Relationship between Chess rating and I.Q?

Obviously...We are under supossed structures to talk about.

That’s correct. On the other hand, Look at forums like this one and you’ll see folks claiming an IQ for Kasparov of 170-180.

Fischer never took an IQ test, but Brady claims an unnamed teacher saw some test scores when he was in seventh grade or thereabouts. The information is vague and unsupportable. On this “evidence”, grandiose claims are put forth.

Carlsen, so far as I can find, has never taken an IQ test, although claims about his geographical memory when he was five would support the idea that he is very bright.

a Awesome actor. I'm seeing Valley of Souls.Maybe thats inspired my example of rich person, on this case millionaire...

True, Kasparov has a high IQ, but there are a lot of claims on various websites that his IQ is 180 or 190. The same claims are made about Bobby Fischer and Magnus Carlsen.Many people start with the assumption that the world's best chess player must have one of the world's highest IQs, so top players are credited with super high IQs despite utter lack of any evidence.

This thread is from 2008, and Mr Wizard is long gone now, but I would examine the statements:

"I vaguely recall British G.M Jonathan Levitt putting forward the notion that an I.Q of 120 indicates a person could, with sufficient work achieve a rating roughly = 2000 + [I.Q - 100] x 10

Therefore, we can conclude that even a relatively weak G.M would have an I.Q above 140 while super GM's like Kasparov would be > 180."

So, a British GM (1) (not a researcher and unqualified to make such a statement) puts forth a (2) vague (3) notion about the (4) possibility (could) of a rating formula that works, (5) roughly anyway...

Followed immediately by "therefore, we can conclude..." which does not follow, at all. This is just a dubious assertion no matter how you look at it. The claim is protected because of the language "with sufficient work" that allows an escape clause...if the someone doesn't fit the formula, you can simply claim that are not putting in enough effort and the formula is still sound. This is how pseudo-sciences, various religions, etc. are born...

The funny part is that when the facts contradict the notion anyway, as in the cases of Kasparov and Nakamura, people want sooo much to believe in this direct correlation that they will dismiss the facts and say that the facts must be mistaken and the GMs must have vastly higher IQs.

I am not saying that Nakamura has a 102 IQ...but do I think that casual result was 75-80 IQ points off the mark? Not in the slightest.

To people that want a stronger and direct correlation to be true, I would say this...IQ and chess ratings are measurements after the fact, not goals to be pursued. They are not ends in and of themselves. Value the knowledge and skills (and the concrete results), not the numbers.

I'm not saying that he's wrong for positing his formula, rather, a number of people (including the OP) on the 75+ pages of this thread are wrong for taking seriously what he says is not to be taken seriously .

Yes, this is sloppy nonsense. There is no reason to believe Kasparov is a world class solver of IQ puzzles.

Thats can be a interesting Gothic apport to thread.On this tale of Edgard Alan Poe,on the intro,hes talk about Chess.Their opinion can be enough interesting to this topic if we consider that some study observe their mind as other example of highly IQ. It not necesary taken atention to all the tale.Is part of the intro. I need to express that 1) Im not necesarelly agree with Poe on this point and 2) I suggets to taken attention to all the tale to have best idea of integral meaning

The headline observation is that Levitt pretty much assumes a DETERMINISTIC relationship between IQ and potential chess rating. This is an absurd mistake. It is highly unlikely that more than a small minority of chess rating is explained by IQ. With such a more realistic relationship, you have a much flatter linear model, with a wide spread. In particularly, very high rating people would be expected to have only modestly above average IQs, and similarly the other way round. Being world class at chess is not the same as being world class at IQ tests!

That formula is absurd (except perhaps as a way to sell chess training). The idea that most people could achieve an FIDE rating over 2000 is fanciful to say the least. Arguing that they just don't try enough is ridiculous: even out of the skewed sample of those who play chess OTB for many years, only a small minority get to the level of 2000 Elo. This fraction has fallen over the years as the graph below (from 2022) makes clear, but part of that is that FIDE only counted ratings over 2200 up to 1993, then up to 2000 until 2001, when they counted ratings over 1800, then progressively lower until ratings over 1000 in 2012. The much greater inclusiveness weakened the pool of players over time.
Levitt's claim suggests that the players born in the 1990s could, on average, increase their ratings by 330 points with a bit of application. Yeah, sure. Those born in the 2000s have the advantage of being mostly in their late teens, but they need to improve by 600 points. It ain't happening.

