Relationship between Chess rating and I.Q?

Sort:
Avatar of Ziryab
DejarikDreams wrote:
Ziryab wrote:

 

I think Brady mentioned something like this, and on better authority than his claims about Fischer's IQ. That's likely where Bill Wall got it. Problem with Wall is that he often has no idea where he picked something up. His fails to discern the quality of his source materials and simply passes on everything he reads. 

He got very testy when I asked about his sources in some chess in advertising materials he posted here a couple of years ago. In that case, his sources were quite good. But, he objected to the question because the idea of sourcing historical claims is somewhat alien to his way of thinking.

Based on what others are saying, that it is possible for someone to have that great a memory, it’s not impossible for Fischer to have had it too.

There is no question that Fischer had a great memory. Wall’s story (certainly told by another) has the ring of truth. The details may or may not be accurate, but they are not inconceivable.

However, my point was about sources: do not believe what you read on Quora unless you can verify it. Do not believe something you read on Bill Wall’s website unless you can verify it. Frank Brady’s two biographies of Bobby Fischer are good reading, well-written, and some assertions are well-sourced, but not all.

John Donaldson, Bobby Fischer and His World is much different. Donaldson is clear on where he gets every snippet of information. In fact, much of the book consists of long quotations from original material (primary sources) that he has vetted. Donaldson’s work is good history. 

Avatar of DejarikDreams
mpaetz wrote:
DejarikDreams wrote:
mpaetz wrote:

     IQ tests do not measure acquired knowledge, so remembering facts cannot help you. Neither Fischer nor anyone who knew him ever said he was eidetic. He did have have great visual memory, a trait many other top players have displayed.

Are they all entirely different though? Assuming Fischer did have an eidetic memory, wouldn’t his memory vastly improve his score if he were to take it a second time?

     Fischer's memory for his chess games was remarkable. Carlsen says he has memorized 10,000 chess games. Morphy was once asked about a game he had played more than 15 years earlier, and noticed that the printed record had an error that explained why the questioner couldn't figure out how Morphy won. This visual memory of chess games and positions is what separates the world-class players from the patzers, not IQ.

     Had Fischer been an actual eidetic he would also have remembered what he had for lunch that day, what color the rugs were in the game room, what the tie the arbiter was wearing was like, and a thousand other details he never claimed to recall.

     Fischer's memory might have helped if he took the exact same IQ test but not if the problems differed.

They also have had people wondering if they have photographic memory. 
While yes, it is their memory that separates them from the patzers, it would lead one to believe their IQ would be better than average. 

Avatar of aoidaiki
DejarikDreams wrote:
mpaetz wrote:
DejarikDreams wrote:
mpaetz wrote:

     IQ tests do not measure acquired knowledge, so remembering facts cannot help you. Neither Fischer nor anyone who knew him ever said he was eidetic. He did have have great visual memory, a trait many other top players have displayed.

Are they all entirely different though? Assuming Fischer did have an eidetic memory, wouldn’t his memory vastly improve his score if he were to take it a second time?

     Fischer's memory for his chess games was remarkable. Carlsen says he has memorized 10,000 chess games. Morphy was once asked about a game he had played more than 15 years earlier, and noticed that the printed record had an error that explained why the questioner couldn't figure out how Morphy won. This visual memory of chess games and positions is what separates the world-class players from the patzers, not IQ.

     Had Fischer been an actual eidetic he would also have remembered what he had for lunch that day, what color the rugs were in the game room, what the tie the arbiter was wearing was like, and a thousand other details he never claimed to recall.

     Fischer's memory might have helped if he took the exact same IQ test but not if the problems differed.

They also have had people wondering if they have photographic memory. 
While yes, it is their memory that separates them from the patzers, it would lead one to believe their IQ would be better than average. 

I have an average memory in day to day life... but I remember quite a lot about the chess games I've played.

I once met a guy at a casual chess event. He seemed to know me and I asked if we'd played. He said yes and said it was 10 years ago. (I never remember people's faces or names). I asked what the opening was, what our ratings were, and how the game ended. After he answered I knew the game... I couldn't have played it from start to finish (I'm not Bobby Fischer) but my point is most of these memory feats are not nearly as remarkable as people seem to think. It's no more surprising that a person can remember TV show or book they read many years ago. When the moves make sense to you, the game tells a story. It's extremely easy to remember stories.

