Variations of this often comes up often on HN.

Please note that:

- in some (many? most?) places IQ tests does not include questions that require memorizing anything neither before or during the tests. (In I spoke to one colleague who was into such stuff and he made a major point out of the fact that asking for facts would disadvantage certain parts of the population.)

- Something is measured using such tests even if they don't contain math or facts, only sorting sequences or figuring out what elements fit in a sequence.

- We call that something "intelligence". We could call it something else: "Synthetic problem solving skill", "fu", or whatever, but we typically call it "intelligence".

- On average that "intelligence" also seems to be a good indicator for a persons performance in many situations. As far as I know chess playing benefits greatly.

- People who play chess will again and again end up in situations they haven't seen before and cannot have memorized.

- in those situations, the same skills that are measured in an intelligence test will help a person calculate outcomes and choose one to their advantage

He's referring to Carlsen's prodigious fantasy football skill.

Because it is usually impossible to remember all possible permutations of a chess board, I disagree.

Humans handle large data set with a cheat by using creativity and predictive reasoning to avoid having to store EVERY piece of data we encounter. Inference is a large part of this. Most models I'm aware of consider these traits to be related to intelligence.

Watch a GM chess match. They’ll play memorized moves till a point and then they’ll be “out of the book” and will have to start dealing with novel positions outside of what they’ve learned or prepared prior. Do they memorize? Absolutely. Can they also play completely novel positions better than anyone else? Absolutely.