What do you think GM Hikaru IQ is?

Sort:
Avatar of Nepotamy
aoidaiki wrote:
Nepotamy wrote:

Literally so pathetic. Low-rated players think they have any hope to become a GM just because they think a super-grandmaster has 102 IQ. So foolish. 

Nope, I don't think I can improve much anymore, I've been playing too long / I'm too old.

Kasparov took a real IQ test, and scored 135.

Little kids talk about pretend IQ tests, and rate all world champions (like Kasparov) near 200. These kids know nothing about chess or IQ.

You forgot to mention that he took that IQ test when he was retired in 2011.

Avatar of Nepotamy
Ziryab wrote:
Nepotamy wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
Nepotamy wrote:
aoidaiki wrote:
Nepotamy wrote:

You can easily watch the video of him taking the IQ test. He didn't take it seriously. There's no proof that he has 102 IQ. There is no way a super-grandmaster can have a 102 IQ. It's simply not possible.

You don't know what you're talking about.

The two biggest misconceptions among non players:

1) Chess skill is proportional to intelligence
2) Chess skill is proportional to calculation

As @Ziryab mentioned there have been studies that show these are misconceptions... although experienced players already knew.

I easily found a research paper here that contradicts what you said. Of course, calculation and IQ are proportional to chess skill... What is your logic here? https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160913124722.htm#:~:text=Summary%3A,indicates%20a%20comprehensive%20new%20study.https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160913124722.htm#:~:text=Summary%3A,indicates%20a%20comprehensive%20new%20study.

 

Your link is to a new article about the research. Here's a link to the article. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289616301593?via%3Dihub

You need institutional access to access the whole. I have such access. Go back in this thread several pages and you'll see that I shared the article several weeks ago.

Here's the abstract:
Why are some people more skilled in complex domains than other people? Here, we conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the relationship between cognitive ability and skill in chess. Chess skill correlated positively and significantly with fluid reasoning (Gf) (r = 0.24), comprehension-knowledge (Gc) (r = 0.22), short-term memory (Gsm) (r = 0.25), and processing speed (Gs) (r = 0.24); the meta-analytic average of the correlations was (r = 0.24). Moreover, the correlation between Gf and chess skill was moderated by age (r= 0.32 for youth samples vs.
r = 0.11 for adult samples), and skill level (r = 0.32 for unranked samples vs. r = 0.14 for ranked samples). Interestingly, chess skill correlated more strongly with numerical ability (r = 0.35) than with verbal ability (r = 0.19) or visuospatial ability (r = 0.13). The results suggest that cognitive ability contributes meaningfully to individual differences in chess skill, particularly in young chess players and/or at lower levels of skill.


Nothing in this research contributes meaningfully to a discussion of the IQ of GMs.

Keep falsely thinking that Hikaru's IQ is 102. 

We don't know his IQ. He has not taken a test under appropriate conditions.

Very few GMs have taken an IQ test so far as has been publicly revealed. That's why there is no data for evaluating the grandiose claims of those who link chess skill to notions of genius. There is good reason to believe that most GMs are above average intelligence.

Someone who has done better than even Bobby Fischer with his 187 IQ at attaining the grandmaster rank can't be 102 IQ. 

Avatar of aoidaiki
Nepotamy wrote:
aoidaiki wrote:
Nepotamy wrote:

Literally so pathetic. Low-rated players think they have any hope to become a GM just because they think a super-grandmaster has 102 IQ. So foolish. 

Nope, I don't think I can improve much anymore, I've been playing too long / I'm too old.

Kasparov took a real IQ test, and scored 135.

Little kids talk about pretend IQ tests, and rate all world champions (like Kasparov) near 200. These kids know nothing about chess or IQ.

You forgot to mention that he took that IQ test when he was retired in 2011.

. . .

Your posts are indistinguishable from a stupid person's. Don't you have some word game topic you should be posting in?

Avatar of Ziryab
Nepotamy wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
Nepotamy wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
Nepotamy wrote:
aoidaiki wrote:
Nepotamy wrote:

You can easily watch the video of him taking the IQ test. He didn't take it seriously. There's no proof that he has 102 IQ. There is no way a super-grandmaster can have a 102 IQ. It's simply not possible.

