What do you think GM Hikaru IQ is?

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

There are many theories of linguistics. I can easily argue that words are defined in relation to other words... the rules of language are learned through exposure to usage, and participation, as with other social behavior. And so language evolves gradually, and each new generation introduces new terms, which carry with them new complexity and variations.

The term "New Ivy" is a new term, which clearly intends to establish itself as a sub-category of Ivy League. If I accept this term as valid - then in the same way I can say a Lion is a Cat and a Cat is an Animal I may also refer to New Ivy as New Ivy League or Ivy League. 
You are correct that I didn't research the original definition of "Ivy League" before I used the term. But I don't need to, because language has this evolving algebraic structure. The idea that a word is strictly defined by its origins, which are unchanging... that's only partially true and it's a narrow view.

Along these lines, some linguists also claim that words are defined by their usage. Which again undermines your argument because when two words are serving the same function they can be used interchangeably.

On the other hand, you have to contend with the post modernists... For example, let's say a child is playing with a dollhouse... and in the dollhouse there's a small plastic kitchen with fake kitchen utilities in it. And the child is playing with this plastic refrigerator... and says to you they're opening the refrigerator. Well then you respond: "No, a refrigerator is an electronic appliance, it was invented in 1918, it's a compartment that provides cooling to food and drink... what you have there is a painted piece of plastic, it's not electrical, it doesn't provide cooling, there's no compartment... that's not a refrigerator kid.". But what you'd be doing is refusing to participate in the language game the kid is playing... there's a whole branch of linguistic philosophy that delves into this - Language game (philosophy) - Wikipedia

Wittgenstein argued that a word or even a sentence has meaning only as a result of the "rule" of the "game" being played. Depending on the context, for example, the utterance "Water!" could be an order, the answer to a question, or some other form of communication.

I'm not necessarily saying I buy into any one of these theories of linguistics, rather I'm saying that you have promoted a very narrow view of linguistics... I think it is very easy to accommodate the way I've spoken using a variety of these theories.

On the other hand... it is vital that we are able to abandon pointless debates. This is a pointless debate... If you wanted to study linguistics you could do it without this. If we can't abandon pointless debate we will end up derailed constantly... I'm stuck debating people who obviously have a need to undermine everything I say and prove something (to who? I don't know). And I could wind up neglecting large chunks of my life, missing out on many experiences and opportunities, wasting hours and hours explaining things that don't matter to people who won't listen anyway...

So I say again that I do not care about this, but at least I've provided you with some explanation.

Now Carry onward!

Can I take an IQ test at 10 years old?

Yes, anyone can. But don't treat it as that important.

I think his IQ is like that of an average person. He just has more practice, plays more chess, and reads books. It doesn’t mean his IQ is 140 or something.

why do we ask these questions now

Thats not the whole story. Alot of players devote their lives to football. Only a small % can become world class. Alot of it has to do with their genetics - faster, more agile, more quick witted.

It's the same with chess. Only with chess the needed genetic qualities to make you one of the best are different - Its certain that a certain level of iq is one of those qualities needed. Question is how big a role it has and how much can be compensated by other qualities. Our brains are very complicated and many would agree the concept of iq as we see it today and how we measure it is far from perfect.

Working hard is a necessary component but everybody works hard - to be the best you need genetic edge.

I agree with this person

The ugly truth about IQ is it's a pretty solid construct which people overly downplay the validity of due to ignorance, or a need to cope emotionally with being average, or a need to come off well socially, or due to some delusional notion of compassion... in reality IQ is one of the most well validated statistics social scientists have produced. It predicts performance reliably across many, many domains. It may not tell the entire story of intelligence but it tells quite alot.

This assertion is wrong on so many levels.

Please examine the professional literature. IQ is possibly the measure social scientists most regret ever putting forth. IQ tests measure many useful elements, but the raw IQ score itself was produced first because of a naive view of human mental capacities, and now because the public craves it.

You could improve your understanding with this short talk by a leading IQ expert: https://youtu.be/ih5caeD06ms?si=IuYIOD9tngDkBl0B

From an online test? I took the same test. Got a perfect 65. Knowing the answers made it possible to get every one wrong.

I don’t think genetics plays as big a role as it might in physical sports like football. Chess is fundamentally about learning, memory, and strategic thinking. Sure, some players may have a slight cognitive advantage, but the real difference comes from dedication and experience. You see it with players who start young, like Magnus Carlsen—it's not just about IQ, but how much time they've spent mastering the game.

Chess is a skill that anyone can improve with the right practice. People who devote themselves to studying the game’s patterns, tactics, and strategies tend to rise to the top. The notion that you need some inherent genetic 'gift' to be world-class feels like an oversimplification. Yes, some might pick things up faster, but the endless hours of focused training and a love for the game separates the best from the rest. IQ also doesn’t capture the full range of intelligence or abilities needed to excel in chess.

I agree that iq doesn't do the best of jobs even representing intelligence as it intends and the mental abilities needed for chess aren't nearly all included as I said earlier.

However, you saying genetics don't play a big role is odd. Given the edge intelligence gives with problem solving tasks and learning complex concepts or other abilities like memory and speed - those all are important skills in chess and I fail to see how genetics wouldnt be extremely important in chess. There are plenty of players in the top 5000 and more that share passion and endless of hours of studying but only a small % makes it.

This is akin to saying the modern usage of Myers-Briggs is A-Okay...

It's not. Whatever Binet et al intended, it has long ago flown the coop and is a joke now. The uglier truth is that people cling to IQ scores, chess ratings, and all sorts of numbers that soothe their insecurities.

The skepticism of IQ these days doesn't come so much from academic circles, it comes mainly from unqualified ignoramuses on forums (such as yourself) practicing pop-psychology while appealing to the masses and reserving for themselves the universal position as yuppies love to do. Where there is academic skepticism it's nuanced and well qualified, not the kind of sweeping dismissal that you're making... attempts to discredit and discard the entire concept fall flat on their face - there's just far too much researching validating IQ for anyone to get away with that in a serious setting. But on these forums... well it's practically gospel that IQ is not to be taken seriously.

We could trade stereotypes disguised as psycho-analysis back and fourth but that commentary is all completely removed from what the research validating IQ actually shows. If it shows I'm correct, well then maybe my armchair psychoanalysis of you is on point, but if not... maybe I just got the facts wrong. In your case... your facts are just wrong, it's that simple. It is complete nonsense to claim there is some widespread discreditation of IQ amongst social scientists. There is so much data validating IQ that your head would explode if you tried to put it all in there. For example, IQ even correlates with nerve conduction velocity, and with cranial capacity.

Chess ratings are a very good indicator of chess strength in a particular context!

I'm not saying they are not accurate, etc. I am saying that a lot of people put the cart before the horse and concentrate too much on ratings when they should be learning tactics, openings, and endgames. For the them the rating is the goal, not the objective measure of progress.

There is no improving IQ, it's basically innate. There are rare cases where shifts can occur, usually after correcting cases of childhood neglect, but there have been exhaustive attempts to improve IQ on a broad scale with things like prolonged early childhood education programs, different kinds of intelligence training... they failed miserably. They did not even budge the number 1 point if I remember correctly. This isn't a good thing, it'd be nice if humanity had the potential to greatly increase its collective intelligence quickly... but there is no evidence it's possible. I know this offends you, but dunces get offended all the time and I never allow them censor me with their duncery, I'm not making an exception here.