Avatar of DejarikDreams
Ziryab wrote:

There is no question that Fischer had a great memory. Wall’s story (certainly told by another) has the ring of truth. The details may or may not be accurate, but they are not inconceivable.

However, my point was about sources: do not believe what you read on Quora unless you can verify it. Do not believe something you read on Bill Wall’s website unless you can verify it. Frank Brady’s two biographies of Bobby Fischer are good reading, well-written, and some assertions are well-sourced, but not all.

John Donaldson, Bobby Fischer and His World is much different. Donaldson is clear on where he gets every snippet of information. In fact, much of the book consists of long quotations from original material (primary sources) that he has vetted. Donaldson’s work is good history. 

The only way to verify it is by finding Vasiukov or any other witness. That doesn’t seem possible. 

Avatar of mpaetz
Deadmanparty wrote:

No IQ test was given in my.school.  Was it a public school? If so, what state and year?

     Yes, in Newport Beach, CA in the early 1960s.

Avatar of SmyslovFan

Trivia: I beat GM Vasiukov in a blitz game as Black. I played the French and he got a winning position with the Wing Gambit. But it was extremely complicated, and I managed to outlast him, winning on time. 

Avatar of Optimissed
DejarikDreams wrote:
mpaetz wrote:
DejarikDreams wrote:
mpaetz wrote:

     IQ tests do not measure acquired knowledge, so remembering facts cannot help you. Neither Fischer nor anyone who knew him ever said he was eidetic. He did have have great visual memory, a trait many other top players have displayed.

Are they all entirely different though? Assuming Fischer did have an eidetic memory, wouldn’t his memory vastly improve his score if he were to take it a second time?

     Fischer's memory for his chess games was remarkable. Carlsen says he has memorized 10,000 chess games. Morphy was once asked about a game he had played more than 15 years earlier, and noticed that the printed record had an error that explained why the questioner couldn't figure out how Morphy won. This visual memory of chess games and positions is what separates the world-class players from the patzers, not IQ.

     Had Fischer been an actual eidetic he would also have remembered what he had for lunch that day, what color the rugs were in the game room, what the tie the arbiter was wearing was like, and a thousand other details he never claimed to recall.

(Although one wonders why should he claim that or mention those things.)

     Fischer's memory might have helped if he took the exact same IQ test but not if the problems differed.

They also have had people wondering if they have photographic memory. 
While yes, it is their memory that separates them from the patzers, it would lead one to believe their IQ would be better than average.

Obviously, it will be. Average really isn't very high.

Avatar of DejarikDreams
Optimissed wrote:
DejarikDreams wrote:

They also have had people wondering if they have photographic memory. 
While yes, it is their memory that separates them from the patzers, it would lead one to believe their IQ would be better than average.

Obviously, it will be. Average really isn't very high.

Nowadays, it feels kind of low.

Avatar of Ziryab
DejarikDreams wrote:
mpaetz wrote:
DejarikDreams wrote:
mpaetz wrote:

     IQ tests do not measure acquired knowledge, so remembering facts cannot help you. Neither Fischer nor anyone who knew him ever said he was eidetic. He did have have great visual memory, a trait many other top players have displayed.

Are they all entirely different though? Assuming Fischer did have an eidetic memory, wouldn’t his memory vastly improve his score if he were to take it a second time?

     Fischer's memory for his chess games was remarkable. Carlsen says he has memorized 10,000 chess games. Morphy was once asked about a game he had played more than 15 years earlier, and noticed that the printed record had an error that explained why the questioner couldn't figure out how Morphy won. This visual memory of chess games and positions is what separates the world-class players from the patzers, not IQ.

     Had Fischer been an actual eidetic he would also have remembered what he had for lunch that day, what color the rugs were in the game room, what the tie the arbiter was wearing was like, and a thousand other details he never claimed to recall.

     Fischer's memory might have helped if he took the exact same IQ test but not if the problems differed.

They also have had people wondering if they have photographic memory. 
While yes, it is their memory that separates them from the patzers, it would lead one to believe their IQ would be better than average. 

Nope.

