Relationship between Chess rating and I.Q?

Many really smart people are poor chess players.  No stupid people are good chess players.  That's about the only correlation IMO.

This is off the top of my head. I read the first page of this post, and part of this last page.  Some of this is surely redundant with what others have said, but maybe not laid out quite this way.

 Reference: "Now Discover Your Strengths," written by authors working for the Gallup (pole) organization.

 Two working definitions, the second I can best describe with a formula:

 Strength (AKA talent) - inherent ability, depending on the particular alignment of synapse connections in your brain.  (Well described in NDYS.)   There are many strengths and probably many ways to name and describe them.  (NYDS focuses on those relating to professional achievement in businesses.)  

Skill = strength x work.

I think of intelligence in terms of strengths and skills in specific categories.   Social intelligence, cognitive intelligence, etc. 

Chess rating probably correlates best to skills in a number of specific categories.  Assuming the work has been put in, then chess rating would likewise correlate to talents in those same specific categories.

 I picture the formula something like:

Chess rating = k1s1 + k2s2 + k3s3 + ...  

where k = weighting (aka importance factor) and s = skill.  The skills might be such things as pattern recognitions, photographic memory, logic, strategic thinking, tactical thinking.

If you want a formula for chess rating as a function of talent, then work needs to be included as a factor:

Chess rating = work(k1t1 + k2t2 + k3t3 ...)

I can't remember what was in IQ tests, except patterns.  I also don't know what my IQ is.

Unless the strength categories in the IQ test align well with the strength categories in chess, I doubt that chess rating will correlate very well to IQ.

  

Frankly, I have been pretty disappointed with opinions expressed in this thread. "Wut" claimed that the idea that IQ & Chess Rating are somehow connected tried to disprove the idea by claiming that Kaparov's I.Q is 135. A simple 'google-seach' of "IQ of garry kasparov" will indicate his I.Q=190 Such blatant errors have been widespread through the entire thread...which is why I feel inclined to complain about the general standard of response.

Examining the posts provided by the participants [and checking on-line ratings] has only strengthened my belief that ability at chess is proportional to intelligence [and of course the desire to play well]  

So many players with low-ratings seem to think that chess-ability is based very largely on 'pattern recognition' and obviously understand little about strategic / schematic thinking let alone the ability to calculate and retain variations quickly.

Anyway, it's been fun.

Actually what i was trying to state is that there in fact is a connection between IQ and success in chess,but that your IQ  whenstanding on its own means little, and that includes the equation of chess and IQ in the first post.

 About the kasparov thing, I believe Bill Wall posted an article somewhere that actually verifies kasparovs IQ is 135. And then again, who fucking cares? IQ is just a number anyways.

A strong correlation? No. But any game will have at least a slight correlation to IQ (or intelligence, which I dont believe IQ to be an accurate representation of) for example, checkers (draughts) and cards, even monopoly, but like I said, not a strong correlation.

The most recent tests I have done indicate my I.Q. at around 148. That would be surprising if you looked at my online rating to be under 1,000. However, I have not been playing this game long, and will not necessarily be any good at it. Intelligence does not determine whether you are good at chess or not. However, I believe someone who is intelligent will have an EASIER time becoming better; someone with lower intelligence will be able to reach the same greatness, in my mind- it will just be a little harder-going.

there may be some relation betwen IQ and chess but not more then learning and  thinking faster but at this point i should say that thinking faster may even be worse then thinking slower.people often see slow thinking humans as stupid but they are not! fast thinkers jump to the conclusion where slow thinkers stop and examine every new situation.so slow thinkers and low IQ might even be better then fast thinking and high IQ.but that does't even matter because IQ just shows how smart you are -how much you study and know.the real goal should be  how good you can accualy think and how much of what you learn you accualy understand and use-how wise you are! i personaly belive there is no formula that can determine how WISE you are and there never can be since IQ never stops be it rising or falling

Chess rating has nothing to do with IQ because the IQ depends on 4 categories:

a, memory

b, visual ability

c, verbal ability

d, analytical powers

and obviously the b and c has nothing to do with chess

 

