10658 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
It's helped me in just one way.
Yes, but I left him anyway.
You seem to have a bit of chess talent. You should use it.
I have no chess talent whatsoever, woodshover. I got in an accident and was stuck in bed for a spell, so I really started learning the game. Then I lived with a guy who was chess-obssessed, so I played and learned some more. Then whenever I was on the computer reading, listening to interviews, lectures, and the news, I played. And I don't like drinking so much in public(too dangerous), so I drink at home, so I play chess. I've played thousands of games for years and years, and that accounts for my rating. I think I told you before, it took me about 5 years just to break 1300 on the internet. So, no talent, just lots and lots of playing
Chess Mentor still might help. I see people on here who have played thousands of games, and are still rated 1000 or so.
Really? I still can't believe I have any talent for the game. Maybe I just had a good teacher, while they have no one to teach them?
Could be, or perhaps they're not ambitious.
Could be. Could be a number of reasons. But being between 1800, and 2000 rating on the internet, doesn't speak "talent" to me.
Edit: After playing for eleven years, that is
What do you think of those complete idiots on here who claim there's no such thing as talent in anything, it just depends on how hard you work at it. We're all as talented as Fischer in other words, we just didn't work at it as hard.
I hope to obtain your lack of talent one day...the chess gods have decreed that the game begins at move 1!!!....
I agree. I'll probably be where I am forever.
I believe that "talent" is a word used to denote two things: First, that a person is doing things in a way that is more difficult for others to do. With more ease than others demonstrate. From this, there are other words added to focus on the apparent "ease", like "pure", or "natural" talent. It's basically a compliment. The spectator may find the supposed "ease" in which the person does things, to be aesthetically pleasing. The spectator, in awe of the experience, compliments the individual by saying they are very "talented".
Second, there are those who say an individual is talented because that spectator wishes to excuse themselves from the responsibility of the hard work involved in doing something so well. They call an individual "talented", as a disguised insult. One competing with the individual, for instance, has not put in the hard work involved to achieve a similar result, so they have the ready-made excuse of calling one who has, "talented".
So, yes, "talent" does exist as a way of expressing one's admiration for what they see: 'That person is more aesthetically pleasing to watch.' And, "talent" exists as a way of hiding the work involved in achievement: 'That person beat me because they have "talent", whereas I don't.'
Beyond the aesthetic, or psychological use of the word "talent", I don't know. I have not read much about the biological reasons for that word being asigned to people, woodshover.
All I have to say, and I won't argue about it anymore, is that it's obvious that some people are gifted in certain areas, and reach levels where somebody else putting in the same amount of work would never reach.
Go through GM Wolff's tactics series enough times that you can see each answer from the first position and you'll soon find it harder to keep your rating down.
We'll never know how much work beloved Bobby put into his chess playing, so we can't say someone has put the "same" amount of work. These things can't be measured. But "talent" does exist, as a word used by a spectator to express their perspective. So, anyone who says "talent" doesn't exist, would have to explain how they are using the word, woodshover. I don't believe "talent" exists as a "gift from the gods", but if you want to say dear Bobby was talented, I'll understand it as an aesthetic compliment to his games. Nothing more.
chess mentor or any trainer would be a lot better if its analysis was supported by a
chess engine so the user could explore the consequences of sidelines
I guess I must argue about it again. Let me give you an example that I presented in that dumb thread. This is just one of many MANY I've seen. I had a sister who studied art the whole time she was growing up. She drew, traced, painted, you name it. She took many years of art classes as well. To this day she isn't much better than me or anybody else who has never studied art in their life. I have a friend who has never had any formal art training in her life. She EASILY whips out beautiful paintings she can sell. She can draw a very good likeness of people in just a few minutes, where as my sister fumbles around for an hour in the attempt, and never comes close to getting a good image. My friend is obviously more talented than my sister. I don't understand why so many people don't seem to realize people have different abilities in different areas. It's obvious to me.
I'm taking one now.
I don't think we are in disagreement, based on your example, woodshover. You find the other girl's paintings more aesthetically pleasing to you than your sister's. You also see the ease at which the other girl paints in comparison with how your sister paints. So you compliment the other girl by saying she is more "talented" than your sister in painting. It's your perspective you are expressing. I may look at your sister's paintings and like them more than the other girl's paintings, so I say your sister is more "talented". Neither girl possesses an ability which makes them objectively better than the other. It just depends on who's judging them, what they are looking for, what criteria they are using, etc.
So I agree with you that "talent" does exist. Picasso, for example, did have "talent" in my eyes. But, it did not belong to him, it was assigned to him by me and many others.
by sammynouri 3 minutes ago
by LoekBergman 5 minutes ago
Idea about the difference of Fide rating and chess.com rating for a player
by yorygregovich 5 minutes ago
Any good sites where I can find unlimited openings
by kikvors 6 minutes ago
Carlsen Supplies New Evidence That Chess Is A Draw With No Mistakes
by brankz 8 minutes ago
12/7/2013 - 1001 Brilliant ways to Checkmate by Reinfeld, #404
by EkeA 9 minutes ago
what the #$%^was he playing and how did he win?
by jojojopo 14 minutes ago
How do I have a group no longer in use deleted?
by ConnorMacleod_151 17 minutes ago
Conservative vs. progressive chess societies
by watcha 18 minutes ago
Can Anyone Become Grandmaster?
by Lou-for-you 21 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!