Relationship between Chess rating and I.Q?

Sort:
mpaetz
Optimissed wrote:

I think you're the one who's extremely confused. Just because Diogenes is causing trouble again is no reason for you to be so confused.

I would recommend, rather than making a sort of complex and convoluted hotch-potch of a post, address it calmly and systematically. I'm not going to get involved in answering what amounts to a personal attack disguised as convoluted rubbish. Stop getting so personally involved because I thought we were getting on ok and this kind of personally-motivated nonsense is something you have often slipped into before. Take your tablets or whatever and try to be on point and address the subject and not the person. If you do this again I'm never going to respond to you, ever again. OK?

I am not part of any kind of anti-Optimissed alliance; I often find your posts interesting/informative. I agree with a lot of what you say.

I urge you to read your latest post as if it were addressed to you, and take your own advice to heart. The endless claims of your superlative memory, intellectual ability, and all-encompassing knowledge, combined with the inevitable virulent attacks on anyone who questions these assertions, is what draws down the disapprobation of so many other contributors (and the moderators) upon you..

DiogenesDue
Optimissed wrote:

I think that hiatus means "not posting".

I've sent a staff member, upon his request, a link to this thread. I see no recourse other than to send links to various threads where you've attacked people, because it's quite clear that you aren't going to stop of your own accord. You and Fester have both been calling me "deluded" for a while now. I post a suggestion to PatriotGames, giving an idea on how to search for the leak in her underground waterpipe and he calls me "deluded" or some such. It's clear which people here are mentally healthy and which are not. You really think that the world revolves around you. Up to four years ago I was habitually working 15 hour days four days a week and it isn't such a problem for me to do 12 hour days even at 72 because I'm pretty healthy. Yet you want to believe that not posting is something to do with you.

So let's go down that path. Hypothetically, if my not posting for nine or ten days were really on account of you, then why would it be? Would it be because you are unfailingly polite, courteous and considerate to other users here?

Or would it be due to something else, perhaps? Do you imagine that maybe you've behaved in such a way that I might not want to post here due to your bad behaviour, perhaps? Or would that be admitting too much? You habitually "accuse" others of living in a fantasy land and being deluded etc. I think the majority of people here know who's living in a fantasy world. But of course, most people don't like to answer you back. They know it's inviting trouble with a capital T and I'm completely fed up of seeing it happen to hundreds of people here, on your covid thread and so on. So I decided to take a stand against your consistent abuse of this site. If they don't do something about your behaviour, then the site isn't worth anything anyway.

You can't get anywhere with the mods by lumping me in with other posters or vice versa.

This narrative is also delusional, which is not an "attack" word unlike the low IQ adjectives you have habitually called people over the years. Fester is not even here. The Covid thread has little to no traffic in 2023. There's no "hundreds" (you've also said thousands several times in the past) of people reporting me. You said I believe that your not posting has something to do with me, but what I actually said was that it was probably due to your fantasy of a trolling "investigation" falling apart. If you equate that with only me (and you don't, because you constantly refer to the cabal of posters who are trying to take you down, lol), then whose obsession is that...?

You have said a gazillion times that you know what the majority thinks here, and you've even claimed to be speaking on their behalf in spite of the evidence, which is that you have a handful of people who sort of side with you, but who are quick to distance themselves when you are going off the beam.

These are the realities here. Apparently you can force yourself to take a break, but you can't stop yourself from casting aspersions the moment you begin posting again.

Try this exercise...the next time you have an urge to make an "in context" comment (which for you means taking the flimsiest pretext for launching into your usual crusade) about a mysterious poster or group of posters, just sit on your hands until you find a better move. If you were half as smart as you claim to be, you would understand why the mods don't buy into your persecution complex...you are clearly an instigator and willing participant.

Ziryab
Optimissed wrote:

I've never known one. I've only known a few people with Down's Syndrome. Just asked my wife who was an RMN (mental nurse) and is now a psychotherapist. She says it's not normal but some people with DS have intelligence within the normal range and they might play for mental exercise but it would be abnormal.

My aunt had Down’s. She was two years older than me and died before I was born.

I’ve known or interacted with many individuals with Downs. Some work bagging groceries at the supermarket.

Jiemx

I agree with all of you about Gauss curve translation between IQ and Elo Glicko 1 and 2. Accurate valuation should have full understanding of the glickos and consider

- IQ is in a downtrend since 1970 by 1 point every 10 years, average was 105 in then, possibly 100 today.