According to the IQ test, I should be at a weak GM level if not better.  I learned chess when I was 3 years old (basic movements, but no real strategic thought), but I wasn't obsessed with it up until 7 years later.  Then I withdrew from chess 3 years after that because I lost a major tournament, and then got back into it 4 years after that.  I'm 20 now, still classified as 'gifted' (IQ-wise), yet still not able to break the 1800s.  Do you think that if I was obsessed with it ever since I was 3 and never let it go, I would be a GM at this point?  I wonder what kind of life I would lead, and whether or not the me as of today would even accept that chess-driven lifestyle.

PerfectGent wrote: amrou wrote:

Chess rating has nothing to do with IQ because the IQ depends on 4 categories:

a, memory

b, visual ability

c, verbal ability

d, analytical powers

and obviously the b and c has nothing to do with chess

 

---

 absolutely wrong.

b. visual ability - has everything to do with pattern recognition so is essential to good chess. 

---

 Agreed.  Also:

a. memory - remembering the lines for openings and counters will be advantageous to you in many games.

d. analytical powers - ... ANALYZE YOUR MOVES... duh... lol ^_^ 

  Whether or not there is a 'link' between I.Q. and chess rating will be debated forever. The reason being, there is a "desire" to 'link' the two. It is the origination of that desire that needs to be addressed.

  I use chess in my work with troubled teens to raise their self esteem. "If you play chess, you must be smart", according to popular opinion. It is applying yourself and working hard to achieve your goals that makes you a better player, or person.

   I've known geniuses who have no interest in this game, it just doesn't do it for them. They play moderately well. I also know a few people whose ability to play this game is amazing, but are dumb as a bag of hammers, when it comes to personal relationships, or with other avenues of life that most people find easy. 

   So occassionally I'll arrange a match with the two types. One type is secure in his self-esteem, the other wishes to 'link' I.Q. and rating. The motivation behind wanting the 'link' is the defining aspect.

i don't think there is any relation because in theory, if a person has an I.Q. of say 200 (hypotheticaly speaking); the person just starts playing chess and he will probably suck at it- he MIGHT get better but i don't think he'll be the next G.M. hence i don't think chess rating and I.Q. don't have anything to do with each other

LisaV,

1. no, IQ tests measure exactly what they claim to be measuring. It's when people try to view them as a complete mapping of someones cognitive abilities they go wrong.

 

2 and 3 Read up on what a IQ test is. When you get the result of a real IQ test the statistics are already weight in so it's impossible for 1% of the population to score 190.

 

MrWizard, Read up a bit on what pattern recognition is. It makes you look a bit silly to argue against chess being related to it while arguing for a relation betwen chess rating and IQ.

Lol ... IQ is such a touchy subject.

 

Lets face it, some humans are smarter than others, to judge who is who may be a little unethical and, admittedly, there is no truly accurate method of doing so. 

However, to present the argument that chess players in general have a higher IQ than the average person and therefore may (probably being an acceptable overstatement, if you will) be smarter than the 'average person' (Able bodied adult without a medically deemed physical or mental defect) is an acceptable one regardless of irrefutable evidence (I say this in note of the probable inacuracies in an IQ test).

 

Hope this made sense.  I took out all my ellipses... but... umm... am now suffering withdrawals... oh and... sorry about the brackets... 

Considering the examinations consist mainly of pattern recognition and verbal aptitude (whose causality may be that of pattern recognition itself), both of which have been recognized as factors in chess proficiency, there is indeed to be observed a correlation between IQ and chess aptitude, and consensus on what IQ is. IQ is arguable on the grounds that it does not accurately measure a person's true intelligence, or potential intelligence (I quoth Alfred Binet: "The scale, properly speaking, does not permit the measure of the intelligence, because intellectual qualities are not superposable, and therefore cannot be measured as linear surfaces are measured”). Thus, IQ is a concrete measure of something, yet it is only that "something" that is debatable and not IQ itself. On the base (and what some might interpret as base) axiom that pattern recognition figures weightily in both matters of chess and heretofore mentioned indefinite articles, IQ can be accepted as a general measure of one's chess potential. (Anyone equating their IQ with their current ratings has misconstrued the question.)

