Anyone has any interesting past research that shows any correlation between raw intelligence or IQ and chess?
For my opinion, I do think there is somewhat a type of correlation. However nowadays chess has been studied and people are "memorizing" openings and theories that they didn't come with themselves which does not truly reflect your raw intelligence.
I would think that Morphy probably was a real life-smart person as opposed to book-smart (or maybe he was both)
Let me know what you think? I started chess at 5 years old and am so grateful to that as I think it contributed a huge part to my train of thought an d analytical skills in general.
<people are "memorizing" openings and theories that they didn't come with themselves which does not truly reflect your raw intelligence.>
I agree. That's why real chess happens in the middlegame and especially in the endgame.
Just ask Magnus Carlsen...he throws a wrench in super GM opening prep by deviating into less known variations and then winning by slight but incremental move-per-move advantages.
If we can compare apples with oranges than, the bell curves would show an IQ of 100 is probable a 1500 rated player. Do you need a higher IQ to become a master?
<Do you need a higher IQ to become a master?>
Read the book called, "The Genius In All of Us". Unless you have an actual physiological and developmental cognition issue, it would seem that one's "IQ" is not static.
With "purposeful" learning and hardwork, we can all climb the ELO ladder. We can't all be Bobby Fischer or Magnus Carlsens, but we can be master strength at the least.
I remember I read in a book that to be World Champion you gotta be, at least, a genius or something like that; is it true? Don't know... Unfortunately I don't remember the name of that book anymore. :-(
@roni_chessman "That's why real chess happens in the middlegame and especially in the endgame."
Real chess happens in Chess960. You're out of the book from move 1. Really!
ive heard of idiot savants playing very good piano, doing math, painting art. ive never heard of any chessplaying idiot savants. i think it's a matter of good judgment, memory, pattern recognition, spatial analysis, logic, physical stamina. Yea, morphy would have a high iq. he was a lawyer, passed the bar so early, he was too young to practice, immersed in New Orleans classical culture, loved opera, etc. I cant think of any really dumb masters, altho Paulsen used to forget the hotel he was staying and have to register in another. Carlsen, like Fischer, never had an academic background, but is obviously quite bright. Just listen to him. I've known bright people who can't play chess well, but i think that's because they don't take interest and just play for fun. Most great chess players aren't any good outside chess. Although Lasker was in physics, i think. I have heard it said if you have a normal intelligence you can become a master through study, practice, and desire. I think thats probably true, if you start early enough.
The Polgar sisters is the go to example when claiming chess ability is mainly dependent on practice.
One study suggests "the association [between IQ and playing strength] was nonexistent which implies that intelligence does not have a major impact on the chess skill of very good young chess players."
http://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/333373.pdfBut with experience the correlation becomes strong.
"Several studies employing psychometric tests of intelligence have revealed that expert chess players display significantly higher intelligence than controls, and that their playing strength is related to their intelligence level"
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613001165Jon Levitt has his own hypothesis that your maximum ELO is 1000+IQx10, which sounds somewhat plausible (perhaps a bit low IMHO), but I don't think he has any data to support this.
My guess is that there should be an obvious correlation, but that visual-spatial ability is more important, and that talent rarely trumps practice in any field.
