Relationship between Chess rating and I.Q?

IQ is a summary of a score taken on multiple cognitive processes. So it depends on the IQ profile. The section of working memory, pattern recognition and logic, if you score high on those you would probably be good at chess. I think especially if you are very good at solving those visual puzzles it may indicate strength in cognitive processes used to also play chess. Then there are some parts like analogies, language etc. that I don't find to be that much relevant for chess. For example, Jordan Peterson has an IQ of 150 or 160 he said but it was based on the verbal aspect of the test. So the verbal parts of the tests that he scored very highly in made his average IQ very high. So it all depends.
In my opinion, I think one of the most defining cognitive processes for chess is definitely working memory, which is your mental notepad and a high capacity for it means a capacity to hold in your mind more data. So if you are very good at taking a glance at a long number and then recalling it or taking a glance at a list of words and being able to recall them then you should also be good at holding other stuff in your mind and moving it around like chess positions. Please do put emphasis on the word 'glance' I used.
I think working memory is at the core of most cognitive processes and if that is on point one should be able to perform well in chess. That would be the basics of it. Then what the player does with that ability to hold data in his or her mind depends on their personal dispositions. Carlsen is very good at calculating short lines of 2 to 4 moves because, as he says it, is very good at evaluating details. While players like Fabiano are more about ideas and seeing new ways of playing. 
Chess at highest level is comparable to differential equations, it is not surprising to me that chess is well linked with IQ. However, and this is personal, I do like to stay optimistic and not focus too much on it because I will already be losing before trying! 
P.s. I know my rating sucks, I used to be higher, I studied chess for a few months then never touched it again after years and after 5 years decided to play again, trying to relearn everything I forgot! So plenty of time to learn

Meanwhile, in Occam's universe...

"Mummy, I don't *want* to talk to these people, can't we go home?"

"No, sweetie...but just think, these people came all this way *just* to talk to you...do you want them to be disappointed?"

"Well, no, but...are you sure they came all this way just to talk to me? They weren't here to review the results with the school and talk to kids about their experiences with the test?"

"No, sweetie...they are here to talk to you, so if you don't talk to them, their whole trip will be wasted! Wouldn't that be sad?"

"Well, okay, I will talk to them..."

Later that day...

"He wanted to leave, but I got him to stick around by telling him they had made a special trip just to see him"

"Hmmm...that might have repercussions down the road..."

"Honestly, John, you worry too much...what harm could it possibly cause? What, is he going to grow up and think he's a wunderkind all his life? That's just silly."

I dont think that there is a dependency between rating and iq, because chess is a game based off memory, GM Magnus can remeber a game played in 1950 in a bar between a GM and a IM,

isnt memory directly proportional to iq?

When we have a high rating (like over 2000 ) that mean we have a special way of thinking and a very good memirisation of line, the thing that not every one have then we earn a high iq

No nothing is like an Iq needed for chess you just need some opening prep to play good and decent technique.

No.

The way i see it, with no supporting evidence, IQ can act as a ceiling for maximum chess potential.

The main thing is how much a person knows and can apply about chess. A person with a higher IQ generally learns quicker and can solve newer puzzles more easily. In theory, it is easier to acquire more knowledge with a higher IQ (assuming all else equal). As you go up the rating leaderboard more people will have also put the time into learning and so it would be harder for lower IQ to compensate for slower learning/new puzzle solving by studying more.

A high IQ is necessary to reach elite levels of chess but not sufficient, because they also need 1000s hours of deliberate practice. I imagine that elite chess is dominated by high-IQ people who have also studied chess every day since early childhood - so you would reach a point where it would be difficult to progress if you had an average IQ.

If you had 2 people who have never played chess: one with an IQ of 150 and the other an IQ of 100. I would imagine the IQ 150 would reliably beat the 100 in most of their games. If the 100 went away and practiced puzzles and studied for 20 hours then I imagine that the tables would be turned.

