Maybe you missed the fact that a moderator deleted your previous post on the matter. But by all means, keep going...
He didn't delete mpaetz's comments calling me 90 IQ.
Because you were the instigator, and gave a list of people. Someone of reasonable IQ would see this distinction. 
Chess is mostly memorisation, bar some middle game tactics, but then tactics are also pre determined, there are so many of them in a game of chess. There is bare minimal link between being intelligent and being good at chess. Intelligent people also do not waste their lives playing an inherently meaningless game and instead decide to do something more meaningful, productive and most likely, more beneficial in a monetary sense bearing in mind making a living from chess is extremely difficult.
Perhaps now the new trend of the I Q result is by Fans voting ?
He’s more knowledgable than me, and I’m vastly your superior.
Lol? I remember you scoring lower than me on an IQ test, and he thought basketball was the same as chess.
I realize this is a little too complex for you, but when I mentioned scoring 65 in an online IQ test, there was an important point. I scored the minimum possible. It was possible to do this because I knew the correct answer to every question and avoided every one. The possible scores ranged from 135 to 65. I know this because I achieved both scores. The 65 was my second effort.
Neither score was of any value for estimating my true IQ. It was an online test.
It was the Raven's 2 Progressive Matrices test, a real IQ test. 135 isn't the highest score.
Not the one I took.
that's fine if you don't want to believe my mentor. keep coping.
i was only trying to end this thread
If your mentor has said what you have claimed, then you need a better mentor.
Please take as a metaphor, The Sith code of Star Wars, says that the student needs to defeat his mentor. That is what Vader accomplishes correctly,even when Palpatine is apparently his esoteric and material dad, secretly... I'm on the Light side, but Grey Jedis can observe the dark side a bit to learn.Only consider that not necessarily need to think exactly as mentors all time in everyways...
All this blabbering about how high IQs are and what kind of IQ tests are better is a load of bushwa. I've never considered it of paramount importance or been impressed by those who boast about their score. (I scored very high on my IQ test when young--undoubtedly I'v slowed down considerably at age 75.) IQ is just one aspect of cognitive function; actual successful intellectual activity requires much more. I've seen "dullards" that need a lot of varying explanations to comprehend what I thought were basic concepts to go on and develop great ideas, and I've seen geniuses in their field that were unable to successfully cope with simple quotidian tasks.
that's fine if you don't want to believe my mentor. keep coping.
i was only trying to end this thread
I know that it's hard for someone with your (estimated) IQ to understand, but someone quoting a nameless "mentor" to give baseless or disproved data will not convince anyone that the question has been definitively answered.
how ironic coming from someone with a <70 IQ. thinking basketball is the same as chess is the dumbest thing i've ever heard
Maybe you missed the fact that a moderator deleted your previous post on the matter. But by all means, keep going...
He didn't delete mpaetz's comments calling me 90 IQ.
Because you were the instigator, and gave a list of people. Someone of reasonable IQ would see this distinction.
That's ok. I'll keep doing it if his comments don't get deleted.
that's fine if you don't want to believe my mentor. keep coping.
i was only trying to end this thread
If your mentor has said what you have claimed, then you need a better mentor.
he's way smarter than you
that's fine if you don't want to believe my mentor. keep coping.
i was only trying to end this thread
If your mentor has said what you have claimed, then you need a better mentor.
he's way smarter than you
Too bad he doesn't exist.
You just stole that list from a random webpage, and decided to look cool with it, didn't you? Well, it didn't exactly work.
that's fine if you don't want to believe my mentor. keep coping.
i was only trying to end this thread
If your mentor has said what you have claimed, then you need a better mentor.
he's way smarter than you
Too bad he doesn't exist.
You just stole that list from a random webpage, and decided to look cool with it, didn't you? Well, it didn't exactly work.
what website then
Take your lightsaber.... Strike down with furious and cut chains that inchained you to your mentor that your know about the dark side will be end and be completed !
Levy Rozman has a higher IQ than most GMs. John Nunn is an exception. Rozman is only an IM.
lots of coping on here
It can go both ways.
I often see the "You have to be a genius to be great at chess!" viewpoint as its own kind of coping mechanism, as well.
By that I mean, a lot of players point at "IQ" or intelligence in general as the reason they may struggle at chess. Many (not all, to be fair ... but many) would rather pin the blame on some abstract number than look critically at their own efforts ...
Then they simultaneously dismiss the tremendous amount of work and effort that top players have put into the game by simply labelling them "geniuses" - as if these players simply floated to their high levels by accident alone.
If only we knew the endless hours of toiling and struggling that they endured to reach their peaks ...