A supposed IQ value would not necessarily be related to applied intelligence. It's the same when you have the opportunity to make a big move or checkmate in a game, but you miss it. It was not perceived. (It's a parallelism.) I'm not saying that omissions are unsmartly. We can all experience omissions all time.Compare thats with macro circunstances.Scientists can observe behavior, methods, ways of resolving situations, but that is only theoretical. A person can do well on a test for many reasons. It's just a moment. What is applied intelligence? It is subjective. Many people decide not to use all their creativity. Many feel comfortable without having to work or think, others put their brains to sleep in different ways... and others getting a paper with test results that indicate a high IQ, but every day they accept toxic things into their body and choose bad foods or other things. Thats exists, paradoxically, only as an example.I also can put myself on eye of hurricane if tell how I reduced in past dangerously my ingest of water previous to a bodybuilding tournamet, only to get a plastic throphy or metal medail,knowing the risk.Dont hurry to qualify other behavior without self exam to have a idea more specifically.

About pseudosciences and religions mentioned on #1615 ,Hitler had frequent hysterical lapses when he shouted that he could looked to future superior being, in one part of the room meeting with his commanders specifically in a place in the room. He asked other officials if they can also see the superior being there,arguing that only intelligent people can see ,and the rest of the officials simply said that they can also see him because otherwise he could be a high risk for their positions.Nowadays, many people are raised to follow norms about what is wise in their moral behavior, including taboos and behavioral imitations.Thats imitations can have social models propoosed on masive media.On negative example, what is considered "not good" for social norm structure ,is canceled or under ideological persecution.The question is who decide and under what parameters ,whats is good and whats is bad

Much of the time, a chess master achieves their rating through steel-minded determination and effort as well as talent; chess prodigies are actually very rare and even in their cases talent alone is not enough and they can peak too early. There is some positive correlation between chess potential and intelligence due to strong calculative ability being a key factor in chess potential but it is in fact relatively weak. Furthermore IQ tests are flawed and concentrate too much on the intelligence required for academics. Therefore, this theory is not credible and should be ignored.

...Or what thing add more IQ to our mind...and what thing substract IQ score

Chess is hard

Beating grandmasters is harder

Beating Vishy Magnus or Bobby is hardest

Vishwanathan Anand once got a performance rating of 3500. That was when he had his highest IQ, that is estimated to be between 230–250

Carlsen's exact IQ score is not public information. It is unclear whether he has ever taken a standard test to determine his IQ or if he has chosen to keep the information private. However, estimates place Magnus Carlsen's IQ around 190, which would place him among the top echelons of intellectual capabilities.

Bobby Fischer first learned the game of chess at age 6 and eventually became the youngest international grandmaster at the age of 15. He reportedly had an I.Q. of 181. In 1972, he became the first American-born world chess champion after defeating Boris Spassky

All hardest have High IQ

People "supposedly" having high IQ may be skilled at many things... but consider other skills such as, for example, the Rubik's Cube or other less public skills... why Rubik's Cube and others as peg solitaire are not associated with a high IQ, if IQ tests have many of this exercises similars...? we really aware of how many chess champions in history or great players we have? Do we have to assume that each of them was associated with a high IQ?...Why IQ Test do not includ chess problems?

Maybe Is because Chess and other teaching skills can be memorized (*). IQ tests try to put the brain/mind in non-everyday repetitive situations. I believe that intelligence cannot be calculated in numbers and ranges. It can also fluctuate depending on situations. Schemes depend of situations can limit the intellect.Only is my oppinion.Web is plenty of data about famous and their IQ.Apparently this interests many people. ( *)I know Chess is still a difficult challenge.Perhaps more than others

There's no correlation. If you're a genius you're probably going to be good at any sort of mental activity. If you are not a genius your IQ doesn't predict how good you will be at chess. And by that I mean you could put a person with an IQ of 115 against someone with an IQ of 140 and you wouldn't be able to predict who would win based on IQ. I have friends of varying levels of intelligence and have seen it go both ways.

“Reportedly”

The reporting was from his biographer, Frank Brady, who offered no source in the first book, and an unverifiable one (an unnamed school counsellor) in the second. The school official was allegedly claiming to have remembered scores that he had seen decades earlier (they were standardized test scores—many numbers—) from which Brady claimed an IQ score can be derived.

In other words, there is no credible reason to believe any claim about Fischer’s IQ, unless someone tells you that any test administered is no longer available and no score was ever documented.

Of course, that is because the most important factor, amount of practice wasn't considered.

Intelligence obviously plays a big role in chess but as there are more significant factors, the correlation is limited. The pattern is similar with other practices where high iq is helpful, but as chess in its problem solving requiring nature has fundamental similarities with iq tests, the correlation would be higher than with most other games, activities and whatnot.

I think it is only logical tho that high intelligence would predict a) higher likelihood of enjoying chess b) faster progression when exposed to practice and c) higher ultimate potential in chess