Maximum Chess Strength and IQ
I came across an article that offers a somewhat simplistic calculation for determining a person's potential chess rating. All you do is take your IQ x 10 + 1000 = Maximum Elo. I don't know how accurate that is, but it would put me somewhere in the range of 2400 - 2650 based on IQ tests I've taken in the past. That also would mean that Hikaru Nakamura has an IQ over 170.
I also came across another article that says that you can improve your IQ "significantly" (whatever that means) after just 4.5 months of serious chess study.
I also came across another article that says that you can improve your IQ "significantly" (whatever that means) after just 4.5 months of serious chess study.
posted by CelticDeath at 9:41 AM
9 Comments:
This mathematical model is great for my chess confidence. To reach my goal of 1400 I only need an IQ of 40. Even with an IQ of 0, you can get ELO 1000. I'm gonna sign up my pet pineapple for ICC!
I didn't read the articles, but I don't believe in such a mathematical formula to express chess potential based on IQs, and even worse, the ideia that chess can improve the IQ. In fact, if we stop to think about them, they're also contradictories ideias. If chess raises my IQ, how can my chess potential be based on it? Or, if my chess potential is based on my IQ, then my IQ has to be constant, and not changed by my chess experience.
Wow, Celtic, with an IQ like that, you're in the genius range! Congratulations! Here is a quote from Chessbase (seems that they are interested in this issue, too)
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2363
"
1% of the population has an IQ of 136 or higher. A "genius" score Is generally considered to be 140 or greater. Einstein was said to have had an IQ of 160. Serious IQ tests produce scores ranging from 55 to 145. Anything that deviates wildly from these values has been derived by non-standard testing or simply "guesstimated", usually by writers and story-tellers."
Yes, a lot of nonsense has been written. . .
blue devil knight - I'm sure the model is very simplistic as I've stated. However, I'm sure the point can be made that "smarter" people (whatever that means) with the drive it takes to master chess can achieve the goal faster than "dumber" people (whatever that means).
knightwiz - Chess study has been shown in some studies to increase a person's spatial reasoning and logic abilities. Strengthening those areas should naturally lead to higher IQ test scores which measure these areas. I don't see why there couldn't be movement in both areas subject to differing rates and limits.
fraktal - Thanks. My ACT score in high school allows me to waive the test to get into MENSA. I don't believe in elitist organizations, though, so I haven't joined.
Tempo - While the actual calculation is most likely nonsense, as you say, I think that there has to be something to the idea, at least.
Looks like at least I have managed to generate a topic of interest/debate on my puny blog!
Note: Sorry for the deleted posts above: I was trying to fix a problem with formatting some html for links: they looked fine in preview but for publishing seems to be that blogspot doesn't like long URLs in these comments. Or maybe my IQ stopped me from fixing it. :-)
Yes, this is a politically charged can of worms.
I think there is no contradiction if we note that IQ tests can be trained for in other ways. You can work on logic puzzles, spatiotemporal reasoning puzzles, learn more facts (I remember part of my IQ test was "Name three different types of blood vessels". This was trivial for me, as I love biology, but if they had asked me to name three different Impressionist artists, no way!). It follows that IQ is not innate and fixed, but a product of interaction between genes, phenotype, and environment (just like all other traits).
Of course, playing chess could only raise your IQ score so much. Playing chess a lot won't teach you what types of blood vessels exist.
IQ does seem to be a useful diagnostic for finding trouble spots in children's present abilities, trouble spots that can be ameliorated through some kind of intervention. This is fine, but people tend to twist a useful statistical summary into a commentary on genetic cleanliness, like many American eugenicists did (good history of eugenics can be found here: http://www.eugenicsarchive.org).
Sloppy scientific thinking about race/IQ is not something America seems to want to give up. For instance, The Bell Curve, a New York Times bestseller in America, claimed that IQ differences between blacks and whites are genetic, all based on some statistics with well-known problems (psychologists tend to be sloppy thinkers about biology [and vice versa]). Even if their claim is true (we can't say it is not true a priori: it is an empirical question that will take a few more decades, minimally, to answer), the book overstepped the bounds of responsible scholarship.
I think all the above makes dispassionate discussion of IQ difficult. Its misuse rightly makes it subject to more scrutiny than other psychological measures.
I have always found the Mensa crowd to be a strange and somewhat pathetic subculture. I have experienced more than a handful of times when people mention they are in Mensa after I tell them I am a scientist.It is always a little embarassing, as I'm not sure how to react. I don't particularly respect it, and I tend to find them haughty about how smart they are compared with everyone else. To me it seems to be another "mine is bigger than yours" playground mentality.
Oops. I went on too long. This is something I actually know about, unlike chess :O
As much as it pains me, I have to say ditto to Devil Knights' post (I so hate for a Dukie to be right, but at least I'm wearing my Carolina Sweatshirt while writing this!)
I find that the "experts" disagree about IQ and chess ability. I've read where IQ bears little to no relationship to chess ability - an average IQ player can be grandmasters just as easily as the 140+ IQ.
As for Mensa. . .puleeze. . .
Anecdotal aside: I once took an IQ test which asked about the sum of fingers on a certain number of hands (it was testing calculating ability). My answered was counted wrong until I correctly pointed out that the thumb is not considered a finger - it is a thumb. . .they had to change the test question because of me. . .
By the way, Devil Knight. . .I commend Degas, Monet and Manet to you as 3 excellent impressionist. . .they will dilate every vein, artery and capillary. . .[grin]
But you still have to have talent for chess to become Grandmaster. Not everyone can reach that level even with years and years of practice and training. I once heard somewhere that a person of average ability can get to around 2100 or 2200 but going beyond that point is determined by how much talent you were born with. The sucky (or good, depending on how you look at it) part is you can not tell how much talent you have until you get to that level.
PS
Ha, so I first have to do an IQ test, before I do all this hard chess tactics. It could be all spilled time, trying to increase my chess-skills.
Post a Comment
<< Home