Does being good at chess mean you have high iq?

Does being good at chess mean you have high iq?

no, but a high iq helps

https://thechessworld.com/articles/healthpsycology/chess-rating-and-iq-score-correlation/ 

being good at chess is through hard work and years of effort, someone with a high iq might be able to get the same results in less time.

If you learn and understand chess quicker than average then most likely your iq is on the higher side

The only way to know your IQ is to submit to a supervised test invigilated by Mensa or similar organisation. Mine's 146 but I'm a poor (but slowly improving) chess player.

You seem pretty good at puzzles which a higher iq does support, as its essentially problem solving

Yes haven't you ever taken an iq test they just hand you a chess board and say go. 

IQ is a measure of general problem solving ability. Chess rating is a measure of a very specific problem solving ability. There is a statistical correlation between the two but it's not a strong one.

Interest towards those things is more important than iq. Im sure if youd be studying chess (or math or whatever) or playing alot you would get it very fast. Of course it means alot, you're able to do more than average with information you're given.

Definitely not, I am mentally lacking.

     No. The most important chess talents are visualization ability and visual memory. High intelligence should help in understanding what chess books and teachers are saying, but a bit more ability to develop one's talents isn't as good as having a lot more talent to develop. 

     Most of what we see about Fischer or Kasparov or Carlsen having IQs of 190 is just hype from websites trying to get you to pay for their (phony) quick tests and are not true. Hikaru Nakamura took the Mensa test and scored 105--average. If you needed a high IQ to be a top chess player he wouldn't be where he is on the ratings list. 

     When playing at the Berkeley Chess Club years ago I saw a couple of University of California Berkeley math professors play for a few years in the B and C rating classes.

Being good at chess generally only means one thing: you have spent a considerable portion of your life practicing chess.

It's same with most other skills. Being good at carpentry, being good at swimming, being good at playing a musical instrument, etc.

It's not really about IQ - it's about the cumulative time and effort one has devoted to the craft.

No such thing as "good at chess" you're either depth 99 stockfish or you're trash.  So yes it does in that no one has high IQ and no one is good at chess.  

I still think if Nakamura would take a real test off stream he would score way higher. On stream is not an environment to try out an iq test for the first time.

Chess after all is alot of problem solving. To be at the level Nakamura is he must need either a very high iq or an insane visual memory, if I had to guess you need both. To be at the top you have to understand complex concepts better than most will ever be able to and solve practical problems in positions he has never seen before.

Of course obsession and hours put in is the most important thing, but once youre at the top everyone has that.

that's an interesting world in which you live...

     Yes, there are many facets to chess success, and high IQ can help, but it is not a major factor. A lot of myths have arisen concerning top players' IQs and many people just assume that you must have a top IQ to be  top chess player. Kasparov took an IQ test and scored a very good 135, but innumerable sources say he has an IQ of 190. Magnus Carlsen is also frequently referred to as having a 190 IQ, but he has never taken an IQ test. Fischer took a test in school, admitted the school never told him his result, but somehow he is frequently cited as having scored 181. Many people start with the idea that chess involves problem-solving and IQ tests involve problem-solving, ergo high IQ scores MUST equal great chess talent. I have seen enough high-IQ chess players with a lifetime of average or a bit better results to realize that there is no automatic correlation.

     A group of cognitive scientists studied the French Chess Olympiad team (including Alekhine and Marcel Duchamp) in the 1920s and found that the only areas where all the players scored in the top 1% of the population were visualization (the capacity to "see" precisely what something will look like following a series of alterations) and visual memory. 

     Someone with an average IQ and tremendous abilities in these areas will be able to become a much better chess player than someone with little visual talent but a high IQ. Naturally, if two people with the same visual abilities (and work ethic, calmness under pressure, competitive spirit, etc) have vastly different IQs, the one with the greater IQ should have some advantage in learning the game, but good chess results=high IQ just isn't demonstrable.

"Many people start with the idea that chess involves problem-solving and IQ tests involve problem-solving, ergo high IQ scores MUST equal great chess talent."

Just breaking down chess thinking process leads me to believe this must be the case. To see how a position looks 15 moves after is one thing, understanding why it's good for you is another. A high iq person will be able to understand key concepts faster than average and will make progress faster studying chess. This is my opinion, leads to greater chess understanding and potential. If on top of this you lack visual ability, you might not make it at the very top.

With how competetive chess is today, I struggle to see that someone with 105 iq would be a top 2 player at some point of his career. Of course it could also be that our iq tests absolutely suck at measuring human intelligence. Idk.