Eidetic Memory

Commonly referred to as “photographic memory,” eidetic memory is the ability to recall images in great detail after only a few minutes of exposure. It is completely unconnected to a person’s intelligence level and revealed in early childhood. But it is not found in adults, leading some to question whether it is a true condition at all.

https://www.tuw.edu/psychology/science-behind-super-brains/

 

Avatar of DejarikDreams
Ziryab wrote:
DejarikDreams wrote:

They also have had people wondering if they have photographic memory. 
While yes, it is their memory that separates them from the patzers, it would lead one to believe their IQ would be better than average. 

Nope.

Eidetic Memory

Commonly referred to as “photographic memory,” eidetic memory is the ability to recall images in great detail after only a few minutes of exposure. It is completely unconnected to a person’s intelligence level and revealed in early childhood. But it is not found in adults, leading some to question whether it is a true condition at all.

https://www.tuw.edu/psychology/science-behind-super-brains/

 

Yes, I’ve read that before. While it is unconnected to intelligence, I cannot help but imagine the benefits of having it to boost intelligence.

Avatar of Ziryab
DejarikDreams wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
DejarikDreams wrote:

They also have had people wondering if they have photographic memory. 
While yes, it is their memory that separates them from the patzers, it would lead one to believe their IQ would be better than average. 

Nope.

Eidetic Memory

Commonly referred to as “photographic memory,” eidetic memory is the ability to recall images in great detail after only a few minutes of exposure. It is completely unconnected to a person’s intelligence level and revealed in early childhood. But it is not found in adults, leading some to question whether it is a true condition at all.

https://www.tuw.edu/psychology/science-behind-super-brains/

 

Yes, I’ve read that before. While it is unconnected to intelligence, I cannot help but imagine the benefits of having it to boost intelligence.

Some people with Eidetic memory suffer greatly because they remember everything they see. It is far more beneficial to remember those thing that matter.

Alfred Binet began his research on the memory and thought processes of chess players with the assumption that eidetic memory helped them. His research demonstrated something else entirely (published in 1894). And yet, more than a century later, every forum on chess and IQ has people asserting what Binet showed to be false.

Research since Binet has strengthened the notion that patterns, not the whole board, are what chess masters perceive. See de Groot, Chase and Simon, etc.

 

I assume that you know that Binet also invented the intelligence test.

Avatar of DejarikDreams
Ziryab wrote:
DejarikDreams wrote:

Yes, I’ve read that before. While it is unconnected to intelligence, I cannot help but imagine the benefits of having it to boost intelligence.

Some people with Eidetic memory suffer greatly because they remember everything they see. It is far more beneficial to remember those thing that matter.

Alfred Binet began his research on the memory and thought processes of chess players with the assumption that eidetic memory helped them. His research demonstrated something else entirely (published in 1894). And yet, more than a century later, every forum on chess and IQ has people asserting what Binet showed to be false.

Research since Binet has strengthened the notion that patterns, not the whole board, are what chess masters perceive. See de Groot, Chase and Simon, etc.

 

I assume that you know that Binet also invented the intelligence test.

I have thought about the problems that come with having an eidetic memory.

If many of the greatest chess players have been considered to have memory akin to eidetic memory, then maybe Binet was wrong?

Avatar of Ziryab
DejarikDreams wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
DejarikDreams wrote:

Yes, I’ve read that before. While it is unconnected to intelligence, I cannot help but imagine the benefits of having it to boost intelligence.

Some people with Eidetic memory suffer greatly because they remember everything they see. It is far more beneficial to remember those thing that matter.

Alfred Binet began his research on the memory and thought processes of chess players with the assumption that eidetic memory helped them. His research demonstrated something else entirely (published in 1894). And yet, more than a century later, every forum on chess and IQ has people asserting what Binet showed to be false.

Research since Binet has strengthened the notion that patterns, not the whole board, are what chess masters perceive. See de Groot, Chase and Simon, etc.

 

I assume that you know that Binet also invented the intelligence test.

I have thought about the problems that come with having an eidetic memory.

If many of the greatest chess players have been considered to have memory akin to eidetic memory, then maybe Binet was wrong?

 It is far more likely that assumptions that lump together all memory feats under a popular label are wrong. Adrian de Groot pointed out some things that Binet got wrong because he was a weak chess player, but refutation of the popular assumption that eidetic memory was the basis of chess skill was not among Binet's errors.

