What's is Magnus Carlsen's IQ?

Sort:
Spadesplayer
_yiquan_ wrote:
Spadesplayer wrote:
Greenmtnboy wrote:

And on this list they have Kasparov at 190:

http://mostextreme.org/highest_iq.php

Here is a list of individuals with the highest IQ as well as other popular prodigies:

NameScoreDetailsAbdesselam Jelloul 198 Scored in a 2012 test including 13 dimensions of intelligence. William J. Sidis 197 Child prodigy with exceptional mathematical & linguistic abilities. Christopher Langan 195 Called "the smartest man in America". Garry Kasparov 190 Chess grandmaster, writer and political activist. Leonardo da Vinci ~190 A genius polymath: painter, sculptor, architect, scientist... Ludwig Wittgenstein 190 Philosopher primarily in logic, the philosophy of mathematics... Sir Isaac Newton ~190 Physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher, alchemist... Bobby Fischer 187 A chess Grandmaster and a child prodigy. Marilyn vos Savant 185 Magazine columnist, author, lecturer, and playwright. Kim Ung-Yong 170 Korean civil engineer and former child prodigy. Albert Einstein 160 Theoretical physicist (the general theory of relativity). Akrit Jaswal 146 Child prodigy who performed his first surgery at the age of 7. Grigori Y. Perelman ?

Solved the Poincaré conjecture.

   This list is bogus.  Many of the people on the list died long before standardized i.q. tests were INVENTED!  Those must be estimates or educated guesses.  The i.q. test was invented around 1905.  Da Vinci DIED in 1519 and Newton in 1727!

   People (and this list) keep saying that G.K.'s i.q. measured 190 but according to this source, "in 1987-88, the German magazine Der Spiegel went to considerable effort and expense to find out Kasparov's IQ. Under the supervision of an international team of psychologists, Kasparov was given a large battery of tests designed to measure his memory, spatial ability, and abstract reasoning. They measured his IQ as 135 and his memory as one of the very best." So I was wrong when I said Russians, it was a German magazine hiring an 'international team of psychologists'.  

   Regarding, childhood i.q. vs adult i.q., wikipedia says, " To convert a child's IQ score into an adult score the following calculation should be made: child IQ score/100*age/16*100 = adult IQ score. The number 16 is used to indicate the age at which supposedly the IQ reaches its peak.[40]

For decades, practitioners' handbooks and textbooks on IQ testing have reported IQ declines with age after the beginning of adulthood."

   Those are the sources I come up with in a 10 minute google search.  To the couple of people who want me to name names and supply sources and conduct scientific studies, that's all the time I have for this.  We are chess players pontificating elite player's i.q.'s not scientists conducting research nor journalists. 

   It should be obvious that if a child is extraordinarily precocious, a 'child prodigy' they might score higher on a test relative to their age piers they might not score so much higher later when the others catch up. I'm sure Fischer was high i.q. but not 180 or 187.  He was gullible with religion, with conspiracy theories, and in 60 years never figured out how not to piss people off and get along with others.  He was a child prodigy, a chess savant but not a universal genius. 

   That's my 2 cents, as in, my opinion. I could be wrong.

in my view you are giving false impressions. how you are presenting the research gives the casual reader the impression that someone's intelligence or iq peaks when they are a child or a teenager and then suddenly preciptiously falls off as they enter adulthood. I just don't think this is exactly true. I don't think iq begins to significantly decline until maybe age 40-50 and even there it's not all that much. maybe a 1-3 percent change, but of course this amount of change is viewed as significant by researchers and scientists. the very large declines occur much later as the person approaches their 70s and beyond. 

I think it likely if someone took the sat or something when they were 17, then took it again when they were 36, they would score within 50 points above or below their original score. there really wouldn't be much difference. changes of 100 points or more would be exceedingly rare to put it mildly.

just think about all the professors/researchers in various colleges and universities who are age 40 and above. if iq or intelligence declined all that much by that age, wouldn't colleges and universities do away with these people? I mean the academic reputation of their institution would potentially be at stake.

1) I'm not misrepresenting the research or anything else.  2) I never said i.q. drops with age.   What I said was that children's i.q.'s are figured differently than adults...the formula includes a division for age.  If someone is an early developer they might score higher than a late developer relative to their peers and later their adult i.q.s might be closer.  When that formula was worked out it was using averages for ages.  But there can be extremes withing a group.  If Fischer was an early developer and scored 180 on an i.q. test (where age is factored into the equation for coming up with the score), he might later score 150 on the same test, getting the same answers correct but without the age being factored in.  Same test, same answers, same number correct, didn't lose intelligence, was scored differently.  You're conflating scores with actual 'g' factor or i.q.

Bill_C

One thing that should be remembered is that IQ only measures the the intellectual capacity to interperet patterns at its broadest scope. If you can recognize patterns effectively, you should therefore be able to possess an above average IQ.