If you had 2 people who have never played chess: one with an IQ of 100 and another with an IQ of 110 - would there be a noticeable difference in their play? I doubt it, maybe the higher IQ guy would win over a longer match (if they both had the same attention span, impulse control, desire to win etc)

On the other hand, I imagine that there's an IQ floor for being able to understand and play the game.

So, are IQ and chess ability related? Yes. But does that mean there is a strong positive correlation when all other factors are taken into account for club players? probably not.

I think the bottom line is we all have different talents. To deny someone like Fischer, Kasparov or Carlsen are nothing extraordinary, that their intellect has no bearing on their success over the chessboard, that it is only hard work, and that any ordinary human being can calculate, plan and execute over the board just as well as the greats in chess if only they were willing to put the time and effort in to achieve such success is and insult to anyone with an I.Q. above room temperature.

The problem is in order to make everyone equal and prove that no one is born with abilities unique to them, they must lower the standards in order to be inclusive and make everyone else feel better about themselves. That is behind giving GM titles to those who don't deserve it and haven't earned it. The society we now live in.

Idk

That fact that you don't see who "won" here (and that you even perceive things this way) is just more proof that you were/are not. Toodles.

No doubt the players you named (and other very strong players) are extraordinarily talented. The question is "What is the nature of that talent?" There is no proof that these talents are the ones that IQ tests measure.

I'd say that a high level of chess-specific intelligence (as opposed to the more generic "high IQ") is necessary to reach high levels of chess.

But not as a prerequisite.

That chess-specific intelligence needs to be built and learned over years of continual practice and high-level instruction. Constant exposure to chess - and constant exposure to high-level instruction - leads the brain to growing countless new neurons and synaptic connections, all built for one thing: chess-specific thinking.

It's like bodybuilding. You don't need large muscles to start bodybuilding - that would be putting the cart before the horse. Those muscles will be built over years of dedicated training.

The same (IMO) with chess intelligence, or even a supposed "high chess IQ". It's not a prerequisite - it arrives as a byproduct ...

Child prodigies in chess didn't need "years of continual practice and high-level instruction." Bobby Fischer taught himself at the age of six. Samuel Reshevsky (1911–1992), was giving simultaneous exhibitions at the age of six.  Arturo Pomar (1931–2016) played his first international tournament (Madrid 1943) at the age of 11 and went on to become Spain's first grandmaster. In 1999, David Howell defeated John Nunn in a blitz game at the age of eight. In 1976, a ten-year-old Nigel Short beat Viktor Korchnoi as a participant in a simultaneous exhibition, the only game Korchnoi lost in the event. The list could go on and on. I would say being born with the ability to play chess better than 99.99% of the people populating the planet is a prerequisite.

Yes but, these things don't happen in a vacuum. Chess prodigies become that way from their early (and continual) exposure to chess.

It's not a mystical process - there are common ingredients that tend to be involved. Point to any prodigy and you'll almost invariably find a childhood full of chess exposure - often along with adults who have nourished and encouraged the pursuit.

Reshevksy's parents were apparently taken to court because his parents had raised him on chess since the age of 4, and had not given him any formal education ...

Fischer also developed an early obsession with chess - so much so that his mother became concerned about all the hours young Bobby spent alone, studying his chess books.

I'm not familiar with the backstories of the others you mentioned, but I'm betting they didn't pop out of the womb knowing chess theory ...

Carlsen, for example, was a terrible chess player when he started (as we all are, to varying degrees) - his father said so in interviews. Carlsen was so bad, in fact, that his father used the word "disappointed".

He'd had high hopes for his son, but apparently chess was not for him.

It wasn't until a few years later, when Carlsen developed the interest on his own, that his abilities began to flourish ... because of the obsession that he developed for it ... which was then combined with the grandmaster instruction that his parents arranged for him ...

Not really, Hikaru Nakamura's iq is 102. My iq's somewhere around 125 but I'm terrible at chess - something like a 900 rating lol

But a positive part of the process, I'd say!

"All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy." Let Jack have some fun and make some memories along the way.

Everyone having a good day?