2078 puzzle rating spanning 4303 puzzles attempted at a little over 30 hous of solid puzzles,
and its not like i spend minutes and days on 1 puzzle to get that score. i tend to beat the puzzle in half of the suggested time including many 1800-2400 puzzles solved in :05 vs a :30 - :45 suggested solved time. the quick solve time suggests i should fare rather well in bullet rapid and blitz but its the opposite
daily at 1220
rapid at 900
blitz at 700
what gives
and i am mensa eligible, or was. took iq at 8 years old said i was a 159, im 38 now, but i also took the ASVAB for military years ago and i got a 83 out of 99. recruiters said i failed miserably on mechanical engineering like levers and pulleys stuff otherwise id be a 97 out of 99
so why do i suck so bad at daily blitz and rapid
and i just read the 148 iq guys post congrats too. i think it is correlated though honestly. i have Aspergers Syndrome aka on the spectrum and am exceptional at spatial, analytical, logical. I am also a Full Stack Developer.
so why do i suck so bad at daily blitz and rapid
Because chess talent and IQ are very different.
Am I the only one who took an IQ test and didn’t ask for the number?
But you got the feedback you were looking for.
If a test isn't required and you're not interested in the feedback, then it was a waste.
Albert Einstein never took an IQ test and was considered mentally retarded. There is no question some people are gifted in very specific fields that don't cross over to other areas.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLpz4GUz6vw
Am I the only one who took an IQ test and didn’t ask for the number?
But you got the feedback you were looking for.
If a test isn't required and you're not interested in the feedback, then it was a waste.
It was done as a norming mechanism for another test as part of a graduate student’s research. I did it for extra credit in a psych class because I had poor attendance.
The only feedback was, “you shouldn’t have trouble finishing college”.
When I had been in class, the professor spent so much time dissing on IQ tests that I didn’t care about my score. Years later, I thought it might be interesting to know.
Albert Einstein never took an IQ test and was considered mentally retarded. There is no question some people are gifted in very specific fields that don't cross over to other areas.
The important is to find your niche!
Not an easy task. It can take a whole life to find it.
It also can never happen. Sad...
IQ is weakly correlated with (maximum) chess rating.
First, the chess rating can be changed easily by training, whereas the IQ can be changed but it's harder. Second, nobody knows if an individual even has a maximum potential rating. Although if you are the top of your rating pool then you will be limited by your competitors, simply because it's easier to draw a game than to win one. Third, even asking the question is a bit of a misdirection, it's far more productive to focus on actual chess moves.
By way of anecdote, I offer three data points, club players I often met over the board:
There you have it, three very smart people with a wide range of chess (and other) ability. I could give more examples of people who were high achievers in technical fields (at least moderately indicative of IQ) and had very modest chess ratings. But I wouldn't go so far as to say IQ has no relationship to chess rating. After all, even a 1400-player could beat the stuffing out of the "man (or woman) in the street", and wouldn't need Scholar's Mate to do it. Based on my own acquaintances, I believe chess players as a group are smarter than average. That's one of the reasons I like the game, it's far more entertaining to engage with people who can learn things than it would be to butt heads with those who stopped learning at 15. You and I can learn something from any beginner, don't prejudge someone's ideas based on their rating, and for heaven's sake don't assume a low(er) rating means they have a low(er) IQ.
IQ is weakly correlated with (maximum) chess rating.
[citation needed]
It's informed opinion, based on my own observations.
It's informed opinion, based on my own observations.
I'm curious. What's the best way to observe someone's IQ? 
(and for that matter, how do you observe a maximum rating?)
It's informed opinion, based on my own observations.
I'm curious. What's the best way to observe someone's IQ?
(and for that matter, how do you observe a maximum rating?)
Reading posts here makes clear that the average chess player is well below average in intelligence.