You don't know what you're talking about.

The two biggest misconceptions among non players:

1) Chess skill is proportional to intelligence
2) Chess skill is proportional to calculation

As @Ziryab mentioned there have been studies that show these are misconceptions... although experienced players already knew.

I easily found a research paper here that contradicts what you said. Of course, calculation and IQ are proportional to chess skill... What is your logic here? https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160913124722.htm#:~:text=Summary%3A,indicates%20a%20comprehensive%20new%20study.https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160913124722.htm#:~:text=Summary%3A,indicates%20a%20comprehensive%20new%20study.

 

Your link is to a new article about the research. Here's a link to the article. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289616301593?via%3Dihub

You need institutional access to access the whole. I have such access. Go back in this thread several pages and you'll see that I shared the article several weeks ago.

Here's the abstract:
Why are some people more skilled in complex domains than other people? Here, we conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the relationship between cognitive ability and skill in chess. Chess skill correlated positively and significantly with fluid reasoning (Gf) (r = 0.24), comprehension-knowledge (Gc) (r = 0.22), short-term memory (Gsm) (r = 0.25), and processing speed (Gs) (r = 0.24); the meta-analytic average of the correlations was (r = 0.24). Moreover, the correlation between Gf and chess skill was moderated by age (r= 0.32 for youth samples vs.
r = 0.11 for adult samples), and skill level (r = 0.32 for unranked samples vs. r = 0.14 for ranked samples). Interestingly, chess skill correlated more strongly with numerical ability (r = 0.35) than with verbal ability (r = 0.19) or visuospatial ability (r = 0.13). The results suggest that cognitive ability contributes meaningfully to individual differences in chess skill, particularly in young chess players and/or at lower levels of skill.


Nothing in this research contributes meaningfully to a discussion of the IQ of GMs.

Keep falsely thinking that Hikaru's IQ is 102. 

We don't know his IQ. He has not taken a test under appropriate conditions.

Very few GMs have taken an IQ test so far as has been publicly revealed. That's why there is no data for evaluating the grandiose claims of those who link chess skill to notions of genius. There is good reason to believe that most GMs are above average intelligence.

Someone who has done better than even Bobby Fischer with his 187 IQ at attaining the grandmaster rank can't be 102 IQ. 

 

We do not have credible evidence of Fischer's IQ. The standardized test he took in junior high is not designed to measure IQ and all we know about it is an estimate more than a decade after the fact by a teacher who claims to have seen his standardized test scores.

No test can reliably measure IQ substantially above 150, and those that go that high are often quite variable (+/- 15 points) when the test is repeated. IQ scores are a bone psychologists throw to the public because they are ravenous for simplicity. 162 is a perfect score on an IQ test. The test Fischer took was not such a test.

Avatar of Deadmanparty

IQ tests are not politically correct.  They show that there are IQ tendencies that are related to race, which is not what certain people like.

Avatar of blueemu
SpacePodz wrote:
Probably slightly higher than average

This.

Avatar of Mystical-Man

I'm sure Hikaru is a smart person but I know IQ tests aren't even accurate most of the time. One time, someone I knew took a test and he received a 237 IQ.

Avatar of Deadmanparty

I suppose one must question the tool being used.

Avatar of Ziryab
Deadmanparty wrote:

IQ tests are not politically correct.  They show that there are IQ tendencies that are related to race, which is not what certain people like.

The Bell Curve (1994) was shown to have cherry-picked its data, among many other errors.

Avatar of Deadmanparty
Ziryab wrote:
Deadmanparty wrote:

IQ tests are not politically correct.  They show that there are IQ tendencies that are related to race, which is not what certain people like.

The Bell Curve (1994) was shown to have cherry-picked its data, among many other errors.

Of course you will believe what you want to believe.

 

The US military had been running IQ tests for decades that reflect the same thing.

 

In the US SAT and ACT test scores reflect the same thing.

 

But as I said, not something most want to see.

Avatar of Ziryab

ASVAB, SAT, ACT are each very different tests. But, yes, all three have been shown to have cultural biases. https://nrcgt.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/953/2015/04/rm04204.pdf



I never took the SAT or ACT because the colleges I applied to accepted the PSAT, which I had taken twice. I proctored the ACT test for a couple of years and so spent many Saturdays examining the test.

