What do you think GM Hikaru IQ is?

He and I were discussing a specific question - whether the average IQ of GMs is known. Your claim is different - essentially suggesting that there is no relationship between IQ and chess playing ability. This is simply nonsense, there are dozens of studies on the correlation between IQ and chess playing ability on google... they have mixed results ranging from no correlation to very significant correlations... but then there are also meta-analysis which conclude there's a significant correlation. Most of the variance in results can be explained by looking at the studies design - once again, you have to be clear about what question you're asking as it pertains to IQ. In any domain where skill is important the amount of time a person has spent studying and practicing that skill is going to by far most strongly predict their performance at the task. But that doesn't mean IQ doesn't correlate with speed of learning or peak performance, it just means you haven't isolated the effect of IQ from other factors.

This is pretty obvious when think about it. It's just evidence of the power of learning, and practice... For example... if you wanted to study the relationship between IQ and guitar playing ability, and you compared average IQ people with multiple years of experience playing guitar vs. high IQ people with any amount of experience.... predictably you would find the average IQ group outperformed the high IQ group. This study would say nothing about whether IQ correlated with the speed of learning to play guitar, or the level of mastery... all it would really show is what we already know - "practice is important". No one is suggesting GMs get to be GM without practicing... I don't think anyone underestimates the importance of practice. What people want to know is whether IQ facilitates learning, and whether it correlates with peak rating.

You chose the study that most seemed to cast doubt on there being any relationship between IQ and chess ability... meanwhile you're ignoring the dozens of other studies, better designed, that have found correlations... in your experiment there were no controls setup for factors like amount of hours spent practicing, amount of years spent playing... also, your population size is only 57, it's barely large enough to be statistically significant. Finally, the question you presumed to provide an answer for - whether GMs have a higher IQ than average - is simply not answered by the study you provided.

While claiming to be sticking with the facts what you've done is cherry-picked the data to reach a predetermined conclusion, one which I guess you have some desperate need to arrive at - it must be some kind of cope on your part, I don't know what else it would be.

To interpret scientific studies you have to clearly know the question you're asking, and you have to interpret the design of the study in light of that question.

Lastly... it should not be a surprise that skill at a game which requires memory, processing speed, and visuo-spatial reasoning would correlate in some way or another with tests measuring memory, processing speed, and visuo-spatial reasoning. This should be extremely obvious just on its face, but if it isn't I encourage you to read through the dozen or so studies available on the topic.

Keep trying!

If you read the various and sundry Chess/IQ threads on the forums you will quickly find that actually your side of things is the one with fewer studies and a credibility problem...

You get to the truth on a matter like IQ by scouring google for studies, not reading what people on forums are saying... because far too many people feel the need to downplay to themselves / others the significance of IQ. After examining about a dozen - including a comprehensive meta-analysis (google that term) - there is no question or doubt as to whether there's a relationship between chess playing ability and IQ, there is. The strongest correlations are found in studies where they controlled for amount of time practiced. No, I'm afraid what's actually happening is certain people on forums have a strong personal need to deny that IQ matters... probably because their IQs aren't very high. And so they cherry-pick studies / poorly interpret the studies... after reading these forums you'd get the impression that IQ means pretty much nothing. It's probably the single most statistically validated construct psychometricians have produced, but I digress.

I've seen an official IQ test that literally featured a chess puzzle as a question... I think they gave you 1 knight on an empty board and asked you how many squares the knight could touch without going over any square twice... that was the question. It was an untimed IQ test. Honestly, this isn't complicated or surprising - when you play chess you use memory (short and long term), processing speed, and visual-spatial reasoning. All of those are aspects of IQ.

Would you expect a severely mentally handicapped person (I'm talking a person who couldn't count until 5th grade, can't operate a vehicle) to become a GM? Obviously not. Now.... why not? Can explain why not?

Gee I wonder if the amount of horsepower a car has predicts whether it wins a race!

