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....
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.
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.
According to many sources and studies, Chess improves your IQ, [...]
Name one. A study I mean...saying there are "sources" is meaningless. Any reputable study will do.
3dChess, I see a lot of conjecture and anecdotal evidence backed up by not a shred of anything...you certainly can't support a statement like "the correlation is definitely there".
Maybe you should watch the BBC special where Susan Polgar scores near the bottom of a broad group of people chosen for being super intelligent and tested in practical ways for ingenuity and creativity.
btickler, I'm afraid you've missed the whole point I've been making. Once again, It's a potential thing. The formulas are very rough but they are based on math
And MathewMunro deserves a lot of credit for posting the formulas. They are basically correct.
I agree that it is difficult or almost impossible to back up this correlation with science, You are right here. But then again, IQ per se means little from a scientific point of view as a measure of intelligence. Of course people like IQ when they score high. Yet, I'm not willing to perceive things through rose-colored glasses and having a high IQ, while flattering, means no more to me than having a high ELO rating.
I agree with Russian mathematician Victor Vassiliev (or Vasilyev) when he points out unscientific flaws in IQ tests. He might be a little bit harsh on the test in my opinion but the test still borders on pseudoscience. With that being said, IQ tests are still more or less scientific but not good enough. Personally, I'd rather go with Elo ratings rather than IQ scores. It's flattering to have high IQ scores, and I like such tests but I have no illusions in this department, as I saw all the flaws first hand from a mathematical perspective. I don't need Vasilyev to point them out to me, I can do math on my own However, the lack of mathematical knowledge on this website truly shocks me. The thread with probabilities when Nakamura won Gibraltar is astonishing. The more chess players I get to know the more surprised I get. I have to put up with mathematical level of education, I guess. That's very sad when it comes to chess players or physicists. A bit of math knowledge would not have hurt. Just saying.
And the second formula holds for IQ˂180 if we consider the highest IQ to be 200.
Potential ELO = 1300 + 16.7 x (IQ – 100) where IQ˂180 (Test imprecision i.e. mistakes!)
Not only me or Vasilyev found mistakes in those tests, other mathematicians also did
It might come as a surprise for a lot of folks but there are also mistakes in tests like general SAT, general GRE etc. The quantity of them is very low but it precludes you from scoring perfect scores unless you get lucky. He he he
Levitt's formula ELO = (10 x IQ) + 1000 is too harsh on chess players (ELO2000 = IQ100) but it is okay for GMs. One day we will have a much better formula; it is a matter of time I guess.
I guess I'll get some hateful replies. There must be a lot of deniers of chess being reflective of one's intelligence. There are also deniers of IQ measuring intelligence. Heck, Galileo was executed for his science and reasoning. Long live pseudoscience for now
Sorry, I meant Numerous Studies and Sources. Also, Susan Polgar may have been tested against other people that are really smart and/or intelligent. Or maybe the problems in the test were 'not her style'. Or chess doesnt improve your IQ as much as things like maths or other Mental Games.
I just found out that I was not allergic to broccoli, it was some kind of attention deficit disorder.