I took the ASVAB as a favor to my brother when he was "home town recruiter", and then took the GRE when I was contemplating graduate school. The letter asking me to apply to graduate school called my GRE scores, "very impressive", but I was in grad school with two others who had higher scores.

None of these tests produce IQ scores. Nonetheless, one can assume that high scores on any of them would predict a high score on an IQ test as well.

Avatar of Deadmanparty

You are a well known expert in your own mind, hypocrite to boot.

 

IQ tests created by white people are so culturally biased that Asians score higher than whites.

Avatar of Nepotamy
aoidaiki wrote:
Nepotamy wrote:
aoidaiki wrote:
Nepotamy wrote:

Literally so pathetic. Low-rated players think they have any hope to become a GM just because they think a super-grandmaster has 102 IQ. So foolish. 

Nope, I don't think I can improve much anymore, I've been playing too long / I'm too old.

Kasparov took a real IQ test, and scored 135.

Little kids talk about pretend IQ tests, and rate all world champions (like Kasparov) near 200. These kids know nothing about chess or IQ.

You forgot to mention that he took that IQ test when he was retired in 2011.

. . .

Your posts are indistinguishable from a stupid person's. Don't you have some word game topic you should be posting in?

That ad hominem. Lol. You don't have an actual argument. Tell you what. You go take that online IQ test I posted in December and see how bad you'll do on it. I'll tell you my score: 158. 

Avatar of Nepotamy
Ziryab wrote:
Nepotamy wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
Nepotamy wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
Nepotamy wrote:
aoidaiki wrote:
Nepotamy wrote:

You can easily watch the video of him taking the IQ test. He didn't take it seriously. There's no proof that he has 102 IQ. There is no way a super-grandmaster can have a 102 IQ. It's simply not possible.

You don't know what you're talking about.

The two biggest misconceptions among non players:

1) Chess skill is proportional to intelligence
2) Chess skill is proportional to calculation

As @Ziryab mentioned there have been studies that show these are misconceptions... although experienced players already knew.

I easily found a research paper here that contradicts what you said. Of course, calculation and IQ are proportional to chess skill... What is your logic here? https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160913124722.htm#:~:text=Summary%3A,indicates%20a%20comprehensive%20new%20study.https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160913124722.htm#:~:text=Summary%3A,indicates%20a%20comprehensive%20new%20study.

 

Your link is to a new article about the research. Here's a link to the article. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289616301593?via%3Dihub

You need institutional access to access the whole. I have such access. Go back in this thread several pages and you'll see that I shared the article several weeks ago.

Here's the abstract:
Why are some people more skilled in complex domains than other people? Here, we conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the relationship between cognitive ability and skill in chess. Chess skill correlated positively and significantly with fluid reasoning (Gf) (r = 0.24), comprehension-knowledge (Gc) (r = 0.22), short-term memory (Gsm) (r = 0.25), and processing speed (Gs) (r = 0.24); the meta-analytic average of the correlations was (r = 0.24). Moreover, the correlation between Gf and chess skill was moderated by age (r= 0.32 for youth samples vs.
r = 0.11 for adult samples), and skill level (r = 0.32 for unranked samples vs. r = 0.14 for ranked samples). Interestingly, chess skill correlated more strongly with numerical ability (r = 0.35) than with verbal ability (r = 0.19) or visuospatial ability (r = 0.13). The results suggest that cognitive ability contributes meaningfully to individual differences in chess skill, particularly in young chess players and/or at lower levels of skill.


Nothing in this research contributes meaningfully to a discussion of the IQ of GMs.

Keep falsely thinking that Hikaru's IQ is 102. 

We don't know his IQ. He has not taken a test under appropriate conditions.

Very few GMs have taken an IQ test so far as has been publicly revealed. That's why there is no data for evaluating the grandiose claims of those who link chess skill to notions of genius. There is good reason to believe that most GMs are above average intelligence.

Someone who has done better than even Bobby Fischer with his 187 IQ at attaining the grandmaster rank can't be 102 IQ. 

 

We do not have credible evidence of Fischer's IQ. The standardized test he took in junior high is not designed to measure IQ and all we know about it is an estimate more than a decade after the fact by a teacher who claims to have seen his standardized test scores.

