132J wrote:
No. I’m talking about the 110 in my post. Where’d you pull that one from?
You edited your post after I pointed out the error. You still have plenty more wrong, though.
What is the avg. IQ of players on chess.com
Sort:
Mar 14, 2023
0
#63
Think you’re right, eh? I do not have the pleasure to argue this topic with a bunch of geezers, so I’m out for this morning.
132J
It is probably around 85 judging by most of the comments made on most subjects on this site. I'm trying to not be offensive as I am the father of a retarded child but if many of the folks who comment are not below average intelligence, they certainly are more than likely very uneducated individuals. Having opinions on things is one thing, but one should be cogniscent of facts and try to have rational interpretation of such data.
Mar 14, 2023
0
#66
132J wrote:
Think you’re right, eh? I do not have the pleasure to argue this topic with a bunch of geezers, so I’m out for this morning.
132J
I’m not an expert, but I know enough to recognize a substantial amount of gross error: the norm in this thread. The correction you make to “early 100s” (the word you want is low) is still an exaggeration. Only six European nations have an average above 100.
I think most people are too stupid to understand excellence in chess requires both intelligence and coaching/work.
Even people who think they are smart don't get it.
Mar 14, 2023
0
#68
I'm guessing like 100-110, the average IQ on chess.com is probably the IRL average
Mar 14, 2023
0
#69
Iammidatchess01 wrote:
I'm guessing like 100-110, the average IQ on chess.com is probably the IRL average
Or, quite possibly, the average IQ of chess players is very slightly above the average for the general population. Chess skill does appear to correlate with IQ somewhat, according to the available research, although not strongly. Moreover, and surprisingly, spatial intelligence does not correlate with chess skill. I would have expected that it does. The published study on the matter, however, was quite limited. Perhaps more research would show a different result.
Mar 14, 2023
0
#71
Optimissed wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
132J wrote:
Think you’re right, eh? I do not have the pleasure to argue this topic with a bunch of geezers, so I’m out for this morning.
132J
I’m not an expert, but I know enough to recognize a substantial amount of gross error: the norm in this thread. The correction you make to “early 100s” (the word you want is low) is still an exaggeration. Only six European nations have an average above 100.
You bash this fiction of untested assumptions and yet you assume that the average IQ of members of chess.com coincides with the average IQ of all people.
What's your reasoning??
The deterioration is your reading comprehension is telling.
Ziryab wrote:
Or, quite possibly, the average IQ of chess players is very slightly above the average for the general population.
Optimissed wrote:
OK, you think you're smart because you have a high rapid or blitz rating but that only means that you can play chess fast. I know for a fact you get mixed up when discussing simple, logically based ideas.
My assumption is that chess players are, on average, a little (not a lot) smarter than the average person, IQ-wise. IQ measures ability to solve puzzles. You seem to suggest that assumption is groundless and yes, it's a guess and I haven't referred to any studies that may exist. But making a claim that a guess **has been shown to be** groundless ought to be based on some kind of reasoning or proof. Otherwise it's no more than an ad hominem (argument against the person, based on nothing more than the fact you may disagree with it).
But then, my IQ will be FAR higher than yours (based on your constant inability to understand much) so no wonder you try to make the arguments you do. I now think that all those people were right and that you ARE a troll, because you argue for the sake of making noise.
I've already defined intelligence as the ability to interpret, comprehend and use our environment. I think it's an ok definition and maybe your thinking it hasn't been defined is that you are, actually, not as smart as you imagine you are? Just to pre-empt anything, I'm about as smart as I imagine I am. I'm a realist too.
Lol. If you were as smart as you always imagine yourself, we'd all be living in the shadow of your cranium and have vast fields of solar panels on top of your head...
ZIryab estimated that chess player's IQ is very slightly above average. You agree, in your words (then attack Ziryab for being wrong anyway), but do not agree when you posit 110 IQ, which would be 2/3rds of a standard deviation higher. The fact that this distinction escapes you is solid evidence that your intellect is not quite what you advertise.
Optimissed wrote:
Are you totally sure you aren't Ziryab? There's an uncanny resemblance.
My 110 wasn't a genuine guess. I actually thought 105 but then I thought I'd see what happens if I went 110. And sure enough, the likely suspects bit. You can't help it can you?
It's funny how you always think the "oh, I wasn't wrong, I just said that on purpose" defense will actually fool people.
There's nothing genuine about you. Nothing new there.
55
IQ doesn’t matter, but the best of the best is maybe a little over 115. Average is 100. Anyone who says otherwise has room temperature IQ.
Mar 14, 2023
0
#77
Optimissed wrote:
btickler wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Are you totally sure you aren't Ziryab? There's an uncanny resemblance.
My 110 wasn't a genuine guess. I actually thought 105 but then I thought I'd see what happens if I went 110. And sure enough, the likely suspects bit. You can't help it can you?
It's funny how you always think the "oh, I wasn't wrong, I just said that on purpose" defense will actually fool people.
There's nothing genuine about you. Nothing new there.
And you ALWAYS say that.
You've both claimed an IQ of about 135, ...
Nope. I've never claimed to know my IQ score.
I did mention an online test which I made clear had zero validity with questions so easy that I was able to get every one wrong on the first try and all correct on the second. I determined that it's range was 65-135. As I recall, your own self-estimate is based on something similar with the difference that you think it has some validity as a test.
Optimissed wrote:
And you ALWAYS say that.
You've both claimed an IQ of about 135, at different times, which I'm prepared to believe. It puts you just inside the set of big fishes in little ponds: kings in their backyards, with a lot to prove when they venture abroad. You troll either in relays or in combination, yet you claim you aren't "friends", trying to make fun of any comments you think are wrong. By anybody. Both of you HIGHLY assumptive in the conclusions you reach and judgements you pass and yet you attack assumptions others make, to protect the public from "incorrect information".
More completely ludicrous people on Chess.com I have yet to discover.
You're both ridiculous!
This comes from someone who took the same IQ test dozens of times until he got 169 (I find the universe's joke at your expense that you never got your 170 to be highly amusing, and character-defining, in your case), who believes he has paranormal abilities, can heal people with his mind, etc. I'll guess that your reported 116 result was quite a bit more accurate than anything in the 150+ range.
It doesn't matter what the numbers are, and no, I do not "claim" any particular IQ, because IQ is not an accurate measure of anything. What is demonstrable is that you never have any facts or support for your diatribes, and that when you lose these engagements, you retreat to the same old tired excuses. So, it really doesn't matter what numbers you pull out, when you routinely get shown up in your claims and ill-informed opinions.
It's ironic and a little oblivious of you to go to the "big fish, small pond" argument when you also wax eloquent about your life and legacy in Cumbria. I comment when I see you going off the rails, in your usual way. Note the particular post I responded to, then compare that to your previous posts that went by, and try to comprehend the difference. It's pretty obvious, and much more so over time...but you still don't get it. The fact that this happens on a regular basis makes you the troll. At best you could try to call me some kind of troll vigilante.
Now relax a bit, your wife will be along to tell you it's bedtime soon enough.
60
Optimissed wrote:
I've seen accounts appear out of nowhere to support his attacks on people, which use similar word patterns. Especially on his Covid thread. But it's just a strong guess.
You wouldn't know similar word patterns if they took you out dancing.
Yes, I am Elroch, and Ziryab, and Blueemu, and Mpaetz, and Marattigan, and Ironsteam, and several other cogent posters...
Keep listening to the trolls that PM you...that seems to be working out well for you?
No. I’m talking about the 110 in my post. Where’d you pull that one from?