Although we don't have the precise figure, his extraordinary chess abilities and strategic brilliance imply that it is exceptional! Renowned for his rapid decision-making and inventive strategies, Hikaru displays a distinctive combination of originality and analytical skill. His capacity to outmaneuver opponents and adjust in real-time establishes him as a chess prodigy. In the end, his intelligence transcends mere numerical measurement!

That's not a significant correlation between IQ and Chess. Of course higher general intelligence indicates higher performances on things in general. The studies actually show that chess's correlation with IQ is no different than any number of other endeavors...and the meta-analysis (asking me to look up the term meta-analysis just shows that you don't really know much about it, btw) shows a weak correlation (r=0.24) ["The Relationship between Intelligence and Chess Skill" (Burgoyne et al., 2016)]. A correlation between 0.2 and 0.3 suggests a weak but positive relationship between two variables, meaning they are somewhat related, but one does not strongly predict the other.

Also note that the meta-analysis was revised later...and two of the four categories were downgraded to "no significant correlation". The other two sitting at 0.24 are considered "significant", but go ahead and ask Google, or ChatGPT, or what have you, and you will find that 0.24 is generally considered a weak correlation.

"The overall conclusion that cognitive ability contributes meaningfully to individual differences in chess skill is unchanged; most important, the meta-analytic average of correlations between chess skill and broad cognitive abilities is similar to the originally reported value and still statistically significant (0.24, p < .001, in the original analyses, vs. 0.22, p < .001, in the corrected analyses). However, as shown below in Table 1, there are changes in some specific conclusions. Most notably, while the correlations of chess skill with fluid intelligence(Gf) and short-term/working memory (Gsm) are unaffected, the correlations of chess skill with crystallized intelligence (Gc) and processing speed (Gs) are no longer statistically significant'"

Scouring Google is for amateurs, by the way. Try Google Scholar instead, Or read this thread for some tips on researching things online without your confirmation bias getting in your way...

What was that you were saying earlier? Ahh yes:

Keep trying!

realistically just average, computing power comes with experience

True. I’ve quoted rom the major meta-analysis that was published, which shows a weak correlation in some specific areas and surprisingly none in some areas you might expect (such as spatial aptitude).

Chess is about memory. Not iq

Well it seems we're continuing the debate over whether horsepower helps a car win a race or not.

Your post is not coherent - you claim there is not a statistically significant correlation between IQ and chess playing ability, meanwhile you cited a study which concludes verbatim that there is. There is a positive correlation between chess playing ability and IQ.

Then you go off on some tangent on whether this effect can be distinguished from other correlations between competency and IQ, this is a completely irrelevant tangent.

But your analysis of that study is flawed in a few ways:

a) The norms in psychology for strong vs. weak correlations are different than in other fields, a correlation of 0.24 is considered moderate in psychology, because psychology is a very soft science. If you were researching in another field you'd be correct, but here you are not.

b) The correlation you're citing r=0.24 is with a confidence interval p<.001. That is a much more stringent confidence interval than is typical, P<0.05 is typical. The use of such a stringent confidence interval has reduced the strength of the correlation. What this does say is there is almost no doubt about the correlations existence. And of course the mere existence of the correlation disproves your claim.

c) In the report they note there's alot of variance in the results of the various studies under consideration... What this really shows is that, in this case, some studies are isolating the variable more effectively than others. Already been explained.

For a meta-analysis, considering these factors, this is a fine result, and it supports the studies conclusion: that there is a positive relationship between IQ and chess playing ability. It simply supports what I've been saying all along and refutes your argument - I don't know what you're even trying to debate at this point.

Keep trying

Memory is tested on IQ tests...

You can't wiggle out with the "there's a non-zero positive correlation, therefore I am technically right" argument. Sorry. I made it very clear that there is a general correlation, just not a significant one that supports your dubious assertions.