No test can reliably measure IQ substantially above 150, and those that go that high are often quite variable (+/- 15 points) when the test is repeated. IQ scores are a bone psychologists throw to the public because they are ravenous for simplicity. 162 is a perfect score on an IQ test. The test Fischer took was not such a test.

162 is the highest score on the UK test with an SD of 24. 

Avatar of exceptionalfork
Nepotamy wrote:
aoidaiki wrote:
Nepotamy wrote:
aoidaiki wrote:
Nepotamy wrote:

Literally so pathetic. Low-rated players think they have any hope to become a GM just because they think a super-grandmaster has 102 IQ. So foolish. 

Nope, I don't think I can improve much anymore, I've been playing too long / I'm too old.

Kasparov took a real IQ test, and scored 135.

Little kids talk about pretend IQ tests, and rate all world champions (like Kasparov) near 200. These kids know nothing about chess or IQ.

You forgot to mention that he took that IQ test when he was retired in 2011.

. . .

Your posts are indistinguishable from a stupid person's. Don't you have some word game topic you should be posting in?

That ad hominem. Lol. You don't have an actual argument. Tell you what. You go take that online IQ test I posted in December and see how bad you'll do on it. I'll tell you my score: 158. 

Is the only reason you believe that test because you got a good score on it?

You probably got like 70 or 80 on the MENSA test so you think it's inaccurate, but I'm sure it's more accurate than that random one.

Avatar of Deadmanparty

IQ tests are been shown to have correlation to academic success.

Avatar of Deadmanparty

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/11/does-iq-determine-success-a-psychologist-weighs-in.html

Avatar of Ziryab
Deadmanparty wrote:

IQ tests are been shown to have correlation to academic success.

I've seen no one disputing that.

Avatar of Nepotamy
exceptionalfork wrote:
Nepotamy wrote:
aoidaiki wrote:
Nepotamy wrote:
aoidaiki wrote:
Nepotamy wrote:

Literally so pathetic. Low-rated players think they have any hope to become a GM just because they think a super-grandmaster has 102 IQ. So foolish. 

Nope, I don't think I can improve much anymore, I've been playing too long / I'm too old.

Kasparov took a real IQ test, and scored 135.

Little kids talk about pretend IQ tests, and rate all world champions (like Kasparov) near 200. These kids know nothing about chess or IQ.

You forgot to mention that he took that IQ test when he was retired in 2011.

. . .

Your posts are indistinguishable from a stupid person's. Don't you have some word game topic you should be posting in?

That ad hominem. Lol. You don't have an actual argument. Tell you what. You go take that online IQ test I posted in December and see how bad you'll do on it. I'll tell you my score: 158. 

Is the only reason you believe that test because you got a good score on it?

You probably got like 70 or 80 on the MENSA test so you think it's inaccurate, but I'm sure it's more accurate than that random one.

I easily got into Mensa. Try again.

Avatar of exceptionalfork
Nepotamy wrote:
exceptionalfork wrote:
Nepotamy wrote:
aoidaiki wrote:
Nepotamy wrote:
aoidaiki wrote:
Nepotamy wrote:

Literally so pathetic. Low-rated players think they have any hope to become a GM just because they think a super-grandmaster has 102 IQ. So foolish. 

Nope, I don't think I can improve much anymore, I've been playing too long / I'm too old.

Kasparov took a real IQ test, and scored 135.

Little kids talk about pretend IQ tests, and rate all world champions (like Kasparov) near 200. These kids know nothing about chess or IQ.

You forgot to mention that he took that IQ test when he was retired in 2011.

. . .

Your posts are indistinguishable from a stupid person's. Don't you have some word game topic you should be posting in?

That ad hominem. Lol. You don't have an actual argument. Tell you what. You go take that online IQ test I posted in December and see how bad you'll do on it. I'll tell you my score: 158. 

Is the only reason you believe that test because you got a good score on it?

You probably got like 70 or 80 on the MENSA test so you think it's inaccurate, but I'm sure it's more accurate than that random one.

I easily got into Mensa. Try again.

You never shared your test scores there. Why? Why are you hiding your Mensa test scores but have no shame in sharing the other test that you probably took multiple times to get as high as you did?