Relationship between Chess rating and I.Q?

Name one.  A study I mean...saying there are "sources" is meaningless.  Any reputable study will do.

3dChess, I see a lot of conjecture and anecdotal evidence backed up by not a shred of anything...you certainly can't support a statement like "the correlation is definitely there".

Maybe you should watch the BBC special where Susan Polgar scores near the bottom of a broad group of people chosen for being super intelligent and tested in practical ways for ingenuity and creativity.

btickler, I'm afraid you've missed the whole point I've been making. Once again, It's a potential thing. The formulas are very rough but they are based on math

Potential IQ = 100 + 0.06 x (ELO – 1300)

Potential ELO = 1300 + 16.7 x (IQ – 100)

And MathewMunro deserves a lot of credit for posting the formulas. They are basically correct.

I agree that it is difficult or almost impossible to back up this correlation with science,  You are right here. But then again, IQ per se means little from a scientific point of view as a measure of intelligence. Of course people like IQ when they score high. Yet, I'm not willing to perceive things through rose-colored glasses and having a high IQ, while flattering, means no more to me than having a high ELO rating.

I agree with Russian mathematician Victor Vassiliev (or Vasilyev) when he points out unscientific flaws in IQ tests. He might be a little bit harsh on the test in my opinion but  the test still borders on pseudoscience. With that being said, IQ tests are still more or less scientific but not good enough. Personally, I'd rather go with Elo ratings rather than  IQ scores. It's flattering to have high IQ scores, and I like such tests but I have no illusions in this department, as I saw all the flaws first hand from a mathematical perspective. I don't need Vasilyev to point them out to me, I can do math on my own However, the lack of mathematical knowledge on this website truly shocks me. The thread with probabilities when Nakamura won Gibraltar is astonishing. The more chess players I get to know the more surprised I get. I have to put up with mathematical level of education, I guess. That's very sad when it comes to chess players or physicists. A bit of math knowledge would not have hurt. Just saying.

And the second formula holds for IQ˂180 if we consider the highest IQ to be 200.

Potential ELO = 1300 + 16.7 x (IQ – 100) where IQ˂180 (Test imprecision i.e. mistakes!)

Not only me or Vasilyev found mistakes in those tests, other mathematicians also did

It might come as a surprise for a lot of folks but there are also mistakes in tests like general SAT, general GRE etc. The quantity of them is very low but it precludes you from scoring perfect scores unless you get lucky. He he he

Levitt's formula ELO =  (10 x IQ) + 1000 is too harsh on chess players (ELO2000 = IQ100) but it is okay for GMs. One day we will have a much better formula; it is a matter of time I guess.

I guess I'll get some hateful replies. There must be a lot of deniers of chess being reflective of one's intelligence. There are also deniers of IQ measuring intelligence. Heck, Galileo was executed for his science and reasoning. Long live pseudoscience for now

This gives my 2000-rated self a IQ of 160 (I seriously doubt that!) and Magnus an IQ of over 220 (doesn't seem humanly possible).

2000 is nothing special. Any non-retarded person can reach it with a bit of work. We're not talking anywhere near the upper echelons here, just to understand a little bit about the game.

So, I'm retarded. Good to know.

I almost made it to 2000 USCF, but fell short. After peaking at 1982 as a young man (52 y.o.), my rating started racing downwards.

When I peaked, my city had two players over 2000. I beat both. Against one I have an even score, winning the standard games and losing the quick. I've been playing the other since we were both C Class. My wins have been few compared to losses. Our score is closer in blitz, but he still holds the edge.

Both moved away for jobs elsewhere, leaving me the highest rated player in my city until the next time I lost a game. To get over 2000 in my city is simple. You only need to score 100% against local players. Half of those over 1600 are rapidly improving--a few adults, but mostly children.

I got this idea from M.Gladwell's, "Outliers": The, "IQ", is just relative measurement - result when given a specific set of problems. It's relevant up to a certain extent. At a certain point, let's say 120, it cannot tell whether you're gonna be 1500 or a GM, eg: There is a person with higher IQ than Einstein who works as a bouncer. Besides, IQ does not measure other things like creativity or persistence.

@Ziryab LOL, I wasn't calling anyone retarded (I would be borderline myself if that was the case). There's a big difference between 'can' and 'will'. It sounds to me that if you had a less restricted rating pool you'd be comfortably over 2k.

Well, the formula

Potential IQ = 100 + 0.06 x (ELO – 1300)

gives a 2000 player a potential IQ of 142 (not actual but potential that can or could have been reached).

