Why people say chess and intelligence don't correlate! !?

this is such fallacious thinking. a variation of the notorious "IF you are so smart, why arent you rich?"

1. smart people very often dont care about money, plenty of physicists, and  mathematicians simply dont care about money. You think a world class mathematician  like  Terence Tao, "only" makes 400k a year because he coudnt earn  better? same can be said of plenty of musicians, theologians, philosophers, and other passion fields, but the intellect association is especially there in the above two

but what makes you think intelligence is even the best trait for money making? 

Few people are passionate about mundane dribble the way some people are drawn to the 64 squares of the board, or a mathematicians devoting years of tinkering to solve/prove one theorem,or an artist in a quest for his masterpiece,  you dont get that level of soul-pouring into real-estate ,or sales.

what? to correlate is not have a cause and effect relationship, causal relations are also correlation, but correlations do not imply causal relationships.

that iq test was an online one, super unreliable. Kasparov took an actual iq test and scored 135. Polgar also scored very high. Carlsen had prodigy like abilities young.

Agreed.

It's also lazy to believe that success in business is an intelligence test. History is full of inventions or ideas that were stolen, mismanaged, mismarketed, or where the genius simply lacked the social status or money to make use of the idea. Meanwhile a person of average intelligence, with a lot of capital, can easily make a lot of money.

the other aspect is that success in business is fickle. They are plenty of well crafted plans that fail due to highly unusual circumstances, or business ventures that were a product of simply being in the right place at the right time.

plenty of the rich oligarchs that came off the collapse of the Soviet union, where simply in the right place and the right time to capitalize on what they had and take advantage of disaster.

business owners have very high rates of survivorship bias.
Most probably had some level of cunning, but the correlation with intelligence is probably weak at best.

How do you know that Nakamura didn't deliberately do badly? I've done badly at school exams on purpose, occasionally ....

     Webster's Dictionary definition of correlate: "to show a causal relationship". One of several definitions there but all say it means a direct link.

     Nakamura's online IQ test was the same one that Mensa has used for many years, virtually identical to their in-person test. And some of the same places on the internet that rate Fischer and Carlsen at 190 IQ do the same for Kasparov. (I can't claim that Mensa is the be all and end all of IQ tests, or even that IQ tests are that significant an indicator of overall intelligence.) And Kasparov's more-reliable 135 score still leaves him below the genius level, again indicating that there is no one-to-one correlation. Too many highly-intelligent chess players have mediocre ratings to believe such correlation to be true.

Yes, survivor bias. I was going to mention this, but I felt like my post was getting long. That's a succinct way to put it.

Just to put you straight about correlation ..... it means that patterns of observations coincide. There can be negative correlation, when one thing is high when the others's low and vice versa, and positive correlation. Upon noticing a correlation, the first thing a good scientist looks at is possible cause and effect but correlation doesn't actually imply causality. It's just that if two patterns coincide, it's reasonable to assume that one might cause the other. Equally, both can be caused by a third variable.

This line of dialogue is a little embarrassing, so I want to chime in. One of the first things people learn is "correlation is not causation." Of course you can have both, but you need to do work to show it's not spurious.

There are many humorous examples too:

https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

<<Webster's Dictionary definition of correlate: "to show a causal relationship". One of several definitions there but all say it means a direct link.>>
That's completely and absolutely incorrect, however. It occasionally happens, especially in online dictionaries. They tend not to be put together by experts on subjects so much as by people into computing.

    Just saying any evidence that doesn't fit your preconception is likely falsified or faked in some manner is twaddle. And how do you know that all the supposed high IQ scores of top-rated layers are real?

"co-relate" means they inter-relate or relate together but it only implies superficial or apparent relation and nothing more. A causal relationship is no more than possible.

Of course some people make money off of intelligence. IIRC Rex Sinquefield made his fortune by developing a (mathematically rigorous) method of investing that beat all the others at that time. Not only was it smart, but had huge potential to make money.

There are other arenas where intelligence isn't necessary at all. Take for example real estate. If you have a lot of capital you can buy an apartment complex and hire someone to manage it. It will generate money indefinitely (baring bad luck like natural disasters and the like).

In my world, intelligence is thought of as an ability to find solutions to problems, often via past knowledge or a base skill set.
Today, intelligence is often described in terms of IQ or specifically analytical and reasoning skills, which are an essential component to the success of any chess player. However, there is no fundamental reason why other intelligence, such as language, math, science abilities or emotional awareness, shouldn’t be seen as an equally good sign of intelligence. Yet, these skills do not mean you can play chess well.

The correlation between intelligence and being rich is a fallacy. Personality plays a much bigger part than intelligence in financial success. Conscientiousness is predominately associated with earning a high income.

theories of multiple intelligences are spurious. For starters, there is something inherently suspicious about  a "science" where your ontology multiplies so liberally. All the time they want to add some new intelligence to the list.

second, the existence of child prodigies in certain types of fields like chess, math, music, gives far more credence to something like "g" or at least an overarching category of intelligences far more narrow than what multiple intelligence theories would like to admit.

third, there is significant socio-political pressures in education and educational psychology research to support multiple intelligence theories, especially in conjunction with the crazy obsession with constructivist theories. 

My memory is awful, so there.

as long as you are alive and do think, anything is related to intelligence. no matter how pointless it is..even idiots have intelligence.. 

I would put it as the opposite and therefore, agree with you. "Idiot Savant" intelligence varieties fit the bill for individual types of intelligence, better than the idea that intelligence types are inherently separable and distinguishable from one-another. Someone who can do many things well tends to find that they're interchangeable. In fact, the idea that they're separable is exaggerated by the definite probability that while we're "being good at something", we immerse ourselves in it. When we do something else, there's always some necessity to extract ourselves from the mindset required for the former activity. **Another** type of intelligence could be the facility with which an individual can switch mindsets. (irony) 

Intelligence is the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills. Let us break down the definition. Intelligence is the subject of the sentence. Ability is possession of the means or skill to do something. Acquire is buy or obtain (an asset or object) for oneself. Apply is make a formal application or request. Knowledge is facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject. Skill is the ability to do something well; expertise. So people who are good in chess are intelligent but that doesn't guarantee you can do good in school. (If you play brain games on your computer, you'll get better at those games — but it's unlikely to enhance your ability to carry out daily tasks or improve your performance at work or school. At the same time, there's no definitive proof that these programs don't work, and researchers continue to investigate them. --- https://www.brainfacts.org/neuroscience-in-society/tech-and-the-brain/2019/do-brain-training-games-make-you-smarter-013019)

Chess is hard.