What do you think GM Hikaru IQ is?

I read that Hikaru had taken an I.Q. test and it came out average.

The difference is that Elroch didn't try to stake any claims about things he hypothesizes might be true.

I will leave the Emory thing alone except to say that they are well known in veteran circles for trying to "extract" money from G.I. Bill recipients (who can ill-afford to take extra classes) using various spammy techniques. Caveat emptor.

You probably should have skimmed page 1 ...

The sample sizes of GMs and all chess players that have taken IQ tests and have their results accessible in public records are so small that no meaningful conclusion can be reached

I don't know what hypothesizing you're referring to, or understand this taboo you're promoting about hypothesizing things, I don't see what your point is.

Carry onward!

This isn't for texting your bros...how about making 1 post with a paragraph instead of 5 single word or line posts?

Welcome to the new world. Oh and uwu and all that ...

Had you added the word “new”, your statement would correlate with what you are now asserting.

“New Ivy” in an opinion piece is not an established category.

Even so, the research that you cite seems credible despite the misuse you are attempting to make of it.

Alas, you still would be relying on the reputation of the university to establish the credibility of a professor there. That’s a logical fallacy. I worked at a couple of mediocre state universities and some premier private colleges. Most professors were ordinary, but a few were world class. A university gets rated by its faculty, but not so much the reverse.

Go back in these IQ threads a bit. You’ll find that I was linking several years ago to the meta analysis you are referencing, albeit with a more accurate and concise gloss.

I don't care about this squabble over the term "New Ivy League" vs. "Ivy League", as I said this is a very pointless and irrelevant argument, you should not even be wasting my time or yours with this.

You should think / read more deeply on the fallacy of appeal to authority, because what you've argued implies we shouldn't acknowledge or pay heed to expert opinion... this is obviously impractical and would lead a person to be wrong more often than not. This is why serious definitions of this fallacy try to make some room for expert opinion. But it's a tricky business, and it requires thinking on your part to interpret the context and apply the fallacy correctly... something you're not doing in this case.

For example: Argument from authority - Wikipedia

The argument from authority is a logical fallacy,[2] and obtaining knowledge in this way is fallible. However, in particular circumstances, it is sound to use as a practical although fallible way of obtaining information that can be considered generally likely to be correct if the authority is a real and pertinent intellectual authority and there is universal consensus about these statements in this field. This is specially the case when the revision of all the information and data "from scratch" would impede advances in an investigation or education. Further ways of validating a source include: evaluating the veracity of previous works by the author, their competence on the topic, their coherence, their conflicts of interest, etc.

I suppose one critical point to consider is whether you actually have a rational argument that disputes the expert opinion. Here you haven't provided any. Infact, you have not even called the opinion itself into question. You have only pointed out that it's the opinion of an authority. If the authorities opinion is not disputed then there is no argument from authority, there is merely the citation of an authority.

But anyway, your comment is actually irrelevant in the context of the conversation that occurred since we were comparing authorities, we'd both more or less accepted the legitimacy of the authorities, and there was really no debate on this front. There's a disagreement amongst the authorities and I called the debate a wash since I don't consider myself qualified to dispute the authorities of either Emory or Dickory or whoever it was. i.e. you are changing the premises of the debate. You could have a debate whether Emory or Dickory whatever were viable authorities, I'm not interested in having that debate, it's yet another waste of my time. This seems to be just another desperate attempt here, obviously you have some need to prove something.

Keep trying

Everyone should care about precise communication. "Ivy League" has a specific meaning (even if not everyone is familiar with the exact details, most probably realise it refers to a small number of famous, highly ranked US universities).

The lack of ambiguity is the result of its origin - The "Ivy League" is an athletics conference, the term later more commonly used outside a sporting context to refer to the 8 universities involved.

Your link referred to "New Ivy" (it didn't use the word "league", with its sporting origin) with the unambiguous idea that it was a different set of universities. There is no reason to confuse the two.

It's worth noting that while the eight universities are very prominent, others - notably Stanford, MIT and Caltech - compete with them in the rankings - so it should not be thought of as the "best" US universities. I see that presently 5 of the top 10 US universities are in the Ivy League, and only one of the top 4.

bro wth is going on here 💀

You don’t care about labels that you confused any more than you care about the research that you misrepresent. The relationship between IQ and chess skill is slight. That’s what the research shows.

Some very good chess players are duller than a rusty knife. Some very bright people cannot play a decent game. Nothing in the research contradicts this.

I’m late to the party because I was camping when this thread blew up with your activity. I do see, however, that @Elroch and @DiogenesDue showed you where you are wrong.

Im quite sure there are no GM's whose iq would be lower than average, unless of course theyve had health issues after achieving the title

Another thread on this site.

I’m sure So is average. Certainly no smarter than Nakamura.

The posted confuses an uncritical Google search with research.

If Nakamura did an official test off stream Id put money on him getting an above average score

All those (mostly guessed) numbers are essentially worthless. Particularly the 190. If chess ratings were measured on an IQ scale, Carlsen would have a chess rating something like that (6 standard deviations) by his status as world #1. But Carlsen is a chess player, not an IQ test player, and it is ridiculous to suggest he would be likely to be as extreme an outlier at them. This is extremely unlikely.

The claim that no GM would score lower than average on an IQ test is interesting. Certainly I would expect this event to be very rare, but outliers happen. Much like you are unlikely to find someone with a science PhD and IQ < 100., but is it impossible?

The main purpose of IQ tests was to select kids for academic potential, but it is unlikely they would be much less effective at selecting those with chess potential, if that was of any value. The reason is that chess is very much an intellectual activity involving multiple cognitive skills.

Even if he thinks he would do well, I can't see the motivation!

Its probably possible for someone (a gm even) to be very advanced in one aspect of iq that translates well in chess but much lower in others, which could result in an below average iq score. Depends heavily on the kind of test as well. Chess is a game of problem solving and decision making so that seems unlikely. Sure there are aspects of mental performance like memory, drive, confidence, that may help more with chess more than an iq test.

Also people with high iq tend to be more interested in things like science or games like chess. With PhD though I think there is more possibility to compensate lack of iq with time, effort and interest than in chess.

160? I guess