most people who play chess would have a higher IQ, so maybe like 117 or 8
What is the avg. IQ of players on chess.com
Sort:
Mar 17, 2023
0
#183
Optimissed wrote:
mpaetz wrote:
Because when a test is designed and given to a group of people the scoring system is based on the average score equaling the basis score of 100. Any test designed and administered to all chess.com members would then have he average score achieved to be 100, and higher and lower scores rated by the % by which said scores differ from the average.
The fact that Ziryab gave this a thumbs up is a far more eloquent statement about his (lack of) intellectual ability than anything I could come up with. You're assuming that the chess.com members form an average sample of humanity, as Great Big Wave pointed out.
When your arguments fail, you resort to personal insults. Nothing new here.
Mar 17, 2023
0
#184
Optimissed wrote:
Not quite .... they were first developed to measure brain functionality as an inverse ratio of chronological age to expected age. The expected age is the age, usually measured in years and months, at which the average child performs mentally at the same level as the subject. So if a child aged exactly 10 performs at the same level as the average child of exactly 12, their IQ is considered to be 12/10 x 100 = 120.
Go back to the quote from the University of Washington. Better yet, read the article from which it was extracted.
Had you said, "the tests were later developed ...", you would have been much closer to an accurate summary. Instead, I can hear Alfred Binet calling from the grave, "my test did no such thing. Americans did that."
A real man can admit he's wrong, but first they must be intelligent enough to see a clear point.
Mar 17, 2023
0
#185
Optimissed wrote:
Mpaetz, you wrote "when a test is designed and given to a group of people the scoring system is based on the average score equaling the basis score of 100."
You didn't mention that this it was to be standardised using ONLY chess,com members. You just said it was to be administered to them. I found your mistake, which was not to define and state what you proposed clearly and unambiguously. You wrote the same thing the other day and it's incorrect because you forgot to mention that it's standardised using a sample of chess.com members only.
That would seem to be implicit in any meaningful answer to the original question. As some here have noted, there are many IQ tests in existence and long-established ones are regularly revised. Even widely-used tests have different versions for different cultures and languages. Any conclusion based on different subjects' scores on different tests would prove nothing. The only way to determine chess.com members IQs relative to all other members would be to devise a test that everyone could take. In that case the average would of course be 100.
Deadmanparty a écrit :
IQ score is the best single indicator of success.
So it may not be great, but better than all other ways to predict success.
I guess this is why so many members of mensa are high school dropouts or long term jobless people ...
Mine is undefined it’s so high
My belief is that, no matter what in the end, we all come to a conclusion. Hence the fights about what IQ means, studies, and research, going back to the forum's original topic, I think we can all agree there is no direct and accurate way to figure out the average IQ just by all of us? We would need some data, if even that would help.
MagnusCarlson202020212022 wrote:
Mine is undefined it’s so high
Dude how do you have an 240+ IQ when your rating is 704
No offense though
This forum discussion is so tiring to follow 
So true
The topic changes once every 5 posts from arguments about what IQ defines to how the people in Mensa are high-school dropouts and jobless people? My definition of tiring.
God i just posted comment number 255
Tiring is this
Wow, and I just posted comment number 256!!!
Amazing, I never knew the number would go up every post
Ya it does
YESSIR im on a new page
Mar 18, 2023
0
#200
Optimissed wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Not quite .... they were first developed to measure brain functionality as an inverse ratio of chronological age to expected age. The expected age is the age, usually measured in years and months, at which the average child performs mentally at the same level as the subject. So if a child aged exactly 10 performs at the same level as the average child of exactly 12, their IQ is considered to be 12/10 x 100 = 120.
Go back to the quote from the University of Washington. Better yet, read the article from which it was extracted.
Had you said, "the tests were later developed ...", you would have been much closer to an accurate summary. Instead, I can hear Alfred Binet calling from the grave, "my test did no such thing. Americans did that."
A real man can admit he's wrong, but first they must be intelligent enough to see a clear point.
I wasn't summarising anything, since I hadn't read it. You seem remarkably dim, for an intelligent, real man. If you're a real man, then humanity's in trouble.
You were summarizing the history of intelligence testing, inaccurately.
In that case, i lowered the average by at least 10