For example, my oldest son is 16 years old. He tested at a 161 IQ at age 8, a 174 at age 12 and currently has tested at a 186 IQ. This would likely qualify him for candidacy in MENSA or another intellectual society in most respects with one small caveat:

My son has Autism and cannot do simple things like tie shoes or dress himself yet he is only 4 points below Garry Kasparov in terms of IQ.

Just a thought.

Aurio39

Before you invest in a top-notch coach, you have to see something in the player that tell you that this is a serious matter, like he beating opponent after opponent, that with the time create a reputation. The professional trainer is in order to improve and hold grounds when you are gifted already. 

Kingpatzer

The whole discussion is frankly silly. Chess skill and intelligence (like music and intelligence) show no meaningful correlations. 

Indeed, as Bilalic's paper "Does Chess need intelligence?" demonstrated with actual data in a peer reviewed publication: 

". . . it turned out that intelligence was not a significant factor in chessskill, and that, if anything, it tended to correlate negatively with chess skill. This unexpected result is explained by a negative correlation between intelligence and practice in the elite subsample."

The same author offered a pretty good read in reply to unsubstantiated claims that chess requires intelligence. It's worth a read both for the IQ reference but also for taking on some of the common gender myths around chess. Again, using actual data and science instead of mere speculation. 

 

Spadesplayer
Kingpatzer wrote:

The whole discussion is frankly silly. Chess skill and intelligence (like music and intelligence) show no meaningful correlations. 

Indeed, as Bilalic's paper "Does Chess need intelligence?" demonstrated with actual data in a peer reviewed publication: 

". . . it turned out that intelligence was not a significant factor in chessskill, and that, if anything, it tended to correlate negatively with chess skill. This unexpected result is explained by a negative correlation between intelligence and practice in the elite subsample."

The same author offered a pretty good read in reply to unsubstantiated claims that chess requires intelligence. It's worth a read both for the IQ reference but also for taking on some of the common gender myths around chess. Again, using actual data and science instead of mere speculation. 

 

I completely agree that the whole discussion is silly.  At the bottom of your link it says, " In 1927 Djakow et al. first showed that world-class chess players do not have exceptional intellectual abilities. This finding has subsequently been confirmed many times.So all this talk and speculation about Carlsen or other great players having high i.q.s is pointless.  The reason I chimed in on this topic was because people keep saying Kasparov has an i.q. of 190 when they tested him at 135.  The only other world chess champion that I am aware of having been tested is Fischer and he was tested as a child and would have been subject to the formula where they divide age into the equation for figuring the score. i.e. another variable added may make it less reliable.

If someone wants to talk about intelligent chess players...how about John Nunn?  He's a grandmaster and former world top-10, a three time world chess problems solving champion, mathematician, prolific writer.  Botvinnik had a career at the forefront of computer technology outside of becoming world chess champion and training two future world champions, Karpov and Kasparov.  Euwe had a doctorate in mathematics, was a world champion, author, and president of FIDE.

Peace. 

tintillo

I.Q tests measure the abilty to recognize patterns. 

Chess ability is correlated with the ability to recognize patterns.

Therefore, i think that the I.Q of Magnus Carslen is high.

Spadesplayer
tintillo wrote:

I.Q tests measure the abilty to recognize patterns. 

Chess ability is correlated with the ability to recognize patterns.

Therefore, i think that the I.Q of Magnus Carslen is high.

"recognize patterns"  is so vague.  When they tested Suzan Polgar's brain with electromagnetic imaging while she was solving chess positions, it showed that the pattern recognition part of the brain most being used was usually used for FACIAL RECOGNITION.  This was documented in the video, "My Beautiful Brain".  You can probably find it on youtube.

Also, the study has already been done regarding if high aptitude in chess pattern recognition correlated with pattern recognition in other areas...it did NOT.  I don't remember if this was degroot or someone else.  Maybe a chess historian can chime in here.  Furthermore, not only did chess pattern recognition not help with pattern recognition in other areas of life, it didn't even help with RANDOMIZED chess positions!  i.e.  they show a chess position from a game and a GM can easily recognize what's going on, and can remember the whole position after the board is cleared.  On the other hand, have someone randomly place the pieces on the board and then clear it and the GM's don't perform better than amateurs at recreating it/remembering it.  

