Relationship between Chess rating and I.Q?

IronSteam1 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.

Its really strange that some people you talk to can be standing under a clear blue sky and argue that it is raining. When it comes to child prodigies who can play chess better than literally 99% of adults around the world who have played chess all their lives for many years and many never get past class C, it is obvious that these children do not have ""years of continual practice and high-level instruction." No one has argued that children are born playing chess, but that they undoubtedly are born with the ability to play chess at a higher level than the vast majority of people. Only a few people around the world (super GM's) are able to calculate, plan and execute chess moves over the board at the level Carlsen and other greats can. That it is a prerequisite to be born with that ability (sometimes called God-given talent) is so clear to see that it is like arguing with a man with his fingers stuck in his ears yelling "I can't hear you!"  "Chess-specific intelligence" and the ability to calculate moves (sometimes called Intelligence Quotient) is something some people are born with and young children playing at the master level don't have "years of continual practice and high-level instruction."

They generally do. And I know it sounds like I'm being a contrarian to say so, but ...

Many people don't want to believe that chess prodigies have put in actual, grueling chess work, because they prefer the idea of children being masters by effortless intuition alone.

Many also like to believe this because it makes them feel better about their own apparent lack of chess improvement. "Oh, I'm not one of the gifted ones, so that's okay. Those players just have something special that I don't."

That's ... mostly a fairy tale. Not entirely, but mostly.

For the most part, chess progress comes from learning, and learning comes from dedicated exposure to the game.

Look closely at the history of any child chess prodigy, and you'll see all the obsessive studying and practice that they've done to reach that point.

If there's one thing common about these prodigies, it's the level of obsession that they develop for the game - which is where their extraordinary progress comes from.

Let's consider Mishra Abhimanyu - the record-holder for the world's youngest Grandmaster. How much has he worked at chess? According to his mother: 12 hours of chess study every day, since he was small. And not just self-study - but guided study, with master-level coaches instructing him along the way.

This is a far cry from the amount of obsession, and the amount of work, that a typical hobby player devotes to the game.

Do young, luminous minds exist? Absolutely! But some people take this notion too far. The attribution of young chess talent to intellect alone is actually an insult to the dedication of those young players, as it fails to acknowledge all the hard work and devotion they've put into the game, to reach their levels of play.

Those young phenoms whom we speak of have generally worked much harder, and much more studiously, at learning the game than 99% of players on earth.

But people like to dismiss that reality, and prefer, instead, to just call such players "naturally gifted" and declare that their chess abilities must come from God.

im sure they have a correlation but just like real life, a high iq doesn't mean you automatically succeed in life

One can always check assumptions with a look at research. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289614000117

"The results suggest that prodigies in each domain have distinct cognitive profiles. While all of the child prodigies had exceptional memories, the music and math prodigies scored significantly higher on working memory than the art prodigies. The math prodigies displayed the highest levels of general intelligence and extraordinary visual spatial skills. The art prodigies displayed a surprising deficit in visual spatial skills, obtaining scores much lower than both the math prodigies and music prodigies. The differences in the prodigies' cognitive underpinnings across domains may have implications for the general population."

Some good findings in that study, @Ziryab, thanks for posting it. I thought the emphasis on "attention to detail" was interesting.

I also found it interesting that the IQ range of the prodigies tested varied from 100 to 147. I think many posters on this forum would be surprised to know that some prodigies tested with an IQ of 100.

Based on this study, it would be reasonable to assume that most GMs fall into a similar range, with most below 120. Good memory, attention to detail, and capacity for hard work are common characteristics of GMs. Their chess skill is domain specific and many are poor at other tasks.

That's the answer to the original question here. Some rare individuals develop or are born with cognitive "pathways" that greatly facilitate learning some types of activities. Math, music, art, chess are areas where these prodigies are easily recognizable. Those who have a large measure of this "gift" can surpass others who put in the same effort, or even become superior to others who have spent a lot more tie and work in study. It is this specific type of mentation, rather than general intelligence, that leads to world-class performance.

