Garry Kasparov has never taken an IQ test. He wrote that the 190 and 135 figures were both fake.

There is no correlation between IQ and intelligence, but there is a correlation between autism and good results in chess.

@jupp53 No, all I'm saying is that intelligence quotient can't define aspects of intelligence that aren't bound to logical factors, therefore completely out of the pseudo-intellectual measurement that is pretended to relate to chess ability. That you didn't understand my argument is a whole different thing, the article is objective and therefore closer to the truth than any infrared cameras whatsoever. Don't get me wrong man, all I say is that the so-called IQ is not proof for abilities that even scientists can't totally understand like art and existential philosophy.

@nayf indeed, those tests aren't meant to define your intelligence nor an objective aptitude at activities that require more than a simple understanding of grammar and basic math. People shouldn't be misled by an evaluation of the intellect that more than developing intelligence, frames it and limits understanding of other areas of life essential to evolution of the species like metaphysics for example.


Magnus walks around playing chess in his mind 18 hours a day. He relentlessly plays games in his head and finds conclusions to them while walking through town. The 20 minutes interview was prof of that. I think we forget about Photographic memory and worlds best at pattern recognition and the 10 other chess aptitudes that are installed into GM's. This is impossible to over look. Also certain types of people live chess which only accelerates their myopic progress.

What I'm saying is You need a Whole lot more than HIGH I.Q To be a worlds best at something hence a GM. High I.Q with not much else may produces a 2000 ranked player a goal Many achieve. Being a Stand out club player with Many years of focus is
obtainable to most. Any who great topic but the greats have the touch of god to them. They are something allot more than
simple High I.Q

I.Q. doesn't do anything. It doesn't mean anything. Can we just shut up about the so called "Intelligence quotient"? It doesn't show anything, intelligence is difficult to measure.

Mes iq es 43 I tink. mebee 54. I n0t knw do wht mys iq iz.

me veay smrt
I red too chss boks evey dae

With all due respect, I don't think we should shut up about IQ BECAUSE intelligence is difficult to measure. At least the IQ makes an objective attempt to measure this elusive phenomena, whereas most people seem to have only a subjective relationship with it. This subjectivity has no real value except to the ego of the person holding the view.

If the phenomena does exist then I believe there is an obligation to investigate it and eventually to understand it. I think, though, that the psuedo intellectual stuff comes not from the development of our understanding of a relationship between IQ and intelligence but from the cultural, idealogical, sociological, political and economic nonsense conclusions that are drawn from some of its statistical findings. This should not stop our attempts to objectively measure intelligence, if it does indeed exist.

Psychology is a mess because there are so many schools of enquiry each proposing different models of intelligence which seek only to muddy the waters and create confusion. If intelligence exists - for me intelligence simply means the ability to solve problems - then of course there has to be biological underpinnings which we can eventually measure.

If something can't be measured then how do we know it exists? A clue, we don't!

I live in a society where these tests are used everywhere. I have been taken IQ/aptitude tests - same logical underpinnings - for many years. People cannot be blamed for believing they have a value that maybe they don't as a result. There are always issues with anything which purports to measure a human ability. Culture fairness is one that springs to mind where IQ tests are involved, but that just shows that there is still work to do in understanding intelligence and its measurement.

The ability to run fast does not suggest a good footballer or cricketer, though it may be a qualifying factor. There are always other physical, psychological and emotional factors involved in making a good sportsman; not just, or even, the ability to run fast. This is the analogy I like to use. Intelligence, IQ and success in other areas, likewise.

For me, objectivity matters, political considerations only clutter the view, and phenomena should be understood. There is still a lot of work to do.

@Oxytocinblb The universe can't be measured, but still exists. It's agreeable that values like IQ have more influence on the subjective view of people intending to prove an intellectual development, but in reality such quotient only represents a fragment of the whole that is, as you've said, difficult to measure, if not impossible because knowledge is certainly endless, but intelligence more than being measureable is something qualifiable. In contrast to chess, something like elo ratings is yet another measurement that attempts to define sportive performance but runs short in defining a player's understanding of the game, as most of the increment in rating is based on the mistakes played by the opponents and how one manages time to establish a winning advantage without unbalancing one's own position, which in any case can be optimized by simple exercising of the game's principles and learning simple patterns; however, the use of measurements can be misleading if it doesn't support a legitimate comprehension of the essence of matters represented by logic, intuition and creativity, other concepts which can't be measured but still defined, curious, isn't it? But it's important to not lose the focus from what matters most of all, since this is about chess and not a test of ingenuity, better to know that numbers aren't proof of something that isn't related to pure logical understanding.