That's pushing it. Sure, you learn chess like everything else. But instead of logical reasoning a steady hand is a little more useful for carpentry. For both genetics set some limitations and start points.
Just to show that possibly the IQ relationship and chess are not necessarily related. I don't have that high an Elo.
Same one that I scored a 65 on. I also scored 145 the first time I took it. I wanted to verify the total range of possibilities by getting everything wrong the second time through.
Look at it this way, a 1000 IQ person with little chess experience would lose to a 100 IQ person with lots of experience.
Look at it this way, a 1000 IQ person with little chess experience would lose to a 100 IQ person with lots of experience.
1000 is a scary number, I wouldnt even bet on that anymore
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 insult, but what about Hikaru? He somewhat admitted to having 102 IQ.
You can associate chess with anything you want. However, there are many people with high IQs who are good at chess and many people with high IQs who are not.Any selection of personnel based on an IQ test of aptitude for a job or any activity can especially benefit people who rely solely on theoretical structures. It is a limitation in my opinion. And the idea that a person who make a show of jactancy of doing good work for humanity is a symptom of intelligence is snobbish. Many people have committed disasters using their intellectual abilities. Divulg chess is a good work for humanity. Chess is a good training for our mind to solve situations.
Always "under structure " about what intelligence is... what is the stereotype of an intelligent person like? Marilyn monroe 164, Einstein 160... the first experiments to test IQ were done in 1905, so, I'm not irreverent about that but,
soon is 100 anniversary... when thats happens we all can to sing Happy birthday, Mr. IQ ! 
one day I was with a friend, in a trade zone,searching for Star Wars figures to colect.Suddenly,in a toy shop,someone threw a plastic container with a considerable amount of toy balls.Each person there had a quick reaction to help to pick up ,to traping the balls one to one putting on the container.I catched the container and used like a shovel to trap aprox half of toy balls In floor.Nothing special to remember, except that my friend said to me : - What a Smart ! / The thing is that you dont need to be cuantical phisic or Master of something to be smart or to be considered smart by other people.If you are Phisic, or Master ,I congrats to you.Obviously is another way to demonstrate mind skills.In the story I told, and,in case of a company needed to choose a person with skills to clean fastly any mess I would win! Smart enough?... I won ... I won a test in this society !
To put it in a few words :I can consider good the decission of "not accept" someone putting a number to my brain from the outer and from subjectivity with any purposes.Not need a point of comparation.Just try to be better day after day without compares with others minds. Each mind is a singular treasure with a beauty history of genoma,and a neuronal legacy.In sports we have ranks,is ok. But I think that consider a test as definitive and determinant with detailed arguments is another packaging trade. Not with mi mind
I think that when you're starting out with chess your IQ might play a small role in how quickly you improve but it doesn't really come into play until you become a stronger player. Then I think it limits your maximum rating, where, if you have an average IQ you might find it extremely difficult to push past 2000 because the players at that level are very good and fast at calculting.
If you are just as good and fast at calculating in chess and push past the 2000 you probably would be a good mathematician or scientist as many of the skills of creativity and thinking fast are similar between the subjects. However, some players are very good at chess but aren't as quick thinkers outside of the game or vice-versa.
Ultimately I think the majority of chess boils down to your determination and practice. If you work hard at chess, analyze your games practice puzzles, and fine tune certain techniques and openings, I think that you can become a strong chess player regardless of your IQ. However, as I said before usually if you become a 2200+ rated player you have some talent and skill outside of all that practice too which carries over to your IQ. Hope that helps, (This is coming to you from a player who is only rated 1800, rapid, 1700, blitz, therefore I'm no kind of expert, just thought I'd toss this out there.
