Wow. Triple digits even. Not bad at all.
IQ only measures your ability to do IQ test.
How many IQ tests have you taken?
The more IQ tests you take the higher your score will be over time. Similarly if you solve puzzles which are similar to IQ tests such as mathematics maybe from school, college, university etc then again that will help in scoring higher on IQ tests.
Your IQ also depends on what region of the world you are from, Africa has the lowest IQ on average however there is also a huge amount of poverty there and thus having less access to learning resources etc...
With regards to your chess improvement I will say this:
I play a lot of games on steam, I've played fortnite to a high level in the past (used to practice against some pros and sponsored players when their team wasn't on to train), I've played csgo (competitve queue to MG2) and I've played many other steam games and this is my underlining point:
Whenever I have looked at someones steam profile when I felt that they were just a better player than me it's no coincidence that they almost always had more hours played than me and when I looked and players I beat or felt were worse they almost always had less hours than me.
With chess it can be difficult to check this as there are many players who have played a variety of OTB chess and on multiple websites.
This is why I agree with the 10,000 hours theory which basically says that you must invest 10,000 hours into something on average (it will fluctuate slightly from person to person) to become a pro player in whatever it is you do.
If you want to know why you're not a pro yet check your hours played/studied.
PS: for those of you who think you've easily spent 10,000 hours or more on chess keep in mind you would have to spend 7 hours doing something every single day with no rest days for 4 years to reach 10,000 hours.
I personally thought I spent at least 1000 hours on csgo but when I checked I spent 200, it's more difficult than you think.
If I had to guess how much time I've invested into chess I'd say around 1000 hours, I've been playing for 8 years but NOT consistently and therefor haven't racked up anything near to 10,000 in 4 years.
The 10k hours study isn't afaik very reliable, it suffers heavily from survival bias. But it's no secret that putting in the work will make you better.
well you can't just say that you will be "pro" in something in 10000 hrs. as it depends on many things and the most importantly on each owns definition of "pro". I would not feel so even if I was 3200 FIDE as there would still be computers that could beat me with ease.
@artykom I'm talking about human improvement in comparison to other humans, not computers, AI, other animals etc.
@lovlas Yes there are many factors that affect improvement if you train right or wrong etc, however I personally feel it's more accurate than just saying "MY IQ IS THIS, WHY IS MY CHESS NOT GOOD".
And as I said that personal experience is from playing a large variety of games on steam and every time I checked a better players profile they had more hours, every time I checked a worse players profile they had less hours.
gl to be getting anywhere near more reasonable 2700 FIDE then. Especially if you are 60 years old or so.
I'm actually 20 but good luck to anyone who wants to become a very strong chess player.
Note that different games require different abilities. High IQ, perhaps, makes it more probable that one is able to advance to a high level in whatever complicated game, if one takes it seriously. Nevertheless, don't fall into Kasparov's fallacy of thinking that chess is the comprehensive model of life, etc. Note that if a mathematician trains in one area of math, it may even make one worse in some other areas of math, because of different structures requiring different thinking habits. Usually, in the development of science, if the paradigm changes, the old and great scientists of the old theory have difficulties with the new theory.
Some more exact examples.
According to the Game Theory, chess is a game with the following characteristics:
- 2 players;
- sequential game;
- zero-sum game;
Having only 2 players means that the chess player does not have to cooperate with other players like in the game of bridge.
Having only 2 players also means that one is not trained to the situations of forming the coalitions, which is very important in politics, business, etc.
Chess is a sequential game with perfect information. It means that you know, what move your opponent has made. There is no such thing as training to guess what the other one is going to do and to guess what the other one guesses about your thoughts. (Except perhaps guessing the opening repertoire for the forthcoming match.)
Chess is a zero-sum game: if one wins, then ones opponent loses and vice versa. It means that the chess player is not trained for the cooperation situations and is trained only for the competition situations.
Finally, one should not take the IQ too seriously. Behind the IQ calculation there is some model. This model can change in the future. And this model can be culture-dependent. Moreover, very obviously there is no direct relations between the IQ and the chess ELO. Actually, there is even no direct correlation between the chess results and the strength of the player. It might be the case, that one player is stronger on the board, but weaker in psychology. The chess results are only partially determined by your mathematical abilities. It might be the case, that one is not a fighter or that one has not sufficiently good health or that one is too nervous to be successful in real time, etc.
Having watched some interviews, as well as behavior, attire and routine of chess players, I’d have to say no, and in fact it’s likely they are dumber than some other professions on average.
I would assume lawyers, dentists, classical musicians and maybe bankers etc. are probably brighter on average.