Lower-IQ Grandmasters?

The average IQ of chess grandmasters seems to be around 130 or so, at least from what I have seen on the subject (if you have additional data on this, please feel free to post it).

Some grandmasters will be higher, some lower than the average.

I'm wondering how low are the lowest IQs among grandmasters (both actually and theoretically). 115? 110? Lower? 

Could someone like Kim Peek, with a freakishly prodigious and efficient memory (probably far beyond even Paul Morphy's 'photographic memory'), reach grandmaster level if they concentrated their energies on chess -- despite having a low IQ? 

Could there be an idiot savant chess grandmaster? 

Why or why not? 

Has there ever been an idiot savant grandmaster? Or something close? 

Have any of these savants ever seriously tried their hands at chess? 

My guess, and it's only a guess, is that grandmasters probably have a lower than average iq. When I see what grandmasters do, and that is spend a tremdous amount of time to become good at something that returns so little, it seems that it might take someone a little slow to think that's a good idea. 

Happiness and enjoyment is "little"?

Life is not all about money. 

Good point. 

I would add that people with high IQs can be very stupid in some ways. 

And I have seen people with low IQs (one with Down syndrome) who have a much clearer understanding of the importance of love and living than many people with high IQs, including grandmasters.

I did not intend to imply scientific fact, and am quite open to additional data. 

I would be interested in the Simon Williams article, if anyone has a reference.

Many of us have been conditioned to view great chess players as greatly intelligent. This thread is already eroding (further eroding) that myth.

After many years of seeing Bobby Fischer as a great genius (a contagion, widely propagated), I am finally starting to see him as rather stupid. Or at least rather ordinary outside of chess, and in some respects truly stupid. 

Sultan Khan apparently refused to teach or coach his offspring in chess, telling them that there are more meaningful things to focus on in life....

Morphy expressed similar understandings.

A lot of people have dedicated a huge part of their lives to mastering games, sports or heck even crafts and arts, that someone could consider... less valuable.

For example you have played 25 000 blitz games here, what was it that you were saying about spending so much time doing something that returns so little? Are you saying that you are a little slow?

I agree'z wid' half O' ya' declaration thinGy my dear gud friend IfPatriotGames...  Peeps have told me dat' I have a IQ lower da' a mud turrle and is dumber than died up'z drool..  

Would Simon Williams be considered as one of the lower IQ GMs?

Hard to believe that grandmasters do not have exceptional memory.  My memory is not terrible, but I can't play a blindfolded chess game, let alone several at once.  That is ALL about memory. 

I do not have an explanation for this (I haven't yet tried to understand it) but I have been able to play blindfold chess without much difficulty (1-3 boards) but did not and do not have an exceptional memory, and zero tournament experience -- basically just a recreational dabbler who has read some books on chess. 

I am not remembering all the pieces, just the feel of the chess 'conversation.' Virtually anyone can remember 1-3 conversations, and keep track of the words and ideas.... 

The gist of a chess position has a certain feel to it. 

You can remember faces pretty well. It's not too different.

Maybe different people are using different parts of their brains when playing chess. Some are thinking more in terms of logical sequence and discrete data points. Others are dealing more with overall gestalt and feel -- more like faces, without analyzing all the features.

Music would be another analogy -- note by note is one thing, overall character is another. One is more laborious, labor intensive and detail oriented.

I just remembered recent cognitive tests I was given as part of a doctor's physical exam, in which they told me that I was the only one they had tested who got all of the memory part correct. So maybe I do have a better memory than I usually think of myself as having. It certainly isn't perfect though. 

And I think you are right about high-level chess players having good memories. 

I've seen strong evidence that memory can be trained and improved. Some of those people who can remember many details from any day in their lives, going back years and years, developed the ability (others came upon it more naturally). There is evidence that parts of their brains physically changed with the exercise of the ability. 

I'm sorry if I misled you. I didn't mean to imply that the average chess player, like myself, sees little return in chess. What Pondisoulenso was talking about, and what I responded with, was opinion about the IQ of grandmasters. Not average players.

Most of us, especially me, have no intention of expecting any significant return from playing chess. From what I understand, a chess grandmaster is a very rare and specific achievement. I think there are about 1600 in the world. My point is to spend the amount of time necessary to get that good (which definitely excludes people like me) means investing a huge portion of a persons life with very little return. Casual players like us dont have an expectation or need or desire to see any significant roi, grandmasters do. Which makes me think that might not be the smartest choice. 

Pondi also brought up another very good point. Some people with low IQs can often seem to have a better grasp of things that are really important, like love and compassion. If someone loves chess and wants to spend the necessary time to become a grandmaster, good for them, because they are doing what they love. But to me it seems like a bad choice. And it wouldn't surprise me if people with low IQs make more bad choices.

I don't if Josh Waitzkin ever made GM but he was really good. I consider him pretty dim for quitting chess and going into taekwondo or judo or whatever form of martial arts he does. He could have at least been a commentator or someone behind the scenes but he threw it all away. The ironic thing is that the movie "Searching for Bobby Fischer" was about him as a kid and he ended up doing the same thing that Bobby did. It takes a person with low intelligence to not realize they have a talent or gift and not make the best use of their skills. I would call him an idiot savant of sorts.

I had a friend in college who was very highly ranked nationwide (#1 under 18). I had conversations with him during the period when he was mulling over whether or not to become professional, and shoot for the world title. Most people thought he had what it takes, and he got a lot of encouragement.

He decided it wasn't worth it. It would take too much of his limited time in life. There were other things he wanted to do, and he wanted to be more fully developed and well rounded. He didn't think the rewards were that great, and he pulled back on the chess involvement.

It seemed like an intelligent decision. 

being well rounded is such a silly "virtue"

You mean according to clickbait BS? The kind that give e.g. Fischer and Kasparov IQs over 190?

Kasparov took a real IQ test (not online nonsense) and scored 135. He's widely considered the most dominant and best chess player in history.

But a higher than average IQ for GM vs general population wouldn't be shocking. If you have actual data feel free to share it.

Well, the youngest GMs are 12 and 13 and of course IQ is relative to age.

So even if these kids have an IQ of ~160 it just means they're as smart as an average adult with an IQ of 100.

Chess is a very specific skill. IQ is not as relevant is most non-players think.

His IQ was what, 70 or something? The guy couldn't even take care of himself IIRC. Dress, bathe, feed etc.

No, I don't think he could be a good chess player... not at all. He was essentially a severely brain damaged person with a brain abnormality that enhanced his memory.

These are interesting questions.

Sure, I think it's possible, but I don't know of any "idiot savant" GMs.

Preggo said:

Well, the youngest GMs are 12 and 13 and of course IQ is relative to age.

So even if these kids have an IQ of ~160 it just means they're as smart as an average adult with an IQ of 100.

That's not how IQ works Preggo.

Do you know what I.Q. stands for?

If so, do you know what the word "quotient" means?

If a 12 year old and an 18 year old answer all the questions the same, then the 18 year old will score an IQ of 100 and the 12 year old will score 18/12 (x10)= an IQ of 150

the original iq which was a ratio of "mental age"/chronological age did work that way