Chess helps the mind in many ways... That may be all. That is enough to consider it part of our activities. Good mental gym. What happens with chess around IQ tests or cleverly assumed levels is another matter. Consider what, as studies show, a supposedly intelligent and highly intelligent person does might feel naturally uncomfortable in our standardized world. School, chess, high school and everything that means structures. It is often boring for a human with supposedly high intelligence. Take for example a person who has both skills, high IQ and chess champion: Bobby Fischer. Chess was his main activity for approximately 20 years. And it could be less if he had played fewer tournaments, (is not a state secret that perhaps he sometimes did it due to pressures beyond his personal decision).But this point is not crucial in case some people think he played competitions only and always to their own pleasure.Chess is part of our education.But only god knows what can discover or invent a free human without influences of "what have to do" to be" _ _ _ _ _" ( add to the phrase what you want) We don't need to put a sphere in a square or guess and try a test secuencial ...whats continue and thing as geometrical secuences to add the logical secuence many times to the point that result shows a nices number to pretend ...neither to drawing a tree with so extensive roots that we need to solicite to the director of experiment for more paper or drawing roots in table and walls to get a amazing aprobation of elitists.All This is a part of a structure created by other mind.We play chess maybe while dinner, talk,drink, in our daily activities middle and many times with technical problems,conection bad or lag...and in this corcunstances is difficult to considere our rank exactly.Not properly environment for exactly experiment test,but aproximated to some relative chess level.But not about brain all levels test 
Evidence that Fischer had a high IQ is almost entirely limited to his chess skill. The assumption that chess skill and IQ correlate is largely based on claims that Fischer had a high IQ.
Substitute Kasparov’s name or Carlsen’s in the sentences above, and the evidence accumulates.
It’s all circular.
nothing, Absolutely nothing. Thats why low IQ could get 2000 elo in chess
how much UI of IQ haved the first human discovering the fire ?,(in case that was 100 percent human)Was a good chess player?or chess hater? Scientific studyes can be right about Chess put our brains on mode of maximum level to solve complex situation and can be considerated perhaps the best,or one of best gym for the mind.But a thing as intelligence can not to be reduced to a skill in any particular activitye yet being symbolic or higly complex. Is a Cartesian idealism ,or, if prefer, dual cartesianism,that mind is not simple a phisical or material "thing".So, we can't compare to parameter simple as one determinated system as chess mechanism or other mechanism.Rene Descartes quoted that monkeys could talk but they didn't because they would be forced to work.A really smart person can be enough smart to occult their condition like a time travelers sci fi, in similar way that, in society ,some people enough rich decide not show all the time their richess on their external appareance to have a normal day. Anyone that need to be standarized under a system is in first limited to that system.A Scientific can be enough terrible smart to create terrible things and self destructives.Thats show that skills are not always good thing ,or "smartly" on exactly term but only a technisism of capacity to work under structures.A smart person can be a Chess champ as Fischer or can too put chess set in the box too and decide learn Fashion design or airplane modeling. Patenting our brain may not always be so smart. Feeling the need to stand out and show skills is the same, depends on the circumstances. We had cases of people getting degrees in different things just to please their parents. A familiar pression can produce the unreal sensation that oneself is better person if get a title.There is a lot of terrible persons making disasters with a tittle.You can search on the web.About Descartes ...Why do I insist on Descartes? I don't like how he defined the possibilities of animal mind, and artificial mind, but he was enough smart to consider that intelligence is not just a brain capacity.Brain is a bridge for the existence. As he said :Cogito Ergo Sum or ,I think, therefore I am.
Evidence that Fischer had a high IQ is almost entirely limited to his chess skill. The assumption that chess skill and IQ correlate is largely based on claims that Fischer had a high IQ.
Substitute Kasparov’s name or Carlsen’s in the sentences above, and the evidence accumulates.
It’s all circular.
Obviously...We are under supossed structures to talk about.
If you don't understand chess concepts, tactics, how to evaluate positions, basic strategy fairly quickly, you're not intelligent.
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.
But that doesnt really go against what I was saying. Intelligence is ability understand concepts. Chess is no different. They mightve been intelligent or maybe not. There couldve been other factors limiting their success like I said before. Ability to understand well and fast is good but it alone doesnt make you a good chess player.