Relationship between Chess rating and I.Q?

Maybe! But the point still stands:

Have two individuals take the same (properly administered) IQ test.

The more formally educated individual should generally score higher. The less formally educated participant should generally score lower.

This doesn't really tell you much about either individual, of course, except the level of their general education, in comparison with each other.

For this reason, Carlsen (also taken out of school at a young age) would be expected to score lower on an IQ test than some of the posters on this thread.

Test him on chess knowledge, though, and nobody here would likely compare ...

If you want to see what a real IQ test would look like then check out the link below.  You can have a college degree from Harvard and probably fail the test miserably.  Intelligence doesn't measure general knowledge but analytical and critical thinking skills.  The test should be something you don't have a chance to study for.  Magnus Carlsen would probably smoke anyone on this forum taking the test below, and so would Emmanuel Lasker.  

Capablanca and other child prodigies were able to comprehend at an early age what 99% of other people couldn't comprehend with a lifetime of study.  It has to do with genetics.  You combine that with dedication (Fischer, Kasparov etc.) and you have someone who will reach the highest levels of chess, mathematics or other fields.  Once again I don't know exactly how much  IQ correlates with chess IQ but there is some association as far as I can tell.  If you disagree that's fine.  That's what makes horse racing.

http://nzlweb.com/index.php

I'm too intimidated to even take the test.  I have always been weak in math but strong in other areas.  My GTC score in the Marine Corps in the 1970's was 132 which is considered class I mental category.  Its basically an aptitude test everyone took entering the armed forces at that time.  My brother was a child prodigy on the piano.  At three years of age he started playing lessons my mother was taking without anyone prompting him.  At four years of age he was transposing music.  I asked him one time how he could do what he did on the piano and he told me he didn't know how, he just could.  He went on to become a nuclear engineer.  I can't even play the radio.

Intelligence is fascinating but I don't understand it.  I do have enough sense to realize that some people are naturally more talented in certain areas way above what the average person is.  I think today everyone must be equal and if someone does show remarkable abilities then it must be explained away so no one's feelings are hurt.  In other words test scores, titles (GM, IM, etc.) must be spread around so no one is left out.  What a boring world it would be if everyone was the  same.  I'll be 70 in a couple of months.

One more post, and it shall be 888 posts on 11/11/22

THERE

It was made.

Their explanation for #32 is simply wrong. The square in the bottom left and the square in the top middle are not off by 90 degrees (also column 2 and 3 circles don't follow that rule).

The more I play, the more I realize that for lower ratings, non-blundering consistency is the key to quick improvement, less the IQ. I think your rating depends very much on your weakest chain link(s). My weakest link is my propensity to enter quick binge playing after I experience a series of unexplained losses: this is an involuntary shift from rapid mode to bullet one, which is a rating killer. Overall, I think a high IQ should help, but it is not the most determinant factor, and it is not a guarantee of reaching an ultimate rating level.

I would think that there are many factors, and practice is probably the number one factor. Intelligence and talent can help, but practicing for a long time contributes heavily, such as playing an instrument starting at the age of 4. Children are especially more likely to absorb knowledge as well, and I think that part of what makes a chess prodigy is exposure to the game itself.

It definitely makes more sense to put the day then the month then the year.

I don't disagree with you there - I agree it's quite obvious that there's a correlation between intelligence and overall chess ability (given the assumption that we're comparing players who have been playing and studying for a similar duration of time).

Given the same amount of exposure, some individuals will improve leaps and bounds over others.

But I disagree with IQ tests in general being a reliable measure of intelligence. Some individuals are exceptional problem solvers - yet they can simultaneously fail to recognize even the most basic non-verbal cues. This suggests higher intelligence in one area, and lower intelligence in another. (More neural connections in one region of the brain; less neural connections in another ... )

One individual might encounter a difficult puzzle, and become determined to solve it. Through herculean mental effort - sweat, tears, and exhaustion - they finally do.

Another individual might find the same puzzle, and choose to persuade another individual to solve it for them. Through charm, flattery, and praise - they finally do.

Which individual exhibited more intelligence, in the solving of the puzzle? I'd say they both exhibited different kinds of intelligence.

How do we compare the intelligence of a stage dancer to that of a chef? A chess player's intelligence, compared to the intelligence of a racecar driver?

And so on, and so forth ... my main argument is that the many facets of human intelligence extend far beyond the reaches of a Mensa test ... 

Skills aren't intelligence though. IQ tests are constructed such that scoring well on them means a person will score well on other types of tests (quite literally the questions that don't correlate well are thrown out of the test during its development).

How do you compare the intelligence of a dancer vs a chef? By measuring g:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)

Are any of these GMs in Mensa? If so, they ought à be very smart and have high IQ.

Yeah, I answered A because the lines rotate counter-clockwise 90 degrees as you move to the right.

They claim the answer is D, which is fine if I'm wrong, but their explanation is incorrect. They claim when you look from shape to shape the lines rotate 90 degrees clockwise. This is true for the triangle and one pair of squares, but untrue for at least 2 other pairs.

It's not a real IQ test, it's meant as an example to let someone who has never seen such a test get a feel for what it's like.

As for IQ 200, it just depends on what standard deviation you're using. IQ can be thought of as just rarity, so as long as the rarity is around 1 in 10 billion there's a reasonable chance someone like that exists.

     After all the effort over many decades, IQ tests do a pretty reasonable job of measuring the type of intelligence they are designed to measure. As you mention, there are many different types of "intelligence". The fact that the common understanding of the word encompasses any kind of mental prowess is what leads many people to the mistaken notion that proficiency in any kind of mental activity is dependent on IQ. 

Many people are exposed to chess at an early age.  Capablanca learned it at four years of age by simply watching his father play it.  He won a match agianst Juan Coprzo, champion of the Havana Chess Club, by 7-5 at the age of twelve. 

Samuel Reshevsky learned chess when he was 4 years old. He was playing simultaneous games of chess against adults when he was 6 years of age. At age 8 years of age he played against 20 masters at one time in Paris beating them all. He toured America and played over 1,500 games as a 9-year old in simultaneous exhibitions and only lost 8 games. 

Bobby Fischer got a toy chess set when he was 6 years old and taught himself how to play.  He didn't have anyone to play with so he played against himself.  At 16 he dropped out of school and learned Russian so he could read Russian chess magazines so he could compete against the strongest Soviet players.  He had remarkable memory and analytical skills.  His rise was phenomenal.  

The stories could go on and on about child prodigies that can't be explained.  Normal people don't have that kind of ability.  

I would respectively @optimissed">disagree,@optimissed. I think Mensa is a high IQ society. If you receive over a 125 on a test, your pretty smart. Mensa accepts with standard deviations of 145 and higher. Just saying.

Being a GM is probably higher on the success scale so they probably wouldn't feel the need to mention it if they were. 

     Mensa membership requirement is scoring in the 98th percentile on an approved IQ test. Different tests have slightly different scoring scales so the exact IQ necessary depends on the test. On the traditional Stanford-Binet that is a score of 132, other tests run the gamut from 130 to 148.

About who?