- game in general require 120 to have the hability of full handling; possibly a very high i.q is limited in its expression in the game or damaging, like circus cycling elephants or forbidden sea centers rorqual Belugas

From personal experience yes it is possible to achieve 2500 Elo as it is 99.8% above vulgus populum. (Time) dedication seems to be the culprit so to built the necessary synapses (said to be created every 10 repetitions). (I think) Lichess is a better site for building Elo and more (classic) game centered. There is no evidence IQ can break higher than 160 (and it's talking about less than 100000 ppl (legend tells 1 guy can have 220))(2000 GMs)

Jiemx

Indeed, it's unknown how high can IQ; as super age, natural limits are showing: higher IQ require more food intake for calories consumption, as glucose; no mystery lots of brains are poor sighted and maintaining healthy teeths is not an easy job. Sugar is also known for its Alzheimer trigger. On the other hand gorillaz have chosen muscles, and reports shows the exponential limit between weight, muscle and IQ; up to 50 kilos it's ok, over 60 it's looking impossible. Also around 70% of any food intake is going to waste; not to mention all the love required.

So IMO it is possible to be GM with 120-125 or more (a good example (dont tell) is Anna Cramling(?) from Sweden Gm last month)

Pegusu

In response to the OP's query, I sure hope not!meh

blueemu
Optimissed wrote:

When you get to IQs over 130, they're harder to measure but there's evidence that IQ follows the curve with an acceleratingly small proportion the higher you go. My own experiences with testing myself in the late 1970s when I was about 27 and getting some questions wrong, which I would have probably got right if I was on form or maybe younger leads me to think that the progression should hold up to about 180 to 190, before it breaks up and becomes untestable due to insufficient candidates at that level.

Reasonable.

Superpuppie3000

IQ DONT MATTER IT IS THE SKILL YOU HAVE IN CHESS

BuzzleGuzzle

All-caps is right. I got the same IQ as Kasparov, doesn't mean I'm half as good as them.

Ziryab
BuzzleGuzzle wrote:

All-caps is right. I got the same IQ as Kasparov, doesn't mean I'm half as good as them.

112 IIRC

BuzzleGuzzle

According to something called 'Der Spiegel", 135.

Ziryab
BuzzleGuzzle wrote:

According to something called 'Der Spiegel", 135.

Yes. My memory was faulty.
Der Spiegel is an excellent publication. I used to try to read it when I was studying German. It helped me pass the translation test I needed for my PhD. I've rarely used German since, and lost most of my ability.

RickAlBrook

The way the intelligence is defined has some weight on the answer, but as a general matter those that are good at chess might have higher scores in spatial intelligence; the ability to interpret things visual notice change and recall visual information. Chess is very useful in developing this skill that many neglect. As for other types of intelligence I am not sure.

Agentnoggin

since when did this start

Ziryab
Coolnoggin wrote:

since when did this start

With this work:

sheshangkumar
ShahxaibKhan wrote:

I have read that Vishy Anand has an IQ of 97, but I could find any ready references now; so I do not know how far that is true. One does not need to be a genius to play well at chess; chess is one game usually starting from the same position over and over again, where you can use opening preparations and pattern memorizations to terrific advantage. It need not be that your chess skills display your IQ.However, in general, it is believed and research indicates that top grandmasters usually have very high IQs. A person with average IQ is expected to reach a maximum rating of about 2000 in chess. Strong grandmasters with a rating of around and over 2600 are expected to have an IQ of 160 plus. The strongest grandmasters of the day with their ratings hovering around 2800 are expected to have IQs around 180.

NO BRO VISHY ANAND HAS AROUND 180 IQ (one of the most intelligent player) you can check on google

Ziryab
sheshangkumar wrote:
ShahxaibKhan wrote:

I have read that Vishy Anand has an IQ of 97, but I could find any ready references now; so I do not know how far that is true. One does not need to be a genius to play well at chess; chess is one game usually starting from the same position over and over again, where you can use opening preparations and pattern memorizations to terrific advantage. It need not be that your chess skills display your IQ.However, in general, it is believed and research indicates that top grandmasters usually have very high IQs. A person with average IQ is expected to reach a maximum rating of about 2000 in chess. Strong grandmasters with a rating of around and over 2600 are expected to have an IQ of 160 plus. The strongest grandmasters of the day with their ratings hovering around 2800 are expected to have IQs around 180.

NO BRO VISHY ANAND HAS AROUND 180 IQ (one of the most intelligent player) you can check on google

Google only refers back to another thread on this site, and to Quora, which is even less reliable.

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/what-is-the-iq-of-vishwanathan-anand

I’m reasonably certain that Anand has never taken an IQ test and that estimates of his alleged IQ are based on the formula: max Elo/10 - 100. This formula has no data to support its accuracy.

Ziryab
Optimissed wrote:

Are you serious that such a formula exists? If so it's obvious utter nonsense.

Easy to find the formula online. Equally easy to regard it as total nonsense.

Saltyirishmen

No IQ is to complex to be defined in this narrow way.

blueemu

The problem is that chess and IQ are both multi-faceted... and the facets don't line up.

So no one-to-one relationship between IQ and chess ability is possible, even in theory.

IMO.