I have a 110 IQ so that means I am smarter then 75% of the people in the world. Having established that then I should be in the top 25% in chess but I am only in the top 35%. Now I could say the difference is that players are more experienced then me at chess but I don't think that because I have been playing chess for 50 years. So how could 35% of the players on here be better then me when my IQ says only 25% are smarter then me?

My theory is that chess players tend to be more intelligent then the average population so your average IQ on here is probably much higher then 100.

No. Scientific psychological research doesn't show this.

Not sure about chess players, but definetly applies to usage of letter case.

If chess ability was only dependent on IQ then there would be no point in training. Even if you had an IQ of 150 and had played only a few games, a low-rated club player would probably thrash you.

The use of all caps in the title indicates the opposite of your conclusion.

I would have to agree with Gyryth. My IQ is 152 and I'm absolutely terrible at chess. Although I have only been playing for a few months....

MC has an IQ of 190, so I'm sure there is some correlation in higher level chess players (Kasparov too).

I doubt MC has ever taken an IQ test, and if he did he has never made the result public.

I think this one is a little complicated. If you are a genius and apply yourself to chess at a young age and you stay with it, then you can become a great player (like a GM or so). If you are a genius and you start playing chess at the age of 50 then you will likely have a hard time achieving master.

There isn't a direct relationship here, but they are often related. At the lower levels (where I am) I think you can't make any conclusions at all. There are complete morons who play well and geniuses who play horribly. IMO the idea that the 'smart' ones are good and the 'dumb' ones are bad often ends up the reason why a lot of guys have a giant ego when they achieve some level above most other players.