Yes, but "develop" and "born" are two distinct terms, each potentially supporting a contradictory argument.

Laszlo Polgar, for example, argued that geniuses are, indeed, "developed". He proposed that any healthy child could be turned into a prodigy. "A genius is not born but is educated and trained….When a child is born healthy, it is a potential genius." - L. Polgar

The rarity, therefore, applies to how the child is raised. It's rare for most children to be raised the way the Polgar sisters were, for example. It wasn't that the Polgar sisters were neurologically rare - but that their childhood itself was rare, in terms of their prolonged and continual chess exposure and instruction.

This viewpoint is a stark contrast to the viewpoint of some others, who believe that geniuses are born, not made ...

And thus, the "nature vs. nurture" argument rears its head once again, (with the truth perhaps lying somewhere in the middle, along a spectrum) ...

Sorry if I was unclear. By "develop or born with" I was referring to the unique neural pathways we each create in our brains to process information. It seems that some of these patterns are more conducive to particular sorts of understanding, giving us prodigies in chess (or whatever). I tested as high-IQ as a youngster but I am aware that no amount of dedication and study would give me the ability to work out complex multi-step math problems faster than they can be typed into a computer, the way some children can.

People with these abilities can learn more easily and quickly in their field, and have a higher top-achievement level, than the average person.

How great a factor individual DNA or neural biochemistry may be in the development of neural pathways is unclear. Of course the initial layout of such paths is the part that is least amenable to "nurture", as the foundations are laid before the child has enough comprehension of the outside world to be instructed.

Perhaps you should look around at families you know and notice that siblings with similar DNA and the same upbringing can be extremely different even at very young ages. There are inherent differences between individuals that are not easily amenable to radical restructuring.

And I was different from my younger brother. I'm sure that both genetics and life-experience contribute. To lay everything on "nurture" (in the nature v nurture) question is unrealistic. Our bodies--teeth, physique, eyesight, strength/functioning of internal organs--are unique. To think that our brains are not, and can be "programmed" solely by outside influences, seems dubious.

Forrest Gump is a fictional character. He did not exist except in a book and movie.

I have seen arguments that there is zero evidence between brain power (IQ) and chess. The idea is that one may become a GM by simply hard work and dedication. Bobby Fischer was simply “obsessed” with chess and that only his dedication allowed him to accomplish what he did. There are countless millions of people “obsessed” with chess; just look at the frustrated players posting on chess.com, but most can never get past the bottom rung.

Michigan State University did a meta-analysis study in 2016 on chess and intelligence and found conclusive evidence that cognitive ability is linked to skilled performance refuting theories that expertise is based solely on intensive training. They analyzed a half-century worth of research on intelligence and chess skill and found that “cognitive ability contributes meaningfully to individual differences in chess skill."

The in-depth study considered nearly 2,300 scholarly articles on chess skill, looking specifically for studies that included a measure of cognitive ability (such as IQ score) and objective chess skill (such as the Elo rating, which ranks players based on game performance). The final sample included 19 studies with about 1,800 total participants. Basically, they concluded it took both intelligence and dedication to reach the higher levels of chess. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160913124722.htm

Indeed. Common sense indicates that two measures of problem solving (IQ and chess rating) should correlate. And research shows that they do, however, not nearly as strongly as many assume. The correlation backed by research was described as “moderate” by the researchers in their abstract of the article. In this abstract, they slightly exaggerated the results shown in the article itself.

To claim no correlation is indeed nonsense. To claim a strong correlation is equally an error.

Wow

It doesn't have to have absolutely anything to do with each other, and it can. My IQ is 145, I've been playing chess for most of my life and I haven't progressed beyond the stronger first category. My problem is a weak memory, while logic is at a very decent level. That's why, for example, Fischer chess delights me. So much for that relationship. Of course, no one disputes that many strong players are people with above average IQ.

new einstien