You can't observe someone's IQ, but you can triage something like: not as smart as average, averagely smart, smarter than average. Then you can get a few "real" data points where people will tell you their IQ -- invariably it's high 
. Not that the number is believable, but it can confirm your "smarter than average" assessment. Unfortunately there's no numerical way to confirm the "not as smart as average" assessment, because people are pretty quiet about it. But in some cases it's possible to be confident of an estimate....
When I was in high school I was pretty arrogant. To teach me some kind of lesson, a woman decided to show me a group home for mentally impaired people. I'm not sure if I learned what was intended, but I did learn something. Anyway, the people in the home had "estimated" IQs in the single digits. For example, they couldn't learn to tie their shoes or brush their teeth. If I met one of these people randomly, I would be highly confident of a "not as smart as average" assessment, and if someone challenged me that I couldn't tell that by looking at them then I would reply, believe what you like, I'm sticking with my assessment.
Of course if I walked into a chess club for the first time, I would in no way be able to rank the players by IQ. If I knew them for more than 10 years, knowing them outside the club as well, then I still wouldn't be able to rank them with any certainty, but I could probably pick out one or two who were "higher IQ".
(If you read more than my first sentence in the other post, I already said it's not certain an individual even has a maximum rating. But as a rough guide, if someone's rating hasn't gone up in 10 years, that person probably has already reached their maximum. When you have been playing as many decades as I have, you have seen lots of player maxima. Then the question becomes: if they had trained differently, could they have achieved a higher maximum? How much higher? I don't pretend to know the answer to that one.)
It's informed opinion, based on my own observations.
I'm curious. What's the best way to observe someone's IQ?
(and for that matter, how do you observe a maximum rating?)
Reading posts here makes clear that the average chess player is well below average in intelligence.
Yeah, it's not very much fun (to read posts on chess.com).
And that's not a jab at you @yetanotheraoc. I understand you've played chess with people you consider smart who also had a wide range of ratings.
Anyway, this one and the Einstein one have been a bit annoying lately. I couldn't care less what Einstein thought about anything outside of physics.
If you read more than my first sentence in the other post, I already said it's not certain an individual even has a maximum rating.
Yes, I noticed this and thought to myself that it was funny for contradicting your first sentence.
"IQ and max rating are correlated... also max rating may not exist." Uh, ok 
you can triage something like: not as smart as average, averagely smart, smarter than average . . . If I knew them for more than 10 years, knowing them outside the club as well, then I still wouldn't be able to rank them with any certainty
There you go again
Yes I know, I cheated a bit, you're saying you can't tell IQ but you can tell when someone is smart. Ok, fine. I'm only half joking.
if someone's rating hasn't gone up in 10 years, that person probably has already reached their maximum
Sure, what you posted was reasonable i.e. you've seen many different types of people work roughly as long and hard as each other. Some seem to stall in rating sooner than others, and there's a non-zero correlation with your assessment of their intelligence. That's all fine.
Well one think you missed is I consider most club players to be in the smarter than average category. I'm not claiming some superhuman ability to line up people by IQ (like what was postulated in the abominable The Bell Curve), so by walking into a chess club I have already overstepped my ability to rank people by IQ.
And then you quoted me about correlation, but left off the work weakly. The reason I think there _is_ a correlation is because I have never met a GM who wasn't in the "smarter than average" category (in my rough triage assessment). The reason I think it's weak is because I know of high IQ types who did not achieve a comparable rating in chess (comparable in percentile or standard deviation).
I realize my posts are entirely anecdotal. Unconvincing. Whatever. It's just the internet. I don't think anybody is ever going to do a proper study on this question, so opinion is all we have.
That's VERY interesting,
I see your puzzle rating around 1300. 62% rate of success is good.
You have a progression on the rating chart of nearly 500 pts in less than 1 year, which clearly demonstrates your adaptation faculty.
148 is a huge number! Congrats!
I guess there is a correlation between chess reating and the spatial & pattern recognition section of the IQ tests, which makes sense to me. Correlation is probably enhanced between puzzle rating and this section of IQ tests.
Keep practicing puzzles, you will eventually improve your chess rating.