Relationship between Chess rating and I.Q?

You say I am incorrect, and yet @smarterchess has graphed the ratings. This isn’t a point of argumentation, it’s been demonstrated that there is a strong correlation for the full range of ratings at least down to 1200.  

Take a look:

https://chessgoals.com/rating-comparison-explained/

I wouldn't waste my time with this dude SmyslovFan, you can't talk to him. 

Here's another new good site for comparisons:  

https://www.chessratingcomparison.com/Graphs

@Optimissed, I know it's extremely rare, but you could have just admitted you were wrong.

I will NEVER be a Grandmaster because I'm not bright enough. My IQ is not up to the task. Cold hard fact that I can except. If only I didn't pick my nose & eat it so much when my brain was growing.

My high school cross country coach was pretty tall. He was number two on his high school team behind 5’6” (167 cm) Gerry Lindgren. You can look up Lindgren. He was pretty fast.

It is true that distance running is more about endurance. But, longer legs do not confer the advantage your post seemed to indicate. Most sprinters are slightly taller than average. Usain Bolt is the exception.

“The formula for speed is stride length times stride rate. If the longest legs always won the race, then Yao Ming would have the world record in the 100, and lions wouldn’t eat giraffes.”

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2009/08/why-haven-t-there-been-more-tall-sprinters-like-usain-bolt.html

When you said, “long legs is a basic requirement”, you took your argument about correlation too far, it seems to me. Long legs, if they are not too long, seem to be common among top sprinters. But not all sprinters are tall. Solid distance runners more often are below average height. While they are not as fast as sprinters, they move at a pace over long distances that are still relatively quick.

In the same way, the best chess players are usually above average intelligence.

Even so, the smartest people are often terrible at chess. And people who lack fundamental understanding of the world often reach the highest levels of chess. Think of Bobby Fischer, for example. Aside from one not very credible claim about high middle school test scores, there is no indication that he was particularly bright except for his phenomenal chess skill. His misunderstanding of many things outside of chess are legendary.

I’ve coached a lot of children of varying abilities. The brightest ones have not been the best chess players with any consistency. Above average intelligence is not a “basic requirement” for chess skill.

     I played regularly at the Berkeley (California) Chess club for years (mid-1970s through early 1990s). I saw plenty of students and professors from one of the world's top universities--people with high IQs--at the club. Some were strong players, some were poor players. Many members were local residents who discovered chess due to the "Fischer boom" and ran the gamut of low-to-high IQ. Some were strong players, some were poor players. I noticed NO correlation between IQ and chess ability.

     Of course, IQ should constitute some small bit of chess talent--quicker to absorb lessons, probably better memory, puzzle-solving capability and so on. Therefore, comparing those with equality among all other chess talents, those with high IQs should have an advantage, but IQ is not so prominent a factor that it makes a significant difference.

     Focusing on the extreme outliers at the top end of any category rarely leads to statistically significant results. I've often seen Leo Messi (aka "the little man") speed past much taller professional athletes while dribbling the football down the field. Anyone regardless of physique or mentality could have some outstanding physical or mental ability.

    IQ tests do not measure what is commonly considered intelligence, only a limited type of problem-solving capability. No credible designer of IQ tests has ever claimed otherwise. That such ability is helpful in developing chess capability seems highly probable, but there are other more significant factors in chess talent that make IQ unimportant in predicting chess achievement.

It seems intuitive that high IQ is necessary for being a top chess player, but not sufficient. That is, having a high IQ doesn't automatically make you good at chess but people with higher IQs have a higher potential in chess. However, for most people, IQ is not the limiting factor in most people's chess: hours of tactics training, having a solid opening repertoire and endgame knowledge are more likely to be relevant. This means that most people (who are not grandmasters) will not notice a correlation between IQ and chess ability. But the idea that one can be a super GM with a below average, or even average, IQ seems unlikely.

This may be due to high IQ enabling them to learn chess more quickly or maybe even understand the themes of chess at a younger age, therefore allowing them to get better and more meaningful practice at a younger age (when they have more free time etc). 

So, I guess most people won't notice a correlation for most people, but I imagine IQ can act a ceiling to somebody's elo. Of course, I have not based this on any empirical evidence but this is just my 2 cents.

Nonetheless, I think IQ is a relevant variable. Although it is imperfect, it does provide a surrogate measure for pattern recognition and ability to learn. Recognising patterns is essential to chess and being able to understand complex ideas and learn things quickly is a clear advantage in chess.

This question is about the relationship between IQ and chess ability, which is not the same as asking if there is a direct correlation. I think IQ works as a ceiling to chess success, but for most people knowledge gained studying important aspects of the game is much more commonly the limiting factor in chess ability. Of course, a higher IQ means that this knowledge is achieved with less time or effort. Similarly, a higher IQ can allow a deeper interpretation of a novel scenario. However, this is not as important as knowledge and experience, a player with a large advantage in knowledge and experience will likely beat a player who has a 10 point advantage in IQ. Similarly,  if 2 players have the same experience and knowledge then the one with a significantly higher IQ will have an advantage in a series of games.

So, I don't think it is true to say that IQ is not a factor in chess ability.

There is also the fact that someone can become good at something regardless of IQ, even chess. That being said... I do believe intelligent people pick up the game easier, understand it quicker and excel at it with minimal effort. (not me obviously )

You've gone on quite a tear since posting this. 
I addressed the side point that you made stating that"I'll say one thing. Blitz ratings are definitely not highly correlated with chess ability." 

I believe I conclusively proved that there is a strong correlation, at all rating levels, between blitz chess rating and USCF standard chess rating. I suppose it is possible to argue that there is no strong correlation between chess ability and chess rating, but that would take quite some proof, at least for avid chess players. If you are for some reason arguing about the latent chess ability of non-chess players, then there is not a good way to prove your premise. But the context of your post clearly meant that you were only considering chess players. Again, it would have been simple, rare but simple, to admit that you were wrong when faced with overwhelming evidence.

I was not addressing the larger issue of chess and IQ. 

I truly believe in Tesla

Chess < Dota 2

Welcome back.

the top blitz players in the world are also some of the top classical players in the world. Thats not a coincidence. The higher the rating ladder, you go, the stronger the correlation.

To answer the question about whether there's a correlation between blitz and OTB chess for @blitzisntchess