It gives a 2850 player a potential IQ of 193. It's not actual, but the person could have reached it provided he had been involved in something like math seriously from childhood.

We are talking about potential things here. Some people invest time in chess, other in sciences. If you had not invested serious time and effort in chess in childhood, no high ELO miracles should be expected.  ELO mainly assesses strength in chess, while IQ assesses strength at taking IQ tests. It's not that bad, of course. These are intellectual things and correlate strongly with intelligence and each other, of course.

Look in life it takes passion, an iron will, then discipline to become good at anything. Then continued passion, iron will, and discipline to become greater. We were as poor as dirt in my family and I made it out to start my own company for 30 years with the will to become better than I was. Always in competition with myself and no one else. A big key.

I learned chess at the young age of 43. Played my first game professional when I was 50 and shot up to 1700 refusing to lose. I had the pleasure of drawing with 5 NM's and 1 Senior Master. I could have kept on playing but I wanted to direct tournaments. I now direct tournaments as a Senior TD for the USCF, including Nationals. If you think that is easy to do in a very professional way try it. Education and getting chess lessons mean nothing. Your personal desire to achieve is the crux of the whole matter. I have JPL engineers with PHD's in my clubs who can't change a tire and their chess ratings have never gone over 1900. Life is made up of creativity, imagination, will, and strategies. Those will take you farther than the so called high IQ's. By the way I took the Mensa test and passed it just fine with no formal education. I agree the chess puzzles will be helpful and I personally like the composed chess problems but you have to decide in your own mind to win in chess and you will.

Or, if I spend less time with blitz and bullet and more time with Chess Informant. Even so, It's always interesting when someone claims that a certain level should be attainable by anyone with normal intelligence.

On the surface, that seems to be a reasonable assertion. But there are many factors that come into play. Some very smart people cannot handle competition, for example. Then, there is also the peculiar kinds of intelligence that chess requires.

I coach children. In one school club, I spent a lot of my time working with one particular fourth grade boy. He tested as gifted in the standardized tests they give kids in in that school. He was enthusiastic about chess. He quickly picked up some basic tactics and opening ideas. But, he could not learn to checkmate with king and rook against king. There was something fundamental missing in his spatial understanding.

I've taught this skill to hundreds of children. No one took more of my time on trying to learn this skill than this one very bright student. He never got it.

     Anecdotally, I used to play someone who had a Ph.d and despite his high intelligence, he was a  weak player, probably in the 1350 range. 

My opponents always play someone with a Ph.D, which anyone who is not retarded can get with a little work. ;-)

$$ to pay for the Ph.D. is often times the reason for lacking that degree.

After 18-years old, many folks are on their own, financially.

Chess is a performance based game, not a knowledge based one. You need a lot of qualities to be able to play chess well, like endurance and concentration. Lots of high IQ people lack both of those.

haha! 

so right. there are other factors that would keep one from attaining a ph.d, and none have any relevance to one's potential.

in singapore, the 18 year old male gets drafted & the military provides.  in return they take part of your brain.  so that doesn't really help either ...

Hello.
Using the IQ to SATI conversion chart found at: http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/SATIQ.aspx

and the Levitt equation: Elo~ IQ*10+1000
One can calculate SAT I to ~Elo conversions.

Please keep in mind these are SATI's taken after May of 1995 to whenever as long as its on the 1600 scale/roof (Verbal + Math). That is do not add in your writing score if you took the SAT when it had a scale/roof of 2400!
IF you took the SAT test before May of 1995 good for you; your estimated Elo will be HIGHER than the one predicted by the formula!

Namely (using IQ 15 SD column the leftmost column...as most IQ tests use a standard deviation of 15) picking a pair of points and finding the line IQ= .0724*SATI + 36.33 
Elo ~ ((.0724*SATI+36.33)*10) +1000  = .724*SATI + 1363.3
Elo ~ .724*SATI +1363.3

The short and approximate version of the formula is take your SATI divide by 1.4 and add 1400.
Cheers,
JWILD
p.s. Who pays for a PhD anyway? It's pretty standard for the university to pay the student, not the other way around.

Sometimes, people use math to camouflage hogwash. But it's still hogwash.

@SmyslovFan

You have accused me of willful deception, of bearing false witness. I know I have not. So I ask you, SmyslovFan, what upsets you, that you should show ill will towards a stranger?

The only thing is that Kasparov had an I.Q. of 110. He was a GM, I have an I.Q. of 135, and my Rating is 1500+