Does being good at chess make you 'smart', or does it just make you good at chess?

Can someone clarify this for me?

Being "good" is relative.

Being "smart" is relative.

For example. The more you play chess, especially online, the less "street smart" you will be.

Being good at chess generally means you'll win more games. Being smart means you'll find more productive use of your time . . .

Sadly, the only thing being good at chess proves is that you've spent a lot of time playing chess.

There's been studies on this.  The conclusion is that it just makes you good at chess.

I 100% agree.  

There are dumb people good at chess and smart people who suck at it. It's all about practice in this game, which is what makes it so fun

Take a pro player for example. 

They are great at chess... they've devoted thousands upon thousands of hours to it. Yet they only have a skill with a board game. They've spent their life studying pieces on a board, which is no more than a game invented to pass the time.

Wouldn't it be smarter to have studied a scientific subject? Or invested time into becoming a doctor, or researcher? If they are so smart, shouldn't they have put in the time into cancer research, for example?

Einstein was only rated 1426 making him a patzer but he was pretty smart in real life.

Then you have Carlsen who is rated 2845 but can’t string a sentence together.

But can he sing!

Wait, perhaps that should have been a question.  One never even asked.

I wonder if Einstein sang ...

Stock photo of a cromagnon man. Look familiar?

No offense but I've seen interviews with some GM's about non-chess stuff where they are just sprouting straight nonsense, who lack some common sense. That didn't mean they are not good/devoted to the chess but I would see this is a pretty good example that being good at chess doesn't necessarily mean you are smart in real life.

I will try to answer in three parts.

1. Being intelligent does not make you good at chess and it does not necessarily give you a world view or commonsense, many intelligent people have many problems, indeed many very intelligent people have significant mental issues.

2. Developing a good study technique and the discipline to follow through while trying to get "good" at chess, can flow through to other aspects of your life and improve your processing and calculation methodologies and embed good vision and risk management outlooks.

and lastly 3. Being good at chess can be taken as a measure of intelligence in one area only, however being great at chess takes a lot of dedication, and as seen by examples littered throughout chess history, can often be to the detriment of the rest of your life, as in, it is very hard to be great at chess and have any balance in your life.

Ouch.  All those people who make National Master and above have put in more time to study and train and win more games than others.  

Chess makes you more crazy than smart. I can't find much application to real life. Maybe Its out there but ive yet to find it. 

To answer the original question: let us eliminate the outliers. For the sake of argument, let us say that "smart" people are self-sufficient and have common sense. Let us also say that a "good" chess player is someone simply with a solid chess ability without the high levels of practice and study that sacrifices "a real life." The reason I set these distinctions beforehand is to not count these outliers. GMs and IMs combined make up less than the top 1% of all chess players, so for a general answer, why would we count "good chess players" as studying chess a lot? "Good chess players" would then simply mean players above average (even if not in the upper echelons). Likewise, "geniuses" in real life usually can't even function on a daily basis without help from others, but they too are a small minority of "smart people" (even if they are considered in the upper echelons of intelligence). Why should we count them for a general answer? Let us keep parallelism and define "smart people" as "more intelligent than the average."

If we define as such (which takes care of outlier instances), then the answer seems fairly simple doesn't it? I say: "Chess will not necessarily make you 'smart,' but 'smart' people are more likely to play chess."

Chess is literally a game of mentalities; it is a game of wit; it is a game of psychology; it is certainly a "mind game" of sorts. Doesn't it make sense that the people who would like these types of games are people who feel they succeed in this ability (and therefore a better chance of winning or enjoying the game)? It is possible that some people become "smarter" as a result of chess study and the good study habits it can create, but I also find it fool-hardy to claim that "chess makes everyone smarter." There are always exceptions it seems, and "all" translates to 100% (without exception). 

I stick by my original assertion: "Chess will not necessarily make you 'smart,' but 'smart' people are more likely to play chess."