Relationship between Chess rating and I.Q?

Fischer (and all other children in New York City in the 1950s) did take an IQ test. Those test results were confidential, have never been released, and by now no longer exist.

Substantially, the formula for the iq is in fact wrong. If you Do the math: if elo=2000, then IQ= 100+(15x(2000-1200) /200). So, IQ=100+(15x800/200). Finally, IQ=100+60, so IQ=160, which means a 2000 will have an IQ of 160, which is highly debetable. This means that I, which have an elo of 1113 rapid I'd have an IQ below 100 (which isn't true in any way). This formulae are complitely wrong, in my opinion.

Inasmuch as the basic assumption--that chess rating and IQ are directly linked--is wrong there is no way to come up with a workable formula.

As rare as it is, there seems to be some agreement between the two of you and to which I also assent.

Yeah, I was surprised to read some fairly coherent and restrained comments in this thread this morning! This thread is usually rife with hyperbole and bragging.

It's a pleasant surprise to see agreement!

Прывітанне усім з Беларусі!

I think it's tho other way around, instead of IQ improving you in chess, chess improves your IQ.

could be.

Mensa test gives me 142 iq. My chess isn't adding up

Perhaps that's another indication that there's very little correlation between IQ and elo rating.

and I'm better than 99.7% of the world at chess.

I've taken online IQ tests. If you want a challenge, try scoring lower than the 65 I got on one of them.

I have been tested a few times for IQ and gotten around 140. There are obvious signs that is fairly accurate in my personal life.

As other stated, there is no direct correlation. I do believe that if IQs of various types were forced to study chess to learn, then the higher IQs would tend to do better faster, but for sure there would be exceptions there too.

My IQ is 72. Just spam English opening and let your opponent unravel.

If you don't understand chess concepts, tactics, how to evaluate positions, basic strategy fairly quickly, you're not intelligent.

This obviously helps with rating but theres a ton of other factors that derail any direct correlation. Most importantly experience and studying. Also memory, spatial abilities, motivation, speed, concentration etc

Si asumimos que el. Ajedrez esta relacionada con la inteligencia, tenemos que asumir que Magnus carlsen es el hombre más inteligente del mundo, lo cual es falso, porque los hombres más inteligentes del mundo hacen cosas grandes, cosas inteligentes, y no necesariamente son buenos en ajedrez, es más la mayoría ni lo jugará . Y Magnus carlsen no ha hecho nada grande, nada inteligente, excepto jugador ajedrez excelente. La gente le da mucha importancia a un test de iq, y no falta un tipo tonto como el usuafio de arriba Hernan, subiendo una foto de su IQ falso de Facebook. Un hombre inteligente se ve, y se asume inteligente por lo que hace, como lo hace, lo que dice y como lo dice.. Alguien brillante sobre todo se ve en la acción. No porque jueguen ajedrez son brillantes. Si al menos fuera en algo importante como la ciencia, las matemáticas, etc, se podría asumir que hay una correlación fuerte, per no en un juego de niños. Y ojo que yo tengo un elo superior a 2000 y solo juego para perder el. Tiempo, nada más.

If we assume that the. Chess is related to intelligence, we have to assume that Magnus Carlsen is the most intelligent man in the world, which is false, because the most intelligent men in the world do great things, intelligent things, and they are not necessarily good at chess, in fact most will not even play it. And Magnus Carlsen has done nothing great, nothing intelligent, except an excellent chess player. People give a lot of importance to an IQ test, and there is no shortage of a stupid guy like the user Hernan above, uploading a photo of his fake Facebook IQ. An intelligent man is seen, and is assumed to be intelligent by what he does, how he does it, what he says and how he says it... Someone brilliant above all is seen in action. It's not because they play chess that they are brilliant. If it were at least in something important like science, mathematics, etc., one could assume that there is a strong correlation, but not in a child's game. And be careful, I have an elo higher than 2000 and I only play to lose. Time, nothing more.

When I played at the Berkeley, CA Chess Club in the 1980s two University of California Berkeley mathematics professors joined the club (their young sons became chess players) and spent a few years stuck in Class C (1400-1599 rating). I'm guessing that despite their inability to become good chess players they were actually intelligent.