Crazychessplaya
[COMMENT DELETED]
atarw
_yiquan_ wrote:
Spadesplayer wrote:

Kasparov's i.q. was tested by Russian psychiatrists while he was at his peak.  It was 135.  Well above average, but nothing spectacular.   Fischer's was measured much higher in high school, however, age is taken into consideration.  Often people are precocious (develop early relative to others their age) and when they are later tested as adults and age isn't factored into the equation their i.q.'s are much more normal.  I think it's safe to say both Kasparov and Fischer had fairly high i.q.'s but probably weren't geniuses in anything outside of chess.  That's my 2 cents. 

mind citing your sources in regards to Kasparov's IQ? or no? 

regardless, 135 is actually within the 97-99th percentile. much more than "well above average".  in fact such person might likely qualify for membership to a high iq society. not mensa, as they only accept 150 and above if I remember correctly. 

also "often people are precocious (develop early relative to others their age) and when they are later tested as adults and age isn't factored into the equation their iq's are much more normal"---again sources? did you yourself conduct a legitimate scientific study of this kind? adminstering verifiable iq tests to people when they were young and then again when they were adults? if so was it published and peer reviewed? that would be quite an accomplishment I must say! being that you would obviously need a fairly large data set to draw such cut and dry conclusions and, obviously, adminstering verfiable iq tests (3 hours or more) to so many must of been time consuming. not to mention how you would have to keep track of all these people after you administered the first verifiable iq test when they were young so that you could administer another verifiable iq test once they've reached adulthood. 

or is that just your non-scientific opinion, that's worth 2 cents. 

I somehow doubt 135 is a high level. I know 100 is average, but I scored 142. So either I am more INTELLIGENT than Kasparov and can go to a high intelligence society, or the scale is screwed up.

Elubas
AnthonyCG wrote:
Elubas wrote:
Kodfish wrote:

He can't be too smart.  He spends all his time playing stupid board games.

Perhaps because only chess is logically sophisticated enough for him to be amused.

Try engineering. I doubt it matters what kind...

It probably would be, just in a different way.

Kingpatzer

A point that was missed in the papers I noted was that the most predictive correllary for chess performance was practice time, not intelligence (indeed IQ was not correllated at all). 

A good read about the role of deliberate practice in developing expertise can be read here: http://www.psy.fsu.edu/faculty/ericsson/ericsson.exp.perf.html
 

Elubas

"However, the greats in those fields do touch far, far more lives than a chess Grandmaster ever will."

Yes, but this is entirely based on what the general public likes. They just happen to prefer to watch movies or sports over a game of chess. That doesn't mean, in my opinion, that accomplishments in those fields make it any better than chess.

If we lived in a world where the majority of people preferred chess to music or sports, we'd be saying the exact opposite about sports and music, that they "touch so many less lives" than chess fans.

"You would be hard pressed to find anyone in the world who does not know who Mozart was. None of my friends know who Paul Morphy was."

I will say again that this is a matter of what the majority likes indicating what will be remembered. The majority likes, well "mainstream" things, and if they can't understand a certain thing they will either criticize it or ignore it. Of course, minorities ignore popular things too, although this isn't noticed because they are the minority.

Elubas

By the way, of course I am in the minority on this one, but I will say that my life has been touched more by chess players than athletes or musicians, which is of course due to my different interests. I haven't even met any grandmasters, but just hearing them speak about positions, demonstrating their imagination, expressing it on the board, simply gives me a feeling of pleasure. It's not easy to explain precisely; in the same way that it's hard to explain why a piece of music makes you feel a certain way upon hearing it.

Kingpatzer

The question becomes is "liking music" something that is innate or learned? And if it is innate, are things which provide experiences which innately induce joy more valuable than things which provide experiences which produce joy for those of sufficient training or education? 

It is not clear to me what the answers to those questions are.  

Kingpatzer
_yiquan_ wrote:
Kingpatzer wrote:

You clearly don't understand what IQ measures, and more importantly, what it doesn't. 

mind elaborating or no?

Read the paper on expertise which I linked above. 

Elubas

Dargon: Well, as you said, it is all subjective in the end.

Sure, if you wanted to be more "altruistic," and enjoyed both music and chess, perhaps you should pursue music. But I think it's unfair to de-value a different kind of passion simply because it is less common.

Seriously, if I have a passion for chess but not music what am I supposed to do -- change my passion for the public? Or just admit that the public knows better than me what is worthwhile (and thus get out of the "art" industry and get a normal job)?

Of course, I understand that the idea of subjectivity could be applied to justify almost anything, e.g., "the art of procrastinating." I think in the case of chess though, people simply don't comprehend the beauty of it. I don't blame them, since it's basically impossible to without playing the game at least a little, but I think that if people did understand the incredible processes that are going on in very mature minds, they would appreciate it.

Kingpatzer
_yiquan_ wrote:
chessman1504 wrote:
Kingpatzer wrote:

You clearly don't understand what IQ measures, and more importantly, what it doesn't. 

+1. IQ isn't the end all measure of intelligence and academic success, in particular.

IQ isn't the end all measure of intelligence? it stands for Intelligence Quotient!!!!!!! what? 

Q.E.D.

Conflagration_Planet

So what if it's just a game? It still takes a butt load of talent to play it at the top levels. When it's all said, and done, music is just something to listen to, and art is just something to look at. Now I'm going to go get something to eat.

Spadesplayer

Cool

Elubas

Yeah, I'm not saying that chess should be on a pedestal, I just think that it is an under-appreciated pursuit and judged by a lot of non players as a result.