?

Potential IQ = 100 + 0.06 x (ELO – 1300)

Potential ELO = 1300 + 16.7 x (IQ – 100)

you are right, I would have to put a lot more work into it....I was just treated it as a fun thing to do on Monday nights for years.....a master I was acquainted with at the club told me I was the type of guy he could teach a lot to, but I wasn't willing to pay him, had no extra money at the time....like everything in life, you get out what you put in.....he described to me the amount of study and number of tournaments he did, and I am just not willing to take it that far, but I think I will do the free daily puzzles a few at a time and mainly play daily chess, it seems to be helping, I'm just terrible at bullet and blitz anyways....

Surely, it is a thing of being interested and of investing time. GM Karpov went to college but wasn’t performing well (in mathematics!), so he transferred to another college and quit mathematics 

But the correlation is definitely there. The problem is you have to choose something specific which you are interested in. It’s too difficult to be a top mathematician and a super GM at the same time. Spreading yourself too thin is no good.