.
What's is Magnus Carlsen's IQ?
Sort:
to the mooooon
Aug 15, 2022
0
#546
ChessFlair01 wrote:
While Magnus Carlsen has never taken an official IQ test, it is estimated that he has an IQ score of 190. This places him well ahead of some of the smartest people in history, including Albert Einstein and possibly even the great Bobby Fischer.
These "estimates" come from websites that use famous names as hype in their adds trying to lure fools into paying to take their online tests to prove how smart they are.
My estimate of the IQs of people who believe this bs is probably a shade less than 1/2 of Magnus' estimated IQ.
Einstein never did an IQ test and given that we don't know how much Mileva Maric helped him, it can never even be estimated. Same goes for Isaac Newton, who stole Robert Hooke's work.
i got a D+ on mine. only cuz i shut the left side a my brain dn way before ever buying a #2 pencil.
I thought you run on pure left side
Funny how the smartest people in history are anti-Semitic, plain racist, genocidal freaks. Also, this list is utter nonsense:
Half of the bottom-half, kick upper-half's butt. Half of Harvard, Cambridge, Brown, Oxford and other top 10 universities, kick the butt of the new bottom half of this list.
Love Sharon Stone btw!
It says, before you start writing these posts, 'please be relevant and kind.' How is it that almost no one has followed this advice.
What makes you guys think being good at chesss means you have a high iq ? Kasparov was one of the best at chess and his iq was measured at 135.......thats avg ivy league student
Barak85 wrote:
Probably more than 130 I would say 131-150
"Probably".
More like you just pulled some numbers out of your backside.
Duckcooky wrote:
What makes you guys think being good at chesss means you have a high iq ? Kasparov was one of the best at chess and his iq was measured at 135.......thats avg ivy league student
An IQ of 135 is over two standard deviations over the mean, it's a high IQ.
The reason a chess player might be expected to have a high IQ is the similarity between chess puzzles and IQ tests.
The estimated Ivy league IQ of 135 is not based on actual IQ scores, it's based on the similarity between SAT tests and IQ tests, and the assumption that a ivy league universities base admission primarily on them.
If you can use the similarity between IQ tests and SAT scores to infer IQ, you can do the same with chess puzzles.
Ultimately I'd expect a far closer correlation of chess players with IQ than e.g. scientists; because chess lines up much better with IQ's testing methodology, and all IQ measures is how well you score on IQ tests.
V_Awful_Chess wrote:
Ultimately I'd expect a far closer correlation of chess players with IQ than e.g. scientists; because chess lines up much better with IQ's testing methodology, and all IQ measures is how well you score on IQ tests.
From what I've read, there's a positive correlation between chess skills and IQ, and it's very weak. Chess skills mostly depend on the time and effort you put into practicing and learning chess. IQ is a very very poor substitute.
The IQ of Magnus carlsen is... 160 IQ!
Guys i am true ok?
magipi wrote:
V_Awful_Chess wrote:
Ultimately I'd expect a far closer correlation of chess players with IQ than e.g. scientists; because chess lines up much better with IQ's testing methodology, and all IQ measures is how well you score on IQ tests.
From what I've read, there's a positive correlation between chess skills and IQ, and it's very weak. Chess skills mostly depend on the time and effort you put into practicing and learning chess. IQ is a very very poor substitute.
I wasn't saying I expected being good at IQ tests makes you better at chess, but more the opposite: getting good a chess makes you better at IQ tests.
Chess itself includes some very specific skills, but the spatial reasoning tests/puzzles they do in IQ are more general so to my estimation are more likely to improve if you improve your chess ability (especially if you play a lot of varients).
I'm not familiar with the studies you're referencing, did the people do IQ tests then learn chess or the other way around?
RikkiTikkiTavi wrote:
ciljettu wrote:
Don't get me started on lefty liberal constructs like "social", "interpersonal" or the newly fangled "emotional intelligence".
For me intelligence is raw cognitive power. Things like interpersonal intelligence involve not being an a-hole and have nothing to do with intelligence IMHO.
That is unfortunately a very common and very arbitrary take on a protean notion of intelligence. The supposed generality of human intelligence is not a law of the universe, but a convenient postulate of the talentless plethora. Most experts in fields like science in math are not trapped within the limited rules of that field (and not by chance that almost all practical contributions in science/math, come from experts within a field - not plumbers with a sense of rationalistic, intellectual grandiosity. High expertise in one (open) system, doesn't mean that one isn't free to create elementary associations with information outside of their field. If a field of study includes facts (elements) A, B, and C, there is nothing that prevents an expert from associating element B with element D (on the grounds of some subtle pattern or anomaly), from some other field. The brain does not compartmentalize information sets, it has very broad neuronal networks that constantly associate patterns. Of course, there are always those 'intellectual dicks' who are purely interested in aimless 'fact finding' within their respective fields - these are people confuse their ability to learn with intelligence, and are extremely narrow thinkers. It's very likely not just IQ, but limitations of the neural inter-complexity and computational speed (intuition) of individuals is what allows some to actually apply information they've learned in ways to solve problems and exhibit higher learning through forming higher n order abstractions. Individual performance can and should only be evaluated at any specific given moment and time and are the product of developmental factors. One can only abstract from a given system like 41, 25, 49, n , if they are given that system to analyze - effectively nullifying any supposed quality of 'intelligence'. You can't give someone half of an idea, and then give them credit for the whole. In the real world, we don't know what elements are in are set, or what, when or exactly where we have to think hard. And ideally, 'smart' people should be defined as those who come up with new ideas from their own experimental models (sets)....yeah we don't live an ideal world.
his diet plan is probably played out antelope & astro the dog.