I must be really fucking retarded then
The thing is, ELO ratings are subject to change. Your IQ is hypothetically set from a relatively early age. Also, IQ's are based solely off of intelligence, not knowledge. In chess however, success is also based off of knowledge, work ethic, pracrice, and the like.
So.....I'm skeptical of this idea, but I'm open to changing my mind if you bring forward a fair amount of concrete evidence.
Well, let me disprove this theory, my IQ is 153 and i am a 1300 now in real life
sorry, i wrote 159 originally, it is 153
@Jacob531 You forgot to mention that IQ is subject to change. Like chess ratings, they aren't necessarily correlated. More intelligent people may be able to improve faster, but that still requires some amount of effort and discipline. I agree with you in those other regards, however.
Also, intelligence is more of the ability to apply and learn knowledge quickly. Knowledge is a variable in intelligence. Also, enough with this topic, so many of these exist on lichess with the hopes of perpetuating this topic indefinitely. It's becoming like the whole "autism and vaccines" ordeal which was only backed up with anecdotal evidence.
Also...
"I'm assuming that they are positively correlated because _g_ (the general intelligence factor) positively correlates with virtually every mental activity and highly correlates with working memory, processing speed and pattern recognition, which are all factors involving chess aptitude."
Sure. The thing is, these aren't the only factors. Piggybacking off of my last post, the amount of time and effort put into chess is at least just as important as spacial intelligence. I don't care how incredibly high person A's IQ is; if a game between him/her and I will be a walk in the park for me if it's their first ever exposure to chess (outside of learning the rules just before the game. Why? I've had more experience with the game. Am I smarter than A? No, of course not.
Also, when you speak of correlation, it appears that you believe that positive correlation is evidence that the data fits a certain line/equation thing well, while a negative correlation indicates that the data doesn't correlate well. As a matter of fact, correlation with an r-value close to 0 is weak correlation, while correlation with an r-value close to one OR negative one indicates a strong correlation.
@MeepMonster I was under the impression that IQ usually did not change. Let me go look that up....
@Jacob531 Actually IQ is mostly determined by external/environmental factors, while partially being influenced by genetics. Say someone could was born with an IQ of 120 and were exposed to lead and radiation, the next week their IQ would be 80. This is an extreme example, but you get the point, right?
Also, I revised post #34
Ok, yeah. Also,
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.livescience.com/36143-iq-change-time.html#ampshare=http://www.livescience.com/36143-iq-change-time.html
So it does change, but not really like ELO does.
Except in the case of radiation and stuff like that heheh.
@Jacob531 More sources than livescience.com do confirm this. If you asked me this question on Quora I would gladly research it further.
https://www.quora.com/profile/Alex-Reblin-1
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.