elementary-1200
Begginer-1500
Intermediate-1800
What IQ do you have to have to be a grandmaster?
Sort:
IQ tests are not accurate measures of intelligence. More than that, there is no universal IQ scale; all IQ tests produce different results, because the score is based on a group of people who have taken that test. 100 is that groups average score, under 100 is below the average score, and above 100 is above average.
richie_and_oprah wrote:
iq is a great measure of intelligence but has little to do with chess acumen directly
intelligence being defined as: ability to learn from experience ... iq is a very reliable guide to the capacity of a person to learn but does not mean they have learned
what is more important for chess than raw intelligence is:
~ good memory
~ strong pattern recognition
~ visualization skills
I have the first two but lack the third one. I can only see three moves ahead at the most. Do you think these could be increased?
IQ does not include forms of intelligences such as linguistic intelligence, musical intelligence, spacial inteligence, etc. Also, people from different cultures are at a disadvantage.
I'll get a link for you sometime.
And I'm not saying this because I'm below average or something; I'm actually above average in my age group.
The average IQ is 100. The average claimed IQ on the internet is over 150. There is a slight discrepancy. It's sort of like how most people on the internet can bench 300 and run a five minute mile. Another important thing is that IQ is just an arbitrary number that truly means nothing. It's like comparing SAT scores to chess ability. Future grandmasters are the people who don't ask if their IQ is high enough on the internet because they're busy studying and improving their chess.
I'd say that since your rating is 962 that you should start practicing more :P
Zigwurst wrote:
I'd say that since your rating is 962 that you should start practicing more :P
I wouldn't go by that. I do extremely terrible online, but beat a lot of players in my middle school club most of the time.
DarknisMetalDragon wrote:
Zigwurst wrote:
I'd say that since your rating is 962 that you should start practicing more :P
I wouldn't go by that. I do extremely terrible online, but beat a lot of players in my middle school club most of the time.
So would i. maybe its because everyone else is extremely crap?
Most everyone in that age group isn't so good (take me for an example).
I think it was Malcolm Gladwell who popularized the idea that it is more a matter of work (10 000 hours of good practice to achieve mastery) than IQ that determines success. Most of the "geniuses" of history worked put in lots of work (10 000+ hours) before they started producing genius level results.
I have read elsewhere (might have been Gladwell again) that anyone with an IQ of 120 (or 115?) has the intrinsic intelligence necessary to get a Ph.D in any field of science if they work hard at it.
See http://getalifephd.blogspot.ca/2011/07/how-smart-do-you-have-to-be-to-become.html for more on that idea, which seems to be borne out by the lives of a lot of "geniuses" throughout history. See also this brief video (7 mins) about how the idea of "talent" determining success is largely a myth.
Zigwurst wrote:
Most everyone in that age group isn't so good (take me for an example).
They're probably the same rating range though as I do on here.
Btw, can you provide a link to the IQ test that u took?
Tao999 wrote:
I think it was Malcolm Gladwell who popularized the idea that it is more a matter of work (10 000 hours of good practice to achieve mastery) than IQ that determines success. Most of the "geniuses" of history worked put in lots of work (10 000+ hours) before they started producing genius level results.
I have read elsewhere (might have been Gladwell again) that anyone with an IQ of 120 (or 115?) has the intrinsic intelligence necessary to get a Ph.D in any field of science if they work hard at it.
See http://getalifephd.blogspot.ca/2011/07/how-smart-do-you-have-to-be-to-become.html for more on that idea, which seems to be borne out by the lives of a lot of "geniuses" throughout history. See also this brief video (7 mins) about how the idea of "talent" determining success is largely a myth.
Most helpful psot on here so far. I feel much better now. I thought that I couldn't get up to grandmaster because of talent issues. So thanks for showing me that video.
You're welcome DarkisMetalDragon, glad I could help.
Intelligence is pretty clearly a fake concept. A person can be very good indeed at maths and poor at languages; wonderful at sculpting and hopeless at bridge; awesome on the football field and a complete duffer at small talk.
Non verbal reasoning tests are good at determining whether someone is any good at non verbal reasoning tests. Their relevance to other skills, whether chess playing, designing a comfortable house or playing a worthwhile game of poker is negligible.
low enough to spend so much time on chess
Because IQ isn't that important to success in chess, I think IQ wouldn't be very restrictive. Probably above 70 or 80 to be a GM, but even then maybe you could find exceptions.
richie_and_oprah wrote:
Admiral_Kirk wrote:
IQ does not include forms of intelligences such as linguistic intelligence, musical intelligence, spacial inteligence, etc. Also, people from different cultures are at a disadvantage.
I'll get a link for you sometime.
And I'm not saying this because I'm below average or something; I'm actually above average in my age group.
i did not claim it a panacea only that is it a VERY reliable source on a persons capacity to learn
and it is
see it is easier to learn to play violin when one is more intelligent and there are even such things as artistic prodigies (as it is not just confined to math and science)
Certainly there is some degree of correlation, I agree with that. I'm simply saying that I would not use an IQ result to judge another person's capabilities, unless we're talking about a 30 or more difference in percentile.
Another part of the issue is that intelligence doesn't have a real set definition. There's the dictionary definition, but it doesn't really encompass what most people percieve as intelligence.
I'm off to bed now, but I'll talk more about this with you soon.
What IQ do you think you have to have to get to these levels. Does IQ have anything to do with it. Kasparov's is 180 and the Polgar sisters have one of 170. Mine is 155.
Expert- 2000
National Master- About 2200
FIDE Master- 2300
International Master- About 2400
Grandmaster- About 2500
2600 rating
2700 rating
2800 rating.