Relationship between Chess rating and I.Q?

Not really :/ chess is a problem solving game but it is different from the ones on iq tests two different variables which means two different performance ratings

I don't think chess has any correlation with IQ

If it's so, how come Bill Gates' elo not similar or not not too far from Bobby Fischer's?

Bill Gates' IQ is often estimated to be around 160. Source: https://vocal.media/history/what-is-bill-gates-s-iq

Also I heard Hikaru said he take an online mensa IQ test and get 102 - 109. I take the same test and get 121 - 125. His chess.com elo is 3200+ while mine is 600-700

you can have 170 IQ and rating 200 chess if you dont have any ideea about chess...

dont knowing things is not bad inteligence is just luck of informations

Ik it's not OTB but his OTB elo is 2800+ and I think mine won't go so far from my chess.com elo

all 100 IQ children can became IM with proper training and perseverence.

https://dipeshjoshidj32.medium.com/polgar-sisters-story-how-to-make-a-genius-8fd32428d598

I got 123 on a test, not saying its accurate but at least 123 is 123.

go to footbal

Did he actually say that, or have you heard someone say he said that? It's not impossible, but I am interested in whether it is genuine.

https://youtube.com/shorts/r3lSRur4JTY?si=ld-CVkI_KMDYYhEe

He says that

Yes, but I take the same test and get 121-125, and I'm just a 600-700

I have, for months. When I heard about GothamChess (early 2024) I started to get addicted to chess. So I learn from my mistakes, high elo player games, chess learning app, etc. Yet I still stuck here.

I just somehow usually can't apply positional playing and finding tactical plans when playing, especially at online games

Hikaru did actually score only 102. I'm almost certain though, that if he were to retake the test off stream and actually concentrate, he'd score much higher. Nakamura never came off as exactly a genius to me but I'm sure he has some high level congnitive abilities that will reflect in the iq test.

IQ is not a real thing, it's complete nonsense.

Almost anyone can "study" IQ tests and become really good at them and score 120+, they are almost completely garbage.

I really can't fathom why anyone would thinks these specific tests mean something above any game or puzzle. IQ tests are nothing more than a crude shot in the dark that a person able to do this problem may be somewhat smart. That's it.

Let's say if you're good at the show Countdown, does that make you smarter than someone who isn't? It might mean something, but if you've been watching it every day and studied to become good at it then it would mean a lot less.

I think super gms are definitely quite smart in some ways. However, I think it's kind of odd how we don't see them also excelling in something else much. They don't have an incredible memory of anything outside of chess, they don't have some weird talent that all Super GMs have, you might think perhaps navigation skills or maybe even a videogame talent. Lasker was a great bridge player, he's the only one I can think of right now. There's been chess GMs who've gotten decent at games like Shogi real quick, but that's still a form of chess.

If chess intelligence showed general intelligence a lot then for the best of the best chess players you'd expect some great quizshow players, some polyglots (knows many languages perfectly), mathematicians - come to think of it there is John Nunn. But it's just rare. Unfortunately what you have is more the opposite, that chess players 35+ instead of pivoting into something great like starting a company, or becoming a great writer or scientist or anything like that, aside from an extremely tiny handful they just do nothing but play or analyze chess worse for the rest of their days. And like they would have a great brandname already, like they'd be recognized, so that should be a major advantage. Similar to sports players - appearing to be essentially just random people of the population.

Yeah that's a great point. I think it's a big problem with most of the biggest, most competitive things, it's that they can get to the point where you can't live a normal productive life anymore while still balancing it with this endeavour. Maybe some people like to see what will happen if people devote their lives to something, I personally don't like it, I think it's unhealthy. These competitive endeavours are supposed to be for fun and to serve us for our lives, not the other way around. Also if you got a GM title or even higher than that but threw away your life in the process, does it even count? Perhaps the "best" chess player was someone hardly anyone ever heard of, who played it for some time and stopped short of 2500 peak and only plays for fun, making optimal use of the game as part of their life.

It's through similar logic the Olympics was originally devised as being amateur-only by the regulations. The original conception for the Olympics was that the person should live in harmony with their pursuit and it should be a healthy, good part of their lives, that they don't need to be paid for. It's only in the past few decades they finally got rid of that, they were practically forced to since otherwise they couldn't attract anywhere near the best competitors.

As this difficulty applies to all competitive events, and even amateurs can overspend their time on something, I've thought of how there should be some kind of rule that you can't spend more than x amount of hours per week on it or it doesn't count. That would make it competitive again and have it mean something - sort of like how you only have a certain amount of time to make your move at the board - and ensure the general health and wellbeing of participants.

I would also add there are types who insist on trying to make themselves come off as smart or being a winner and make being good at chess as part of their personality and embellish how good they are or go tryhard at it as well. I have a semi-satirical book called How to Become An Intellectual, it's very funny but also an interesting look at how people's egos and minds work and could also be taken semi-serious!

The one skill that ches smght help you get better at could be problem solving but that doesn't always mean your better at other things(not like stuff in IQ tests)

Along with things like art so while there could be a correlation between better cognitive thinking it's not really the case it's basically learning a skill like an instrument and learning art or a sport hobbies are a good thing