Relationship between Chess rating and I.Q?

my sped friend is rly good at chess, he's 1600, while I'm still OTB 1000 with an IQ of 150

I'm a member of Mensa with a 150 IQ and your statements are nonsensical, irrational, and do not reflect high intelligence ... in particular your completely baseless ad hominem assumption about someone's chess skill derived from their comments about a correlation simply because it differs from your own beliefs. You allude to "literature" about this correlation but provide no evidence that such literature exists. The fact is that the literature that actually does exist--the studies by Adriaan de Groot--shows that chess skill is correlated with very chess-specific cognitive functions, not with general intelligence.

In the context of discussions of "nurture vs. nature", nurture refers to the entire environment a person is exposed to, vs. their heredity--it doesn't refer to the sort of "nurturing" you're talking about.

NippleWise is correct here. OFcourse it helps to have a high IQ playing chess. But it is not like Carlssen or Hikaru would easily be able to come up with Einstein's equations or the Feynmann path integral. They're just very good in the game of chess.

I'm only saying chess is a game. An intelligent one but a game. You can't compare chess intelligence with the intelligence you require to make sense of the complexity of Nature.

I claim the correlation is weak because that’s what the study that looked most closely at the question demonstrated, although they exaggerated their results slightly in the abstract.

Of course, one must attempt to isolate factors under study. This was not done successfully. One enduring difficulty is that IQ itself is weakly defined.

It is quite natural to expect a correlation between intelligence (however feebly defined) and chess skill. Moreover, researchers have shown a modest, albeit not well measured correlation. Much more research must be done before any firm conclusions can be said to have the support of evidence.

You were doing well until you took an unnecessary swipe at me.

What did they do in the study? I think they should test the IQ of 2700+ players and I expect them to be all above 130 IQ.

I think IQ plays a role in determining 'how fast will your chess progress be' but personally for me, my current mood, motivation and confidence are what really determines my on the board (or screen) performance

The “swipe” was alleging that I “probably didn’t realise” something that is quite basic to any sort of empirical research. What motivates such a statement?

Much of what you write here is credible. But your tendency to attack people personally is well-known and often becomes the topic of threads where you are active. Mind your manners and we can have a better discussion.

We agree that IQ and chess skill is correlated, but have disagreed on the extent. My central point is that the research that has been done is thin. You could be correct, but I think you are overstating what the evidence supports. I appreciate your nuance in this morning’s posts (Maybe it is afternoon for you).

I look in on this thread when I get a notification. There’s rarely more for me to say.

@jimbalter mentioned Adrian DeGroot’s work. DeGroot built upon and corrected the work of Alfred Binet. DeGroot’s work is foundational to the topic. I see nothing wrong with @jimbalter’s gloss. I ignored it because he, also, made the bulk of the post a personal attack.

Too many adults here behave like children.

I.Q. definitely helps to speed the process in learning for chess or climbing for elo. However, the main point is being hardworking. If you put in a lot of work memorising chess patterns or doing puzzles, you will be good. There is no chance you will not improve. You can take months or days even. But as the elo becomes higher, the process will definitely be slower.

I recently acquired Maurico Flores Rios, Chess Structures: A Grandmaster Guide (2015). The Foreword by Alex Bachmann is interesting. He mentions college days with the author, studying together, differences in their approach, and that Rios told him the book was inspired by his study methods, which he describes.

”The truth about my training method is that looking over a game for just a couple of minutes can actually be a wonderful investment, if done correctly. The key is searching for repeating patterns; this takes some practice but is feasible. In my career I have seen close to 100,000 chess games, including most of the grandmaster-level games played over the past decade. The cumulative experience from spending a minute or two on each of these games has allowed me to gain an excellent positional understanding.” [emphasis in the original]

Jeremy Silman claimed on this website that he spent even less time per game in order to develop his positional understanding: https://www.chess.com/article/view/studying-master-games-and-berkmasters-first-over-the-board-tournament-game

How well do these claims correlate with the sort of pattern recognition as opposed to eidetic memory found in the research work of Binet and DeGroot? What sort of skills provide the surest foundation for chess expertise? Which IQ tests, if any, measure these skills?

Less than a day before heading back to delusion town. If you are just going to pretend to turn over a new leaf, why bother?

IQ tests are NOT designed to test "intelligence" as you define it, so their failure to do so is unsurprising. Application of your proposed standards would be highly subjective. No reputable cognitive scientist would claim that any method exists to quantify overall general intelligence; the general public is confused, thinking that the "intelligence" measured by IQ tests attempts to evaluate anything but one particular form of problem solving.

The essence of the question in this and similar threads is whether IQ test results closely correspond to potential chess strength. There is no concrete evidence that they do. The particular problem-solving ability that the tests attempt to measure is one factor of an individual's potential chess prowess but there is no evidence that it is the predominant, or even a major, prerequisite for chess success.

I don't stalk anyone. The veiled references were all yours. If you could post without your desire to get even controlling your motivations, you wouldn't have these type of problems.

Also delusional. You've been quite explicit in your attacks and ridiculous diagnosis claims.

No, you had no need to expound upon your delusions yet again. If you are "describing" falsehoods you have concocted yourself, you are the one at fault for inviting confrontation. Just live your life, talk abut your marbles and stamps, and learn to let go of your fantasies.

Your comments to Ziryab were not "in context", by the way. You are off and running on your own personal agenda by the second sentence.

You wrote that your own suggestions are the "ne plus ultra" of evaluating intelligence, that the limited problem-solving faculties IQ testing attempts to quantify aren't a true measure of intelligence, and (post 1817) academics are useless in examining such matters. Then you want "back-up" of what I say. And after pooh-poohing IQ testers you claim their results DO have validity--no "back-up" of your own there.

Apparently your "remarkable" memory has failed you again, as all the points you raise have been argued ad nauseum in these forums. That you fail to see that your inability to understand what others have to say reflects more on you than on them I can only ascribe to the egomaniacal blindness that leads you to think anyone else has any faith in your unsupported opinions as "authoritative".

Delusions bolded.

Let's address another...you have already given two different and flimsy reasons for your recent hiatus, but have fallen remarkably silent about the very important "investigation" you were "helping the mods with". Let's just say Occam's Razor points to you having a hissy fit and not posting for 2 weeks after a mod tried to gingerly tell you that your "feedback" was not part of some sweeping troll investigation, or you were otherwise rebuffed, thus the reason you were talking about mods being ineffectual. Do you really think that anyone would believe that you suddenly felt an urge to work 12 hour days? Lol.

These are delusions. The narratives you tell yourself are contorted past the bounds of plausible reality. That's the definition of "delusion".

If only anyone here on the forums could be so lucky...