this is for achivemnet
What do you think GM Hikaru IQ is?

Ziryab, I enjoy talking to you... I understand you. But I observe human nature, I don't need support. Some people consider some things stupid, while others consider same things intelligent. I don't need deffending a idea that there is a number 6 and arguing with people on the other side saying that is a 9, for example.🙃

Emanuel Lasker (1894–1921): 170–180
José Raúl Capablanca (1921–1927): 170–180
Alexander Alekhine (1927–1935, 1937–1946): 175–185
Max Euwe (1935–1937): 165–175
Mikhail Botvinnik (1948–1963, intermittently): 180–190
Vasily Smyslov (1957–1958): 170–180
Mikhail Tal (1960–1961): 175–185
Tigran Petrosian (1963–1969): 165–175
Boris Spassky (1969–1972): 170–180
Bobby Fischer (1972–1975): 180–190
Anatoly Karpov (1975–1985): 170–180
Garry Kasparov (1985–2000): 180–190
Vladimir Kramnik (2000–2007): 170–180
Viswanathan Anand (2007–2013): 165–175
Magnus Carlsen (2013–2023): 190–200
Ding Liren (2023-Present): 170-180

I want to add that I have great respect for all minds. I have zero tolerance for despective definitions associated with mind of people and how a unfair structured society can judge the people.Thanks

Ziryab, I enjoy talking to you... I understand you. But I observe human nature, I don't need support. Some people consider some things stupid, while others consider same things intelligent. I don't need deffending a idea that there is a number 6 and arguing with people on the other side saying that is a 9, for example.🙃
All ideas need support. Observing human nature leads to support, but it is best if these observations are tabulated for objectivity.
Cipolla’s pamphlet is worth your time. When a person does something that harms others, but brings no benefit (and may bring harm) to that person, it is not intelligent. Cipolla’s observations of human nature is that many people in all societies are predisposed towards such destructive behavior. They are more dangerous than bandits, whose harm to others at least benefit themselves.

He didn't need to use any sources to estimate. I believe him.
Who's got the low IQ now? Stop believing things without any evidence. There have been exactly zero GMs with proven 180 IQ or over. Didn't you already get schooled about this about 40-50 pages back?
Can a low IQ person get into Mensa and score high on online IQ tests? I think I know what I'm talking about.

He didn't need to use any sources to estimate. I believe him.
Who's got the low IQ now? Stop believing things without any evidence. There have been exactly zero GMs with proven 180 IQ or over. Didn't you already get schooled about this about 40-50 pages back?
Can a low IQ person get into Mensa and score high on online IQ tests? I think I know what I'm talking about.
If you know that you are lying without a shred of evidence... than why do you do it again and again? Do you just enjoy lying that much?

He didn't need to use any sources to estimate. I believe him.
Who's got the low IQ now? Stop believing things without any evidence. There have been exactly zero GMs with proven 180 IQ or over. Didn't you already get schooled about this about 40-50 pages back?
Can a low IQ person get into Mensa and score high on online IQ tests? I think I know what I'm talking about.
If you know that you are lying without a shred of evidence... than why do you do it again and again? Do you just enjoy lying that much?
I'm not lying. I trust my mentor with my life.

Would a 120-150 IQ have 28 draws against 190 IQ Carlsen in classical games?
Absolutely no evidence that Carlsen has a 190 IQ.

Imagine thinking Hikaru isn't smart nor intelligent. So delusional.
No one says that. Most posts here say he likely has above average intelligence, but we have no basis for believing he is one of the most intelligent people on Earth.

Imagine thinking Hikaru isn't smart nor intelligent. So delusional.
No one says that. Most posts here say he likely has above average intelligence, but we have no basis for believing he is one of the most intelligent people on Earth.
Even if someone believes that, it's fine. But Nepotamy claims that he knows. There is no way that can be called other than a bare faced lie.
And then when he was caught with the lie (people pointing out that Steinitz died before IQ tests were invented), he responded by repeating the lies again and again.

Emanuel Lasker (1894–1921): 170–180
José Raúl Capablanca (1921–1927): 170–180
Alexander Alekhine (1927–1935, 1937–1946): 175–185
Max Euwe (1935–1937): 165–175
Mikhail Botvinnik (1948–1963, intermittently): 180–190
Vasily Smyslov (1957–1958): 170–180
Mikhail Tal (1960–1961): 175–185
Tigran Petrosian (1963–1969): 165–175
Boris Spassky (1969–1972): 170–180
Bobby Fischer (1972–1975): 180–190
Anatoly Karpov (1975–1985): 170–180
Garry Kasparov (1985–2000): 180–190
Vladimir Kramnik (2000–2007): 170–180
Viswanathan Anand (2007–2013): 165–175
Magnus Carlsen (2013–2023): 190–200
Ding Liren (2023-Present): 170-180
The only person on this list known to have taken a professionally administered IQ test with publicly announced results was Kasparov, and his real IQ is at least 50 points lower than the figure you have pulled out of thin air.

He didn't need to use any sources to estimate. I believe him.
Who's got the low IQ now? Stop believing things without any evidence. There have been exactly zero GMs with proven 180 IQ or over. Didn't you already get schooled about this about 40-50 pages back?
Can a low IQ person get into Mensa and score high on online IQ tests? I think I know what I'm talking about.
But if your theories concerning elo ratings and IQ are correct shouldn't you have a much higher rating here on chess.com?

he had an IQ of 160

Ziryab, I enjoy talking to you... I understand you. But I observe human nature, I don't need support. Some people consider some things stupid, while others consider same things intelligent. I don't need deffending a idea that there is a number 6 and arguing with people on the other side saying that is a 9, for example.🙃
All ideas need support. Observing human nature leads to support, but it is best if these observations are tabulated for objectivity.
Cipolla’s pamphlet is worth your time. When a person does something that harms others, but brings no benefit (and may bring harm) to that person, it is not intelligent. Cipolla’s observations of human nature is that many people in all societies are predisposed towards such destructive behavior. They are more dangerous than bandits, whose harm to others at least benefit themselves.
...As I said,I understund you.On these aspect,a popular Artist from mi land said "My grandfather was a brave man, he was only afraid of idiots.
I asked him why, and he answered; Because there are too many of them, and by being a majority they could even elect a president" - Facundo Cabral .

he had an IQ of 160
Ty for data.I imagine the moment when serious profesionals looking the papers with evaluations of Albert and appearing suddenly the 160 Ducks in a row.It must have been very emotional.
I particularly think all people is smart In one or other way.
Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences might be useful in support, but don’t push it too far. Some people, too many people, are stup*d. These people are the most dangerous. See