Chess ability and high IQ - Chess Forums - Page 3

exploding_herring

May 21, 2019

0

#41

That doesn't seem weird to me at all. With a billion people you have the resources to produce top competitors in a range of sports. And it's also not surprising that some people would rather put their time into the most internationally recognised of a set of somewhat similar games. Of the three you mentioned that's chess. (And if you really must attach a demonym to it should probably be 'Indian', there's nothing American about the origins of the game.)

AlohaKauai

May 21, 2019

0

#42

Here is a table that links IQ scores to rarity. An IQ of 190 for example is about one in a billion. We would expect 7 people on the planet to have IQs that high.

https://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/iqtable.aspx

I heard there is a simple formula linking IQ with chess ability. Multiply your IQ by ten and add a thousand. That should be your target maximum ELO rating as a full-time chess professional. Applying that formula to the world's all-time top players, Carlsen would have an IQ of 189. Kasparov 186 and Caruana 185.

LIONSHAPEDBOX

May 21, 2019

0

#43

No disrespect to Go... but Chess has a charm no other board game can match.

alanzo1i1i

May 21, 2019

0

#44

fairytaleLion wrote:

No disrespect to Go... but Chess has a charm no other board game can match.

Monopoly? Hello?

Ziryab

May 21, 2019

0

#45

AlohaKauai wrote:

Here is a table that links IQ scores to rarity. An IQ of 190 for example is about one in a billion. We would expect 7 people on the planet to have IQs that high.

https://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/iqtable.aspx

I heard there is a simple formula linking IQ with chess ability. Multiply your IQ by ten and add a thousand. That should be your target maximum ELO rating as a full-time chess professional. Applying that formula to the world's all-time top players, Carlsen would have an IQ of 189. Kasparov 186 and Caruana 185.

Wholly speculative going from IQ to peak chess potential; completely unwarranted going the other way. That's what happens when you apply simple math to complex multifaceted activities that call for a range of skills, especially highly specialized ones that do not transfer into other areas of life.

wollyhood

May 21, 2019

0

#46

ghost_of_pushwood wrote:

Not to mention the fact that the concept of IQ itself is highly speculative...

yes people say you can't prep for IQ tests but you can, have seen it in my own life when I was 18.

Am sure there are limitations imposed on this by aging or depleting cells / more stereotyping as we get older but from listening to GM streams, very few of them have any respect for IQ tests.

Eric Hansen didn't seem to go to Uni or even think that he even could have easily gotten a degree.

Probably wisest to not limit ourselves to give the biggest kudos to tests that can't help but have been designed by people that would do well in them (human's natural ability to stack the deck in our own misguided favour)

wollyhood

May 21, 2019

0

#47

Also just to add an even weirder dimension to this discussion, ever since I started watching many bird experiments on line, have been sure that you could teach a bird to play chess, would take serious time but especially with a few pieces it could be possible.

There is a species, is it a nut hatch? That remembers the 100 hiding places of its winter food buried in the snow every year, and Even retrieves the food items in the same order it hid them in! How amazing is that.

WalangAlam

May 21, 2019

0

#48

Guys this is so 90's IQ is over rated having a higher EQ will serve you better in the long run...

wollyhood

May 21, 2019

0

#49

Optimissed wrote:

But "EQ" is a facet of general intelligence, or IQ.

Link please? I thought they had nothing to do with each other, except they are both contentious : )

wollyhood

May 21, 2019

0

#50

Optimissed wrote:

I think it's reasonably obvious that understanding people is just part of understanding the world and that intelligence is the faculty or facility of understanding and using our environment. But really, I'm the person who understands these things and works them out .... and then the academics may well fake up some studies. By and large, they're wasting their time.

Yah but heaps of people are super smart and then just highly offensive to other people, like Sheldon Cooper, I would say that represents a huge disparity between his IQ and EQ.

wollyhood

May 21, 2019

0

#51

IronIC_U wrote:

wollyhood wrote:

Also just to add an even weirder dimension to this discussion, ever since I started watching many bird experiments on line, have been sure that you could teach a bird to play chess, would take serious time but especially with a few pieces it could be possible.

There is a species, is it a nut hatch? That remembers the 100 hiding places of its winter food buried in the snow every year, and Even retrieves the food items in the same order it hid them in! How amazing is that.