What you're describing as a change in my position is infact a change in your understanding of the conversation due to poor reading - you joined this debate as it was already underway, you did not begin this debate or establish the axioms of it. You're responding to a debate over the claim that there is a significant correlation between IQ and chess playing ability. The word "significant" in the context of a scientific study is always referring to an effect existing within a certain confidence interval. It isn't some subjective whim of what you feel is significant - "oh I feel this effect is big and that effect is small". For that you say the effect is mild, or moderate, or something like this. This is why we use p>.001, this is the confidence interval, it defines what is or is not significant. That's what this conversation is and has been about - whether there is an effect. If you are not following the conversation it is due to your poor reading ability, it's not my fault. When I say an effect is significant I'm using the term scientifically, I'm not using it in the loose and imprecise way that you use it. Now, I am still willing to debate your claim that the effect is mild, or moderate, or whatever, but that is not the original claim, it is a tangent that you have come up with. I just explained to you what the conventions are in psychology surrounding small vs. moderate vs. large correlation sizes, they aren't what you're suggesting they are... furthermore the confidence interval is very small, .001, and this reduces the correlation size, I just pointed this out - you failed to address either of these points in any meaningful way whatsoever and just mindlessly repeated yourself, why are you even still arguing? I don't even understand your motivation. You said there is no significant correlation, there is. Now, your point is what? Essentially that your subjective assessment of "significant" is somehow relevant in this conversation, it isn't, the conversation was going on before you came along and decided to insert your muddy thinking into it.

Carry onward

Someone that claims that the average IQ of GMs is 135 (not verifiable in any way) and goes on to say that Hikaru cannot possibly have a 102 IQ and so must have been tanking his test on purpose...has no business talking about loose arguments or muddy thinking.

Here is the comment that started the debate. As we can see, it contains a) the claim that GMs do not have a higher average IQ than the general population - i.e. that there is no correlation between IQ and chess playing ability, b) the citing of a study that yielded a negative correlation. That is the claim which began the debate you have inserted yourself into by quoting and responding to the arguments. And now we can clearly see you have not even read or followed the conversation, we see you using pseudo-intellectual terms like "strawman" to describe a reference to the original claim which began the debate. On the other hand, you've now twice failed to address the criticisms of your claim - an irrelevant tangent that we can indulge.

I don't have all day to deal with your duncery, try keeping up with the conversation.

A recommendation I highly suggest you take in all your thread perusals.

P.S. You edited out "You are a dunce." to soften it to "duncery", but both are theoretically actionable. If you don't have all day, then "carry onward" I believe was your previous advice.

There is no place in this thread, either within the context of that debate or outside of it, where I've ever used the term "significant" in the way you are using it... when you continue to deny where the conversation began, shifting context to all the previous posts, this is a very desperate attempt to prop up your point.. veiling the fact you originally hadn't read the conversation... you're just playing games and I don't see any point in wasting time trying to reason with you - you've proven that you will just say anything / ignore anything to "win" the conversation, the pretense of reason in this conversation is a false one. Furthermore, you claim there's no need to address criticisms - at that point you've abandoned the debate. I don't know why you're still responding. You say your concern is whether the general public will be swayed - your goal in a conversation shouldn't be merely to shift perceptions, it should be to get to the truth of the matter and settle the problem. In your case you're not really interested in that, and I could probably waste quite a few hours just contending with your deliberate obfuscations and nonsense.

But I will make this very simple for the both of us:

There is a significant correlation between IQ and chess playing ability. 

Carry onward!

Lol. You're just stealing arguments at this point (bolded for your reference). I got to the truth of the matter in the first couple of posts.

I am still responding because you are continuing to showcase your capabilities here. Win-win for me. This bodes well for ensuring your opinions (and they are just opinions with no real support and hanging on by a flimsy technicality) are given proper scrutiny going forward.

Blah blah blah, ignore repeat ignore repeat double down, change the context, appeal to the crowd, repeat ad nauseum...

Anyway, I'm glad to see you didn't bother to dispute the claim: There is a significant correlation between IQ and chess playing ability. So what are you arguing about, exactly? I actually have no idea at this point.

Keep trying!