user38: Are they tied to IQ and amount of deliberate practice, and if so, does that mean if you know the player's IQ you're able to estimate the time of deliberate practice spent learning?

user928: There is likely a cutoff around 110-130 IQ, where if you have higher than this it will have negligible impact on your chess performance, but if you have less than this you will likely not be able to reach the highest levels. The argument for this is, Kasparov had an IQ of 135, and many top players are quoted with IQ around 120, but does anyone know of a world class player with less then 110 IQ?

user38: The Role of Deliberate Practice in Expertise: Necessary but Not Sufficient
Fernand Gobet (Centre for the Study of Expertise, Brunel University)
The Deliberate Practice Framework

In an influential paper, Ericsson, Krampe, and Tesch-Romer (1993)
  proposed that expertise is acquired only through practice deliberately
  designed to improve one’s own skill. Deliberate practice (DP) consists
  of goal-directed and repetitive activities that enable immediate
  feedback. These activities, performed individually, are typically
  effortful and not enjoyable, and cannot be carried out for more than a
  few hours a day. Inherited factors are not excluded, but these factors
  are limited to motivation and general activity levels, with cognitive
  abilities being explicitly excluded. The DP framework has had a
  considerable impact in the field of expertise, and numerous studies
  have been carried out to examine the role of practice in domains such
  as art, sports, games, and professional activities.

New Data on Deliberate Practice in Chess

Much of what we know about expertise comes from chess (Gobet et al.,
  2004) and it is therefore a good domain for examining to what extent
  DP accounts for the development of expertise. Gobet and Campitelli
  (2007) collected data from a sample of 104 Argentinean players ranging
  from weak amateurs to grandmasters. They found that, while DP
  accounted for 34% of the variance in skill (measured by players’
  national rating), several results did not fit the DP framework.
  Although the average amount of DP necessary for reaching master level
  was considerable (11,053 hours), there was also a substantial amount
  of variability, with the slowest player (23,608 hours) taking nearly 8
  times as long as the fastest player (3,016 hours). Some players with
  more than 25,000 hours of DP never reached the master level. These
  results violate Ericsson et al.’s (1993) assumption that DP yields
  monotonic benefits. In addition, group practice was a better predictor
  of skill than individual practice, and the age at which players
  started playing chess seriously correlated with current rating even
  after the number of hours of practice was controlled for
  statistically.
Analyzing longitudinal data from the same sample, Campitelli and Gobet
  (in press) found that, after playing chess seriously for three years,
  masters had a higher rating than Experts although they had not
  practiced more. The Experts’ ratings did not improve much thereafter,
  in spite of substantial amounts of DP. This study also presented
  evidence that practice in chess is more complex than previously
  thought and is not limited to the kind of repetitive and feedback-rich
  activities described in the DP literature.

Other Factors Mediating Expertise in Chess

If practice does not explain all of the variance, what are the other
  factors that are involved in the development of chess expertise? Gobet
  and Campitelli (2007) showed that chessplayers’ degree of handedness
  is weaker than in the population at large. Two studies have also shown
  a correlation between chess skill and intelligence (Bilalić et al.
  2007a; Grabner, Stern & Neubauer, 2007), adding to a complex pattern
  of data (Didierjean & Gobet, in press). Personality differences exist
  as well (Bilalić et al., 2007b). Finally, Gobet and Chassy (2008)
  discovered that expert chess players in the northern hemisphere tend
  to be born more often in late winter and early spring than the overall
  population. The results briefly reviewed here show that practice
  encompasses more varied training activities than argued by Ericsson et
  al. (1993). They also highlight the importance of individual
  variability and show that other factors play a role in the acquisition
  of expertise. Practice is a necessary, but not sufficient condition
  for reaching high levels of expertise.


SOURCE: Cognitive Science Society's Journal Archive

user70: 'IQ' is a notoriously flawed way of measuring intelligence.
A high rating (NM and higher) is a sign of intelligence, talent, and hard work.
Talent is missing from your equation.  It's why some people who play once a decade can mop up on normal club players.

