Not really tbh, but I still use it to gaslight all my friends into thinking that I'm smarter than them
there was a study on children starting out chess. Ones with high IQ initially became stronger and year from start strongest correlation was how excited they were about chess.
high IQ helps in many things but is mandatory in rather few.
www.chessjournal.com/do-chess-grandmasters-have-a-high-iq/
Gives Nunn as 110 - lets assume it SD 15 - which means he is clearly above average and below typical engineer
www.iqcomparisonsite.com/Occupations.aspx he would be in bottom 10% of electrical engineers in that study.
So there is probably correlation but not strong. Other things correlate far more strongly. Like how determined you are to learn
high IQ helps in many things but is mandatory in rather few.
www.chessjournal.com/do-chess-grandmasters-have-a-high-iq/
Gives Nunn as 110 - lets assume it SD 15 - which means he is clearly above average and below typical engineer
www.iqcomparisonsite.com/Occupations.aspx he would be in bottom 10% of electrical engineers in that study.
So there is probably correlation but not strong. Other things correlate far more strongly. Like how determined you are to learn
There is a much stronger correlation between IQ and the frequency with which you post on the forum.
While there's some truth to @Sleprithslayer's statement (at #8), I'd say it's important to remember that the human mind is highly variable from person to person
And while chess is played leisurely (and professionally) by chess enthusiasts, I believe one's rating is not solely determined by their IQ
Regarding whether or not one's rating reflects one's overall level of intelligence/IQ, I'd say that chess shouldn't be used solely as a measuring tool
I'd like to share an example of someone I know personally, a work associate who happens to be a member of this platform and has been an active member for about 6 years. They maintain a rating of around 1400 across bullet, blitz, and rapid categories
This individual has got quite a remarkable skill set outside of chess. I often refer to them as a "human calculator" because their math skills are off the charts. And like many of us do supposedly, they try to stay well-informed about relevant current events. They also hold a PhD in sociology.
Concerning their chess, they've expressed challenges in advancing their gameplay. I noticed (upon observing their game once) that while they grasp the fundamentals, their flaws are evident and there are definitely areas for improvement
With all factors considered, I'd argue that their rating is not an accurate reflection of their IQ. Instead, it's a reflection of their intuitive understanding within the confines of the 64 squares, not necessarily beyond them. And I'm sure this little observation applies to everyone else
It's not uncommon to find many intellectuals who may not excel at chess to the same degree. A number of these people can be found active in Lichess forums although I won't be disclosing their usernames here to respect their privacy. Despite having lower ratings, they actually contribute to the community with their insights and perspectives from time to time
It's definitely crucial to reiterate that a player's chess rating or skills don't define their worth or intelligence. These are separate entities, and one shouldn't be used to measure the other, if you will
As a casual player, I can personally attest to this. I have committed several opening lines to memory by instinct, yet I have a history of forgetting my 4-digit debit card PIN, which once led to an unfortunate incident at a supermarket. I had carefully selected a full shopping cart's worth of items, only to forget my PIN at the checkout, leaving the store almost empty-handed. It wasn't until I got home that I remembered the PIN, a stark reminder that our memory capabilities can vary greatly depending on the context.
And while chess is played leisurely (and professionally) by chess enthusiasts, I believe one's rating is not solely determined by their IQ
Regarding whether or not one's rating reflects one's overall level of intelligence/IQ, I'd say that chess shouldn't be used solely as a measuring tool
I'd like to share an example of someone I know personally, a work associate who happens to be a member of this platform and has been an active member for about 6 years. They maintain a rating of around 1400 across bullet, blitz, and rapid categories
This individual has got quite a remarkable skill set outside of chess. I often refer to them as a "human calculator" because their math skills are off the charts. And like many of us do supposedly, they try to stay well-informed about relevant current events. They also hold a PhD in sociology.
Concerning their chess, they've expressed challenges in advancing their gameplay. I noticed (upon observing their game once) that while they grasp the fundamentals, their flaws are evident and there are definitely areas for improvement
With all factors considered, I'd argue that their rating is not an accurate reflection of their IQ. Instead, it's a reflection of their intuitive understanding within the confines of the 64 squares, not necessarily beyond them. And I'm sure this little observation applies to everyone else
It's not uncommon to find many intellectuals who may not excel at chess to the same degree. A number of these people can be found active in Lichess forums although I won't be disclosing their usernames here to respect their privacy. Despite having lower ratings, they actually contribute to the community with their insights and perspectives from time to time
It's definitely crucial to reiterate that a player's chess rating or skills don't define their worth or intelligence. These are separate entities, and one shouldn't be used to measure the other, if you will
As a casual player, I can personally attest to this. I have committed several opening lines to memory by instinct, yet I have a history of forgetting my 4-digit debit card PIN, which once led to an unfortunate incident at a supermarket. I had carefully selected a full shopping cart's worth of items, only to forget my PIN at the checkout, leaving the store almost empty-handed. It wasn't until I got home that I remembered the PIN, a stark reminder that our memory capabilities can vary greatly depending on the context.
How about having diffrent view on inteligence
Instead of trying to find correlation between IQ and chess, we should ask why in first place there would be?
Problems for IQ test and chess requires completly diffrent skill set, with they aren't connected at all. IQ test is very narrow and only as diagnostics tool, closest thing in common are random IQ image patterns and puzzles. So I will argue it is unique type of inteligence with isn't related to IQ skillsets
Instead of trying to find correlation between IQ and chess, we should ask why in first place there would be?