P.S.

I wonder what Kasparov would make of this discussion, since we are discussing the intellect of one who may be a member of this site. Anyways, the Weinstein/Einstein dispute is irrelevant.

ok now..i looked at the formula..and if i did not miss a word or smth...ur rating is

(IQ-100)X10

so,someone with a rating of 900 would have an IQ of 190!Isnt that stupid?!?!?!

makes me fell better, but that is alittle hard to believe because of the number of people in the 900 rating

Thank you LisaV, Locke and a number of others who actually understand what the question is asking. As Neneko is a highly-rated player from Sweden he is excused for totally misunderstanding the question, and totally misunderstanding my attitude to 'pattern recognition' [PR]in chess. [My understanding of Swedish  = 0 ]PR obviously has a large part to play in quickly spotting tactics. The idea that chess is 99% tactics was originally just a way of expressing the idea that without tactical ability, a person cannot play a decent game of chess. However, there are many areas of intelligence called upon to play high level chess, not just 'PR' as some would have us believe.

More review! I originally wrote... 

Does anyone have information about any direct correlation between rating and general intelligence? I vaguely recall Britisg G.M Jonathan Levitt putting forward the notion that an I.Q of 120 indicates a person could, with sufficient work achieve a rating roughly = 2000 + [I.Q - 100] x 10

Someone above couldn't even get the formula right, but bothered to contribute?! I was never talking about players with ratings < 2000! Such people, according to the formula are either of below average intelligence, or have not fully applied themselves to the task of improvement. I have no doubt that everyone using this site has at least average intelligence. However, many people here seem to have high Ego-Quotients and appear to become defensive about their lack of rating points and immediately jump to the conclusion that the original question is obviously flawed.

Thank you all :-)

 

I think a bunch of self congratulatory GMish players got together, and published their formula here....

http://www.jlevitt.dircon.co.uk/iq.htm

Arogant bunch is my verdict.   I wonder if someone really did have a very high IQ - doubtless they'd play reasonably well - but would they really dedicate their time and effort to it?

I think those that are really good  - I mean the true elite - are generally driven, obsessive people, who need to prove their intelegence in a combative way, (hence vastly more male top players) which suggests to me they are fundamentally insecure.  I recognise some of that motivation in myself, but I like to play, and don't mind loosing, but I'm certainly not going to spend ages going through games, and reading opening theory - it's just a passtime / game after all.

LisaV, Did you completely ignore what I wrote or just misunderstand on purpose? What I was complaining on wasn't that you used exactly 1%, it was that your point is wrong. The standard deviations are already counted into a real IQ test (not one of the silly online quizes). It is already calculated into the result for a reason, so that you can compare the score of two different tests. Wich means that you're not going to score 135 IQ on one test and 190 on another. The IQ-scale is a way to score how well a person do on the test compared to other people in the same group wich means that it is impossible for 1% of a test group to score 190 on a test since the definition of 190 on the IQ-scale is that you score among the top 0,001% (not sure about the exact number). So what you are saying is that 1% of the people doing a certain test might score among the top 0,001% of the people doing the test, I hope you realise how silly that sounds. Just read up on what a IQ test is and you'll see my point. Also some people claim that IQ relates to intelligence some claim it doesn't, either way that's beyond the scope of a IQ test so saying that IQ tests are flawed because they might not really measure intelligence is like saying that turtles are worthless because they can't climb trees.

 

 

MrWizard, I like your attitude, everyone that disagree with you are not understanding you. That's quite some ego you got there, you know there is a possibility that people might understand your point but still disagree with you. For the pattern recognition you've claimed in several posts that it relates to memory and that's simply wrong. I guess you didn't bother to look up what it is after all. Also it's funny that you can see that I misunderstood your original question from my post seeing as I didn't touch that subject. I just tried to correct you on your ideas of pattern recognition since you seem to think pattern recognition equals memorized patterns.