> GM Hikaru Nakamura famously took the Mensa online IQ test and scored a very average 102
His elo peak rating is 2816. Just one example for an extraordinary strong player with average IQ (there are many other examples). I don't think that a high IQ is required to become a decent chess player (like 2000). It may help though.
Nice clickbait. It you watched him take it on stream, you'd know that he was goofing around with his chat and ran out of time b/c he didn't know it was timed.
https://chess.stackexchange.com/a/24946
> The most comprehensive and recent publication I've found related to this question is The relationship between cognitive ability and chess skill: A comprehensive meta-analysis.
> The bottom line is that according to a meta-analysis of numerous studies, there is clearly a correlation between chess skill and cognitive ability, but cognitive ability explains only about 6% of the variance in chess skill (12% if you only consider numerical ability only). There must be other factors as well (e.g., training), some of which could be more important than cognitive ability.
From my personal observations I very much agree with 6%.
Nowadays anyone bragging about their IQ should be considered a moron and left talking to themselves.
For example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3oUqKUx2o0 (first thing that came off my head)
imperfect measures are not always useless, which is goof since all measures have some error.
A test trying to measure something we can't even properly define is kinda flawed in it's whole premise.
As such the best an IQ test can do is measure how well somebody prepared for a test like that, but it will struggle to properly catch any knowledge or skill domains not covered by the test, of which there are a lot.
You can say "There is this test, and people's scores on this test correlate with various things like, income, marital fidelity, religiosity, incarceration rates, job performance". We call this test the IQ test.
That said, I agree if you brag about your IQ you're a moron.
2) intelligence does have some elasticity. When you think of intelligence has a culmination of pathways/heuristics/low-level-techniques, it’s easy to see how many pathways are self-reinforcing and not easily taught or measured. You can be predisposed to a particular kind of intelligence, and not everything is attainable by everyone, but what we call intelligence is close to what we call talent: seems like an innate quality, but actually reflects long-term hard practice with countless hours dedicated.
A lot of IQ test questions get easier the more mathematics you have studied.