Problems for IQ test and chess requires completly diffrent skill set, with they aren't connected at all. IQ test is very narrow and only as diagnostics tool, closest thing in common are random IQ image patterns and puzzles. So I will argue it is unique type of inteligence with isn't related to IQ skillsets
If you think about you realize how distant are IQ problems, most of the time you're trying to find a correct solution, by
A) searching in randomness a common pattern
B) given little information find a solution
C) Math problem
But in chess you're given a lots of components, with as tools, you can create winning chanses. Being observant. Seeing what relationship pieces create, having pattern recognition in order to get tactic, rich amount of abstract thinking. Knowing with relationship of pieces with give positional advantage, many chess motives.
They are very distant, it is just very diffrent way of thinking
A) searching in randomness a common pattern
B) given little information find a solution
C) Math problem
But in chess you're given a lots of components, with as tools, you can create winning chanses. Being observant. Seeing what relationship pieces create, having pattern recognition in order to get tactic, rich amount of abstract thinking. Knowing with relationship of pieces with give positional advantage, many chess motives.
They are very distant, it is just very diffrent way of thinking
realy if people fall for it is luck but most people know about so low chans
most people wont fall for it
@Gerundium said in #9:
> One might think so, but strangely enough, when Garry Kasparov actually did a formal IQ test in 1987, designed especially for the occasion and conducted by London psychologist Jürgen Eysenck for the German magazine DER SPIEGEL, one of the findings was that his spatial intelligence was "seriously underdeveloped" ("stark unterentwickelt") and failed to reach the average level of either a control group of German chess players or of a group of Berlin school children that Eysenck had perform the same test.
>
> Given as a number, Kasparov's IQ overall was measured as 135 in one of the test suites, and as 123 in another.
>
> www.spiegel.de/politik/genieblitze-und-blackouts-a-1a1cbaba-0002-0001-0000-000013526693
>
> Yet, if you browse the internet, you'll find fantasy IQ values given for all kinds of intellectuals (Einstein, Goethe, John Stuart Mill etc) who often lived before the era of IQ tests and were certainly never tested. Near the very top of those fantasy lists you'll often see Garry Kasparov listed as having a flashy 200+ IQ.
>
> Plenty of GMs, including Magnus Carlsen, have come out claiming that they don't believe there's much of a correlation between chess playing strength and IQ. But unfortunately, people refuse to believe them.
But that's precisely what correlation without causation means. If B always follows A, then A is the cause of B. If B mostly follows A, then there is a correlation between B and A. You are just citing an exception to the general rule. Kasparov might have had an average or below average spatial.
Perhaps his powerful memory made up for that lack of spatial. But it doesn't matter. What matters is that the general rule still applies. He had, according to the data you provided, an I.Q. of 135, which is two standard deviations above the mean.
135 is in the gifted range.
> One might think so, but strangely enough, when Garry Kasparov actually did a formal IQ test in 1987, designed especially for the occasion and conducted by London psychologist Jürgen Eysenck for the German magazine DER SPIEGEL, one of the findings was that his spatial intelligence was "seriously underdeveloped" ("stark unterentwickelt") and failed to reach the average level of either a control group of German chess players or of a group of Berlin school children that Eysenck had perform the same test.
>
> Given as a number, Kasparov's IQ overall was measured as 135 in one of the test suites, and as 123 in another.
>
> www.spiegel.de/politik/genieblitze-und-blackouts-a-1a1cbaba-0002-0001-0000-000013526693
>
> Yet, if you browse the internet, you'll find fantasy IQ values given for all kinds of intellectuals (Einstein, Goethe, John Stuart Mill etc) who often lived before the era of IQ tests and were certainly never tested. Near the very top of those fantasy lists you'll often see Garry Kasparov listed as having a flashy 200+ IQ.
>
> Plenty of GMs, including Magnus Carlsen, have come out claiming that they don't believe there's much of a correlation between chess playing strength and IQ. But unfortunately, people refuse to believe them.
But that's precisely what correlation without causation means. If B always follows A, then A is the cause of B. If B mostly follows A, then there is a correlation between B and A. You are just citing an exception to the general rule. Kasparov might have had an average or below average spatial.
Perhaps his powerful memory made up for that lack of spatial. But it doesn't matter. What matters is that the general rule still applies. He had, according to the data you provided, an I.Q. of 135, which is two standard deviations above the mean.
135 is in the gifted range.
@LStein said in #1:
> I wonder if there is
I think so, of course. It is obvious, for example, that Magnus Carlsen is a genius. But there is also one statement (I really don’t remember who said it) that any chess player, regardless of his talent, if he constantly studies chess will eventually become a grandmaster. And I completely agree. Intelligence has an effect, but if you have been studying chess all your life (I emphasize the word studying, not playing), then in this case you will be able to achieve great heights, regardless of your IQ. But by the way, regarding intelligence and IQ, I would also separate these concepts. As Magnus said, IQ is not an objective indicator of your intelligence and I think so too
> I wonder if there is
I think so, of course. It is obvious, for example, that Magnus Carlsen is a genius. But there is also one statement (I really don’t remember who said it) that any chess player, regardless of his talent, if he constantly studies chess will eventually become a grandmaster. And I completely agree. Intelligence has an effect, but if you have been studying chess all your life (I emphasize the word studying, not playing), then in this case you will be able to achieve great heights, regardless of your IQ. But by the way, regarding intelligence and IQ, I would also separate these concepts. As Magnus said, IQ is not an objective indicator of your intelligence and I think so too
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.