The term they use for that is episodic memory.

Funny story, though:

when 949 was a partner in an architecture firm, my partner runs into my office, slams an IQ test on my desk, and says, “you’ve got 20 minutes, starting NOW!” 949 had no clue what was going on, but plowed through the test. I find out later, my partner was trying to force the test on me so he’d end up with a higher score, too funny! His score was 135.

He had all our employees take the test, and they scored between 100-125. On a person-by-person basis, you could see it. IQ matters, it’s not that dubious, as some posters are claiming. But we had one employee who scored an amazing 140! Her’s was the second highest score for our entire company. 949 is very proud of what she’s achieved over the last decade.

nice, from reading between the lines i think i got a similar score to yourself ; D

wollyhood

May 21, 2019

0

#52

Optimissed wrote:

wollyhood wrote:

Optimissed wrote:

But "EQ" is a facet of general intelligence, or IQ.

Link please? I thought they had nothing to do with each other, except they are both contentious : )>>>

Sorry, I admit I was gently winding things up, Wollyhood. But we can see our emotions in the context of being phenomena .... just like phenomena we encounter in the world, since our environment is closely linked to how we react to it and emotions are very basic reactions to things in the world and the relationships we have with them. When we understand that, learn to step back from our emotions and think clearly, then we think better, which is equivalent to a higher IQ. I suppose it's best to think of this EQ thing as empathy .... where we're empathising with ourselves just as much as with others, since in any case, if we don't understand ourselves we can never hope to understand others.

Is that clearer?

hmmm actually i think you have successfully muddied the water in an even more artistic way xD

am enjoying this discussion though, it taps into my natural need to be as free as possible and therefore not be bogged down by stereotypes / limitations in general, even if they do make some people feel less limited, in my perception they make more people feel more limited.

there was a really interesting Learning Style wheel on the net about 12 years ago that had me score super low on accurately gauging how other people see me, (IRL anyway probably communicate much better on line) and yeh that was my lowest score / learning style.

it was a big OOOOOHHHHHHHHHH moment for me and reminded me of the time my immediate boss said to me, why doesn't this skirt sit properly? And I said, because you have no ass, dear : ) and I thought it was mainly a complement as tiny blond asses were so sought after back then.

I was down the road a few weeks later xD

wollyhood

May 21, 2019

0

#53

IronIC_U wrote:

Optimissed wrote:

I think it's reasonably obvious that understanding people is just part of understanding the world and that intelligence is the faculty or facility of understanding and using our environment. But really, I'm the person who understands these things and works them out .... and then the academics may well fake up some studies. By and large, they're wasting their time.

Impressive!

You used 2 (there’s) correctly in that post. You had the chance to use there, but used “our”. Instead. 949 is looking for a poster who can use all there’s in one sentence. Actually, I believe there are 5 there’s? Who can use them all in one sentence? This is so apropos for this IQ thread...

THAT quoted however is Classic Diversion Arguing! D this is like maximum nerd fun innit guvs

wollyhood

May 21, 2019

0

#54

Optimissed wrote:

and Even retrieves the food items in the same order it hid them in! How amazing is that.>>

Delete the "even", since one retrieval acts as a trigger for the next, so that's the natural way it would work.

I don't come here for grammar advice and I think you are stating the obvious : )

MORE DIVERSION you should get into politics lol, what a natural

wollyhood

May 21, 2019

0

#55

Hm, well i have to strongly disagree with you on your post#106, as I have mass empathy for others but it doesn't come out very well in little social niceties

Just call me Ms Anecdotal xD

wollyhood

May 21, 2019

0

#56

Could be a good Max Hargreaves book, Little Ms Anecdotal!

wollyhood

May 21, 2019

0

#57

Classic me comment that's for sure, mind you so many people had commented to me about my own derriere for years before that ( and I was only 16 ) I think it was partly environmental impact damage

wollyhood

May 21, 2019

0

#58

Hm, there's another possibility but it's not completely complementary to your perception of what actually went down that night xD

wollyhood

May 21, 2019

0

#59

gosh really, philosophy

I'd like to do some tests on you quite honestly

wollyhood

May 21, 2019

0

#60

what do you do for a crust now?