But the original question assumes causality.
What does your chess rating say about your overall IQ?
Sort:
Lmao chess is a board game. A hard one, a beautiful one, but still a board game. I’m absolutely positive 2000 elo players are not all geniuses…not even 20% percent…
Feb 27, 2024
0
#25
Skye_1983 wrote:
Chess rating is never and will never be connected to your overall IQ.
you're right
Feb 27, 2024
0
#26
Optimissed wrote:
I thought that Nakamura is a professional chess player who is in competition with the others. If you think the IQ test he took gave an accurate reflection of his mental ability, that would appear to be your conclusion, for better or for worse .... and maybe Hikaru's but I've no idea what he's said about this. It certainly doesn't reflect the opinions of everyone here.
In the 1940s an American baseball phenomenon named Clint Hartung, playing in the US Armed forces competition and other amateur competitions, was so good that many major league teams engaged in a bidding war to sign him. He was so talented that most experts believed he would be an instant star and become one of the greatest players ever. After a brief undistinguished career he fizzled out--not through injury problems, he just wasn't really that good. His name became a byword in baseball circles for being misjudged because one's attributes seemed overwhelmingly positive.
Sometimes "the opinions of everyone here" turn out to be hokum, and there is more to success in many areas than raw talent. Nakamura has done very well in chess, but that is not grounds to think his test results and his own opinion of his general intelligence are incorrect.
Feb 27, 2024
0
#27
llama_l wrote:
medelpad wrote:
#3 The test said 102 also, Hikaru said in a interview that that test was very inaccurate and that his IQ obviously is higher than 102.
What does he mean "obviously?"
I would have guessed 100 for him.
Online tests are easy... the fact that he only scored 100 on an online test...
I also saw a clip of it. He was struggling on really easy questions... which is fine, he's not a bad person or anything, I'm just saying what I saw.
Online tests are scams
Feb 27, 2024
0
#28
Skye_1983 wrote:
Chess rating is never and will never be connected to your overall IQ.
fr
Feb 27, 2024
0
#29
Optimissed wrote:
Well, I'll tell you what. There's certainly a strong correlation between IQ and those who think that IQ correlates positively with chess ability.
Yet many people of average or lower IQ think chess is an activity reserved for "brainiacs" and is beyond their ability, and there seems to be quite a few chessplayers here who don't believe that. Does this mean that the opinion you mention correlates with a lower IQ than you seem to surmise?
Feb 27, 2024
0
#30
Optimissed wrote:
Many people misunderstand what "correlation between" means. It doesn't mean "causes" or even "is always found to be in conjunction with". It's a randomly based, statistical probability.
The general-English definition (earliest known usage 1561) "implying intimate or necessary connection" seems to be what most here are using. The statistical sciences definition you use is not inconsistent with the proposition that great chess achievement need not pair with high IQ; so there is no reason to think that someone with an IQ of 102 cannot be one of the world's best chess players.
Feb 27, 2024
0
#31
Optimissed wrote:
Yes but then, they (people of average or lower IQ who think chess is an activity reserved for "brainiacs" and is beyond their ability) DON'T play chess, do they. This referendum is pretty much confined to those who DO play chess.
Still, the correlation seems to be between "lower" IQ and the opinion that high IQ and chess prowess are linked. And where did you come up with the idea that people of average intelligence "DON'T play chess"?
Feb 27, 2024
0
#32
Optimissed wrote:
I'm afraid you don't seem very good at putting arguments together. You must be able to do better than that. You once told me that your IQ was measured at 168.
I guess that must be another indication that high IQ scores don't correlate with all forms of intellectual achievement.
Optimissed wrote:
mpaetz wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
I'm afraid you don't seem very good at putting arguments together. You must be able to do better than that. You once told me that your IQ was measured at 168.
I guess that must be another indication that high IQ scores don't correlate with all forms of intellectual achievement.
It's a single instance only and on other occasions I've noticed you being quite clever so don't worry. You would do best to accept that I might be right and that you may conceivably be confused on this question only and then try to think why, perhaps.
Of course the British guy is using fancy pants words😂
Feb 27, 2024
0
#34
Just going to mention, I am terrible at chess, with my rating being 750ish. Meanwhile, I am above average, so I think this is inaccurate, as mentioned before by others. So, while there is some correlation, chess is more about a certain area of IQ, rather than the overall IQ.
Feb 27, 2024
0
#35
Optimissed wrote:
You misunderstand the idea of chess ability correlating positively with IQ. Also, I'm afraid that you mustn't have been able to understand the post which you wrote and I replied to. I assumed that "people of average or lower IQ who think chess is an activity reserved for "brainiacs" and is beyond their ability" don't play chess. They're your words and I had assumed that it was fundamental to your argument, such as it was, that they didn't play. You really aren't making any sense at the moment. Probably because you're arguing from a losing position.
My experience with chess is that 90+% of players DO think that mastery of the game is beyond their abilities.
Optimissed wrote:
RecRoomBoy537 wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
mpaetz wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
I'm afraid you don't seem very good at putting arguments together. You must be able to do better than that. You once told me that your IQ was measured at 168.
I guess that must be another indication that high IQ scores don't correlate with all forms of intellectual achievement.
It's a single instance only and on other occasions I've noticed you being quite clever so don't worry. You would do best to accept that I might be right and that you may conceivably be confused on this question only and then try to think why, perhaps.
Of course the British guy is using fancy pants words😂
I know and I'm sorry. Do you think I should keep everything simple when talking to Americans?
If so, I'll try harder next time.
It’s not that deep bro
Feb 27, 2024
0
#37
Optimissed wrote:
mpaetz wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Many people misunderstand what "correlation between" means. It doesn't mean "causes" or even "is always found to be in conjunction with". It's a randomly based, statistical probability.
The general-English definition (earliest known usage 1561) "implying intimate or necessary connection" seems to be what most here are using. The statistical sciences definition you use is not inconsistent with the proposition that great chess achievement need not pair with high IQ; so there is no reason to think that someone with an IQ of 102 cannot be one of the world's best chess players.
That's an incorrect definition and in any case, you shouldn't rely on a dictionary to define a word that's slightly more conceptually complex than "cat" and "dog".
First, that definition is from OED and has been in use throughout the English-speaking world for centuries. I realize that you prefer your own understanding to that of the world at large, but when most people use the word, they do believe it implies connectivity. The statistician's definition you prefer doesn't indicate that the relation is anything more than random chance (as you admit); so use of it to imply that world-class players necessarily have extremely high IQs is inappropriate.
Every time I’ve eaten a cheese sandwich while watching a tournament, Hikaru lost. Every single time!
Feb 27, 2024
0
#39
Whatever some people may think, there are more than one correct definitions of many words in the English language. For example, should you ask the bellhop, when checking into a hotel, to get your luggage out of your boot, you would be extremely surprised should they attempt to remove your footwear.
No matter which definition of "correlate" individuals may prefer, it is clear that the OP implies a degree of causality. I have argued against that view, and your rejection of his definition buttresses my argument. It is amusing that the wiki definition you supply does leave open the possibility of "dependence" on the other "variable". Of course it is also amusing that you provide a definition to support your opinion and then question the reliability of the source.
Anyway, you also misrepresented the Nakamura thing.
The "Nakamura thing" is someone publicly taking a standard IQ test, getting a result, and repeatedly confirming that he is satisfied the test and the result is legitimate. Those who have a baseless opinion that IQ is more important to chess success than anything else can believe any poppycock they wish, but why should I take your opinion over Hiraku's?