Link between IQ and ability to play chess

Just putting this here because somebody asked the question earlier, and someone else gave a wrong answer then demanded that the thread be closed.

Evidence-based research has consistently found a positive correlation between IQ and rating:

Michigan State University. "Chess skill is linked to intelligence." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 13 September 2016. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160913124722.htm>.

The studies those authors looked at started with people who had already had an IQ test, or an equivalent to it. As a result the calculation of the correlation is probably unassailable, but it only tells a small part of the whole story.

It's worth noting that the scientific findings by research goes against the majority of posters on Reddit, chess.com's forums, and this site's forums. I'll leave it to you to consider why that might be the case.

My take on this is that, focusing on IQ rather than "intelligence" (whatever that means), the conclusion is easy to understand. The standard IQ tests rely in large part on a series of puzzles that engage the same kinds of thought processes as playing chess. People who excel at chess will be the same people who excel at that part of the IQ test.

One more thought. I don't know what percentage of the population has actually taken an IQ test, and I doubt that the data exists to answer that question. Some articles out there say that when it comes to people self-reporting their IQ, the average self-reported IQ is 135. I guess they have taken a few too many of those tests you see in ads on CNN

If the number is more than 1% I would be shocked.

It makes sense. Visual-spatial reasoning is a factor in IQ itself, so it makes sense that high visual-spatial reasoning would result in a higher IQ, all else equal. And I think it's also pretty common that if one ability is uniquely high (like visual-spatial) that correlates with being higher in other areas of IQ as well (though I'm not 100% sure).

@JuxPlixab said in #1:
> It's worth noting that the scientific findings by research goes against the majority of posters on Reddit, chess.com's forums, and this site's forums. I'll leave it to you to consider why that might be the case.
Your statement that the research goes against the majority of posters at this site's is unlikely at best. How many examples of this, to make your point, do you have?

@JuxPlixab said in #1:
> Michigan State University. "Chess skill is linked to intelligence."

Well gee, there's a startling find. Isn't most any skill gonna be "linked to intelligence"?

Talk about inane.

The real problem though is when people start believing that just because they play the game, they're all geniuses. And as I've said before, there's no surer demolition of that notion than reading through the many dumbass threads on this topic.

@MrPushwood said in #4:
> Well gee, there's a startling find. Isn't most any skill gonna be "linked to intelligence"?
>
> Talk about inane.
>
> The real problem though is when people start believing that just because they play the game, they're all geniuses. And as I've said before, there's no surer demolition of that sort of thing that reading through the myriad dumbass threads on this subject.

Or reading dumb comments posted by Pushwood, which, sadly, we have to deal with on a daily basis.

An I.Q. exam consists of the following:

Verbal Intelligence
Mathematical Ability
Spatial Reasoning Skills
Visual/Perceptual Skills
Classification Skills
Logical Reasoning Skills
Pattern Recognition Skills

Chess involves Logical reasoning, Spatial reasoning, Visual perception, and Pattern recognition, and it requires a strong working memory. So naturally, there would have to be a correlation between the two.

But there are also intangibles like work ethic, long term and short term memory, intuition and personality traits. If you are implusive, you will never be a GM. If you have ADHD and cannot concentrate for 90 minutes, you will never be a GM. If you don't like studying chess, then you will never be a GM.

A certain level of raw intelligence is required to be a top player, but after that bar has been met, the intangibles are more important.

Very few GM's are geniuses. Most fall into the 120-135 range.

@JuxPlixab said in #1:
> ... Evidence-based research has consistently found a positive correlation between IQ and rating ... My take on this is that, focusing on IQ rather than "intelligence" (whatever that means), the conclusion is easy to understand. The standard IQ tests rely in large part on a series of puzzles that engage the same kinds of thought processes as playing chess. People who excel at chess will be the same people who excel at that part of the IQ test. ...
If I have not goofed up the math:
For the points, (1,1), (2,2), and (3,1), the correlation between x and y is 0 .
For the points, (1,1), (2,3), and (3,2), the correlation between x and y is .5 .
For the points, (1,1), (2,2), and (3,3), the correlation between x and y is 1 .
A healthier person is more likely to be good at chess.
A healthier person is more likely to be good at basketball.
That could show up in the data as a positive correlation between chess skill and basketball skill.
Positive correlations can arise for very complicated reasons, and, in any event, a positive correlation does not necessarily indicate that an increased value for x will always be accompanied by an increased value for y.
The story goes that, in 1895, after, 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Bc5 4 c3 Nf6 5 d4 exd4 6 cxd4 Bb4+ 7 Nc3 d5 8 exd5 Nxd5 9 O-O Be6 10 Bg5 Be7 11 Bxd5 Bxd5 12 Nxd5 Qxd5 13 Bxe7 Nxe7 14 Re1 f6 15 Qe2 Qd7 16 Rac1 c6 17 d5 cxd5 18 Nd4 Kf7 19 Ne6 Rhc8 20 Qg4 g6 21 Ng5+ Ke8 22 Rxe7+ Kf8 23 Rf7+ Kg8 24 Rg7+ Kh8 25 Rxh7+, Curt von Bardeleben left the room without resigning, and Steinitz was left behind to demonstrate, to others, how he would have proceeded to a checkmate.
www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1132699
If I remember correctly, the story goes that Rothschild once told Steinitz something like this: "When it comes to chess, you are Steinitz. When it comes to finance, I am Steinitz."

Racing success depends on engine, design and drivers...in this common sense iq just an engine...still need a good drivers to steer it ...half of the geniuses wasting their life because they didn't want to drive at all

I’ll agree with old Pushwood that the content of these forums does prove that a high IQ and chess do not always go together.

@MrPushwood said in #4:
> Well gee, there's a startling find. Isn't most any skill gonna be "linked to intelligence"?
>
> Talk about inane.
>
> The real problem though is when people start believing that just because they play the game, they're all geniuses. And as I've said before, there's no surer demolition of that notion than reading through the many dumbass threads on this topic.

That's the title of the article. The idea was that the reader would click on the line of blue text below which would take you to the article.

You are right about the nature of the problem, though. Someone gets to 2400 on chess.com and their a genius. Someone is stuck at 1100, and it's "chess ability has nothing to do with intelligence."

"... The level at which one plays is governed by a number of vague and poorly understood factors. The first is what one might term 'natural talent'. ... It is my belief that ... considerable improvement is possible [(for most players)] with appropriate education, training and practice. ..." - GM John Nunn (2006)