What's is Magnus Carlsen's IQ?

How can you recognize someone that is remarkably more intelligent than you? Serious question, no disrespect intended.

Then we have to ask: are those traits evident in Carlsen? From where I am standing, there is very little evidence to go on apart from his chess performance and what he says and does in public, i.e. I don't have access to private details that would confirm a high IQ.

Has anyone ever heard of or met a GM that was dumber than a box of rocks ? I haven't. I seriously doubt you'd find a super GM who is rather unintelligent, or even of average intelligence. I think chess at the highest levels pretty much dictates that you are rather intelligent, due to it's complexity...

did someone say Fischer ?

Sometimes really intelligent people do dumb things or believe a dumb idea or two because, it conveniently catered to their feelings...this still doesn't qualify them as unintelligent, or cause a genius to revert to average intelligence either. You may not like them, but they will still be what they are...

i'm much too young for Jung, namenolhad.

Agreed.

please_let_me_win wrote:

He might be a genius but I like how humble he is. Given his skills, he could act like Fischer and always get his way. But he prefers not to be in the spotlight and tries to give the impression of being an average young man with great fashion sense.

Humble? I think not. Check out his "video" for his new app....

I haven't looked at the ad yet but, I was wanting to know if you thought that one instance of someone trying to sell something or inspire others to try it, somehow dictates that is what their true character and actions are, all of the of time ?

...my how quick people are to judge others, especially if it supports their biases...

Finally someone who actually understands chess, I agree with this view totally

I realize this isn't perfect science but, it is quite hard to ignore:

This speaks for itself, you should notice an interesting correlation to the one below it:

I chose this set of stats because it best characterizes the behavior of the tactics trainer's timer.

Hmm, not sure I see any correlation - just a similarity in the shape of the distributions (although interestingly the Elo rating distribution is slightly skewed from a perfect "bell curve"). If you looked at the distribution of chess players' heights, you'd see a similar normal distribution - but that wouldn't necessarily mean height was correlated with IQ or Elo.

The fact you point out it isn't perfect, isn't unnoticed by others either. One thing to consider is how the rating system could be more accurate of a measure. It is actually more of a really close estimate, than a measure.

Also, with different types of intelligence to consider and even how the test that was used to garner these IQ results, compares with both long term memory recall and abstract reasoning, would also have to be considered, not to mention the fact that the bell curve in question, might not be anymore accurate for estimating the IQ of the populous, than Elo or Glicko ratings' bellcurve is representing the chess ratings of all chess players.

In spite of these facts, it would appear that there is a correlation to me. I have often wondered if people who feel less intelligent, decide to play chess because, they think somehow it will help them to become more intelligent, or even perhaps help them to be perceived that way. This could account for players with ratings that make up the floor among OTB players, amongst established players. This also opens the door to comparing beginners' intellect with players who have been at it a while etc, yada, yada, but none the less, this leads me to an idea I posted in  post #370 that you agreed with in post #375:

fburton

Just to be clear, I agree that GMs probably have above average IQ scores and, as you put it, that they are "rather intelligent". I don't have any evidence for that, but it seems likely to me. However, it seems much less likely to me that they have exceptionally high IQs as a rule, which is what another poster was suggesting Carlsen has. He may have, but I haven't seen any evidence for this (and frankly I don't believe it matters anyway). Nor have I seen any evidence positively correlating chess skill with IQ; indeed, the paper I cited seems to show exactly the opposite - a negative correlation.

As for IQ and Elo distributions having roughly the same shape... this alone doesn't prove that someone who is at the top end of the distribution for IQ is at the top end of the distribution for Elo, or vice versa. The correlation may be only weak. In theory, chess players with high IQ could have low Elo scores and vice versa, i.e. a negative correlation, and both distributions would still be bell shaped. 

If IQ and height had identically bell-shaped distributions (albeit with different scales), that wouldn't prove that tall people were more intelligent than short people.

I can resepct your opinion and even respect the fact that you'd rather err on the side of caution also. So tell me in you perception, what makes the mind of a genius different than that of the ordinary person, from a functionality stand point ?

the content i guess.

The thought process of course.

What makes a genius? An unusually developed facility for certain kinds of thought / mental processing, I guess. The point (from my pov) is that thinking ability isn't a single monolithic thing, the same in everyone only more or less developed, or capable of being developed. In a genius, one aspect or ability may be more developed than others - even, perhaps, to the detriment of others. Chess thinking encompasses a particular subset of thinking skills; what determines IQ as commonly measured encompasses another with a degree of overlap. To my mind, they are clearly not the same skills.

An extreme case would be that of "idiots savant" who tend to have below-average IQ despite amazing facility in certain very narrow domains. I wouldn't want to suggest that top GMs are in this category, of course, but nor am I willing to assume the opposite is true - that they all have very high IQs.

Yes, there are are usually exceptions to almost every rule. Simply based on that idea alone, we can attack pretty much anything that is potentially considered to be an absolute rule. When I look at the distributions of the 2 bell curves, it makes far more sense to me, especially as a betting man, to correlate the two.

As far as what seperates a genius from an ordinary person are a list of things, in my opinion. Anyone one of them alone, doesn't necessarily make a person a genius but, it would be hard not to notice them as being intellectually gifted in some way. It would take some combination of these to really begin to constitute being a genius. One of them I believe is the thing that truly makes the difference between simply being gifted but, by itself, isn't anymore empowering than the others.

 1) Extreme long term memory storage, with fast and total recall (photographic memory) * For a metaphoric comparison, I equate this to a computer's hard drive

2) Extreme abstract reasoning/problem solving ability (take note that for chessic purposes, abstract reasoning is more applicable but, geniuses seperate themselves from their peers by their problem solving or problem preventing ability. * I compare this to the RAM memory of a computer, both speed and sheer volume of information considered in conjunctivity are both keys. Part of this ties to the final idea somewhat, but in a true genius, they are intertwined and it is difficult to define one, with including some aspect of the others.

3) This final thing is something that is probably most vital and could be argued about it's origins, etcetera but, none the less, a good computer, full of bad programming, isn't going to function well. So the quality of the information is key that is feed to the individual is key.

How could a child prodigy have received a better quality of information than his peers, in the same classroom ? There is something special about a genius' level of awareness. Awareness is the beginning of understanding and learning, based up on that understanding.

Due to their heightened awareness, they can extract more from something than another can. Part of it is due to their greater ability to remember and calculate at the same time, while they experience their heightened awareness. They aren't the same thing but, each of them compounds the other.

 After all, what convicts a person of what is true, or causes someone to be cognizant of anything they encounter in the first place ? Something gets our attention and makes us aware, before our minds go to work. This is more than likely hyperaccelerated, in those we consider a virtuoso. In fact, if this is missing, we might only consider the person very gifted and not truly a genius.

I think a genius is someone that just chose not to be dumb.

It is quite a wise choice. Whether we can agree on a benchmark constituting dumb remains to be seen but, an interesting observation, none the less...

...while I tend to think that geniuses don't choose their predestiny, to be what they are born as, they certainly have a choice in how they end up !!!