Forums

# What does your chess rating say about your overall IQ?

Sort:

That isn't what correlation means. Simple as that and if you don't believe me, ask someone else who knows what it means.

End of argument. Just accept that most people commenting on this thread who have used the word "correlation" will know what it means.

I googled and the first thing up was the Wiki article:

Correlation

Wikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Correlation

In statistics, correlation or dependence is any statistical relationship, whether causal or not, between two random variables or bivariate data.

‎Pearson correlation coefficient · ‎Cross-correlation · ‎Intraclass correlation

It seems confused, I think, since it implies that a synonym is dependence. My late brother used to edit Wiki articles on his subjects of expertise. He told me that there's a big problem on wiki with people deleting correct articles and substituting bad ones. However, "two events (A and B) are statistically dependent if the probability that A occurs given B has already occurred is different than the separate probability of A occurring." (sic) different from, not than.

Statistical dependence doesn't imply a causal relationship. Many people reading it will assume it does and the incorrect perception of "correlation" will be strengthened.

The key criterion is "whether causal or not". That means that any implied connection or causal dependence is irrelevant to correlation.

It's important to remember that correlation doesn't necessarily imply causality. That's because a high IQ doesn't mean someone will be great at chess. It will only mean that, everything else being equal, the person with the higher IQ would be expected to do better ON AVERAGE. Other important factors include fighting spirit and determination, although that's also a factor in scoring high on an IQ test, since at the higher levels they are tough going. Concentration is important in chess but again, is important in doing IQ tests. Memory is more important in chess than it should be in IQ tests.

Every time I’ve eaten a cheese sandwich while watching a tournament, Hikaru lost. Every single time!

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.

I probably go’s on the cloud

Very little

mpaetz wrote:

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.

When you have a word with a technical meaning, it's best to stick with the technical meaning when it's being used in that meaning, as it is here. You sound as if you just decided to change the meaning of "correlation" because it suited your argument to do so.

If you're amused at my intellectual honesty then I'm sorry but we're too far apart to ever be able to communicate.

no

Optimissed wrote:

When you have a word with a technical meaning, it's best to stick with the technical meaning when it's being used in that meaning, as it is here. You sound as if you just decided to change the meaning of "correlation" because it suited your argument to do so.

Actually, the word has had exactly the meaning I ascribe to it since its introduction into the English language about 500 years ago. When I use it in that sense I am not "changing the meaning" just because a particular academic discipline has used it (since about 1890) in a technical sense within its own purview. The OP uses it in a manner that clearly proposes a causational link between the two "variables".

Just use the word “association” instead of the word “correlation” and avoid arguing ad Infinitum.

At the highest level in chess, one needs a very strong memory for the memorizing of countless lines and opening variations, combined with strong visualization and spatial awareness. These very same skills are often conducive to performing well on IQ tests (with exceptions), which is often why many top players have been known to possess a high IQ. Outside of the top level of chess play, I doubt there is a strong correlation, as a 1200 rated player is usually much closer to a 2200 in terms of innate ability than the 2200 is to a super GM.

According to Le Hoang Minh Son, this is an estimation for the correlation between your chess rating and your IQ:

*Considering you play chess 2 hours a day and do not participate in professional chess, this is the connection between the rating you gain in 1 year and your IQ, assuming that your beginning elo is 0

-From 0 to 800-1400: 90-110 IQ (average intelligence)

-From 0 to 1400-1600: 110-125 IQ (above average intelligence or smart)

-From 0 to 1600-2000: 125-135 (moderately gifted or very smart)

-From 0 to 2000+ : 135-160 (genius)

P/s: while this might not apply to everyone, it is generally acceptable.

People who don't waste time on chess: 160+ IQ

MrBurger wrote:
llama_l 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

There are some very good online IQ tests. That test he took was crap though.

#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.

He should take another online IQ test and actually take it seriously. I'll probably send him a link to it.

I expect that if your IQ is significantly below average, your chess playing is unlikely to be great.

But there's a huge motivational factor at play.

If you do anything two hours a day, you are likely to be better at it than the person with the world's highest IQ who has never played more than a dozen games. Much of chess, especially as played against time, is recognizing patterns and responding to them. That's what repetition does - it trains you in patterns. It introduces you to new patterns. It trains you where to expect traps and pitfalls.

According to Le Hoang Minh Son, this is an estimation for the correlation between your chess rating and your IQ:

*Considering you play chess 2 hours a day and do not participate in professional chess, this is the connection between the rating you gain in 1 year and your IQ, assuming that your beginning elo is 0

-From 0 to 800-1400: 90-110 IQ (average intelligence)

-From 0 to 1400-1600: 110-125 IQ (above average intelligence or smart)

-From 0 to 1600-2000: 125-135 (moderately gifted or very smart)

-From 0 to 2000+ : 135-160 (genius)

P/s: while this might not apply to everyone, it is generally acceptable.

This is complete nonsense. It's not at all how IQ is measured, nor is chess progression representative of one's IQ.

There are so many factors that contribute the speed of one's progress in chess (motivation, resources, manner of practice, level of opponents, amount of personal feedback/instruction, and so on).

And proper IQ testing involves extensive, structured methodology that goes far beyond some arbitrary metric such as, "Hey, what's your chess rating?"

To distill everything down into two components ("Two hours a day to reach your Elo after one year! This tells you your IQ!") and to claim that this has any sort of merit is ... simply ridiculous.