Avatar of DejarikDreams
Ziryab wrote:
DejarikDreams wrote:

I have thought about the problems that come with having an eidetic memory.

If many of the greatest chess players have been considered to have memory akin to eidetic memory, then maybe Binet was wrong?

 It is far more likely that assumptions that lump together all memory feats under a popular label are wrong. Adrian de Groot pointed out some things that Binet got wrong because he was a weak chess player, but refutation of the popular assumption that eidetic memory was the basis of chess skill was not among Binet's errors.

I wasn’t claiming having an eidetic memory was the basis of chess skill, but having an eidetic memory improves one’s ability to play.

Avatar of BOWTOTHETOAST

Chess can increase your IQ, but only a bit. For example, Hikaru Nakamura Has an Iq of 102. That is just 2 Iq higher than the average person. Studying hard  topics for years as a youngling seems to give much better results, especially if those topics are 11th or 12th grade ones.

I have an Iq of 136 because I studied complex topics for years when I was young. I am still 8 just using my mom's account, but it still seems that chess is not the way for increasing Iq 

Avatar of BOWTOTHETOAST

By the way, I am part of the gifted group

Avatar of Nepotamy
NEETHUDAS123 wrote:

Chess can increase your IQ, but only a bit. For example, Hikaru Nakamura Has an Iq of 102. That is just 2 Iq higher than the average person. Studying hard  topics for years as a youngling seems to give much better results, especially if those topics are 11th or 12th grade ones.

I have an Iq of 136 because I studied complex topics for years when I was young. I am still 8 just using my mom's account, but it still seems that chess is not the way for increasing Iq 

Naive mind. He doesn't have 102 IQ. Why are you using your mom's account? Make your own account. 

Avatar of Optimissed
NEETHUDAS123 wrote:

By the way, I am part of the gifted group

Cat's lifespan 15+, humans 80+, 80 x 8 / 15 = 1280 / 30 = 42.
So your human equiv. to 8 is 42.

That's too young and too old to be talking about cats. Something fishy.

ZOOOOM

Avatar of blueemu
Mittttens wrote:
NEETHUDAS123 wrote:

By the way, I am part of the gifted group

I am a part of the gifted cat group.

My cat is gifted, too. She can complain and eat sour cream, both at once.

Avatar of Nepotamy
MrWizard wrote:

Does anyone have information about any direct correlation between OTB rating and general intelligence? I vaguely recall British G.M Jonathan Levitt putting forward the notion that an I.Q of 120 indicates a person could, with sufficient work achieve a rating roughly = 2000 + [I.Q - 100] x 10

Therefore, we can conclude that even a relatively weak G.M would have an I.Q above 140 while super GM's like Kasparov would be > 180.

Those of us who have not yet reached 2000 should not despair. Levitt would tell us either to work at chess more often or change our method.

Given the studies such as that cited at www.auschess.org.au/articles/chessmind.htm I am of the opinion that I.Q is not a genetic parameter like eye colour that is handed out at birth, but rather can be altered through one's environment. I think there are three groups of people...average of which I am unfortunately a member, the gifted and the handicapped.

Any ideas or information on the subject is appreciated. 

There have been several studies conducted to examine the relationship between chess skill and general intelligence, particularly IQ. While there is some evidence to suggest that there is a positive correlation between IQ and chess skill, it is important to note that this relationship is not straightforward or definitive.

The idea proposed by Jonathan Levitt, that an IQ of 120 is necessary to achieve a rating of 2000 + [IQ - 100] x 10, is not supported by empirical evidence. IQ tests are not perfect measures of intelligence, and there are many factors that contribute to chess skill, including experience, training, and natural ability.

While it is true that some grandmasters may have exceptionally high IQs, it is not accurate to assume that all grandmasters or even all strong chess players have IQs above a certain threshold. It is also important to note that IQ is not the only factor that contributes to success in chess or any other endeavor.

Furthermore, it is important to recognize that intelligence is not solely determined by genetics. While there is a genetic component to intelligence, environmental factors such as education, upbringing, and experience can also play a significant role in developing cognitive abilities.

In summary, while there may be a positive correlation between IQ and chess skill, it is important to recognize that this relationship is complex and not fully understood. Intelligence is a multifaceted construct that is influenced by a variety of factors, and there is no single "magic number" that determines one's potential for success in chess or any other domain.