38: <p>Are they tied to IQ and amount of deliberate practice, and if so, does that mean if you know the player's IQ you're able to estimate the time of deliberate practice spent learning?</p>
 928: <p>There is likely a cutoff around 110-130 IQ, where if you have higher than this it will have negligible impact on your chess performance, but if you have less than this you will likely not be able to reach the highest levels. The argument for this is, Kasparov had an IQ of 135, and many top players are quoted with IQ around 120, but does anyone know of a world class player with less then 110 IQ?</p>
 38: <h2>The Role of Deliberate Practice in Expertise: Necessary but Not Sufficient</h2>

<p><a href="http://csjarchive.cogsci.rpi.edu/proceedings/2008/pdfs/p823.pdf" rel="noreferrer">Fernand Gobet (Centre for the Study of Expertise, Brunel University)</a></p>

<p><strong>The Deliberate Practice Framework</strong></p>

<blockquote>
  <p>In an influential paper, Ericsson, Krampe, and Tesch-Romer (1993)
  proposed that expertise is acquired only through practice deliberately
  designed to improve one’s own skill. Deliberate practice (DP) consists
  of goal-directed and repetitive activities that enable immediate
  feedback. These activities, performed individually, are typically
  effortful and not enjoyable, and cannot be carried out for more than a
  few hours a day. Inherited factors are not excluded, but these factors
  are limited to motivation and general activity levels, with cognitive
  abilities being explicitly excluded. The DP framework has had a
  considerable impact in the field of expertise, and numerous studies
  have been carried out to examine the role of practice in domains such
  as art, sports, games, and professional activities.</p>
</blockquote>

<p><strong>New Data on Deliberate Practice in Chess</strong></p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Much of what we know about expertise comes from chess (Gobet et al.,
  2004) and it is therefore a good domain for examining to what extent
  DP accounts for the development of expertise. Gobet and Campitelli
  (2007) collected data from a sample of 104 Argentinean players ranging
  from weak amateurs to grandmasters. They found that, while DP
  accounted for 34% of the variance in skill (measured by players’
  national rating), several results did not fit the DP framework.
  Although the average amount of DP necessary for reaching master level
  was considerable (11,053 hours), there was also a substantial amount
  of variability, with the slowest player (23,608 hours) taking nearly 8
  times as long as the fastest player (3,016 hours). Some players with
  more than 25,000 hours of DP never reached the master level. These
  results violate Ericsson et al.’s (1993) assumption that DP yields
  monotonic benefits. In addition, group practice was a better predictor
  of skill than individual practice, and the age at which players
  started playing chess seriously correlated with current rating even
  after the number of hours of practice was controlled for
  statistically.</p>
  
  <p>Analyzing longitudinal data from the same sample, Campitelli and Gobet
  (in press) found that, after playing chess seriously for three years,
  masters had a higher rating than Experts although they had not
  practiced more. The Experts’ ratings did not improve much thereafter,
  in spite of substantial amounts of DP. This study also presented
  evidence that practice in chess is more complex than previously
  thought and is not limited to the kind of repetitive and feedback-rich
  activities described in the DP literature.</p>
</blockquote>

<p><strong>Other Factors Mediating Expertise in Chess</strong></p>

<blockquote>
  <p>If practice does not explain all of the variance, what are the other
  factors that are involved in the development of chess expertise? Gobet
  and Campitelli (2007) showed that chessplayers’ degree of handedness
  is weaker than in the population at large. Two studies have also shown
  a correlation between chess skill and intelligence (Bilalić et al.
  2007a; Grabner, Stern &amp; Neubauer, 2007), adding to a complex pattern
  of data (Didierjean &amp; Gobet, in press). Personality differences exist
  as well (Bilalić et al., 2007b). Finally, Gobet and Chassy (2008)
  discovered that expert chess players in the northern hemisphere tend
  to be born more often in late winter and early spring than the overall
  population. The results briefly reviewed here show that practice
  encompasses more varied training activities than argued by Ericsson et
  al. (1993). They also highlight the importance of individual
  variability and show that other factors play a role in the acquisition
  of expertise. Practice is a necessary, but not sufficient condition
  for reaching high levels of expertise.</p>
</blockquote>

<hr>

<p><strong>SOURCE:</strong> <a href="http://csjarchive.cogsci.rpi.edu/proceedings/2008/pdfs/p823.pdf" rel="noreferrer">Cognitive Science Society's Journal Archive</a></p>
 70: <p>'IQ' is a notoriously flawed way of measuring intelligence.</p>

<p>A high rating (NM and higher) is a sign of intelligence, talent, and hard work.</p>

<p>Talent is missing from your equation.  It's why some people who play once a decade can mop up on normal club players.</p>
