10382 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!
Then you just dismiss what you don't want to believe. You admitted that you studied chess for years. How come you're not up there challenging Magnus, and Anand?
Chess Mentor played a part in my progress.
I played chess for years, I didn't study it that much, like masters study. There are so many ways a person may study something, woodshover, that there will be various gradations from person to person. How well one concentrates upon a given subject is multi-faceted. Quotidian existence, with it's manifold of impressions, has a huge, unexplainable effect upon a person's concentration.
I'm not going to believe in something which could easily be dismissed, woodshover. Declarations about artists and such being born with a genius-without-experience, and spectators all agreeing upon beholding this "genius", is from fairy-tale, god-cloud world
People who think everybody is equally talented are the ones who believe in fairy tales. There have been boat loads of players who did study their asses off from childhood, and never even approached the GM level. Their have been boat loads of people who studied music, art etc. who never even came close to making it to the top in their chosen field. I had a foster sister who spent years, and YEARS playing the clarinet, and only got to be mediocre while other people studied less, and got FAR better.
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.
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.
Bobby Fischer wasn't born a chess genius. His father disappeared and his mother, Regina was vaguely interested in Bobby as she was caught up in being a communist activist. He escaped the hardship and bleakness of his childhood through a chess board and learnt to play from the instructions of a chess set at the age of 6.
He did pretty much nothing else other than play chess. At the age of 12 he eventually joined the Manhattan Chess Club and his playing strength rose considerably. Constant hard work and endless studying and playing combined by mentoring from his first teacher, Carmine Nigro allowed Bobby to grow at an exponential rate.
Do you think Einstein was born a genius? He too studied intently from an early age, such knowledge isn't just inserted into some one's head it takes time to develop, many years. Stephan Fry is another example of someone who has read countless books and has an insatiable appetite for knowledge.
It boils down to the individual and their surroundings/upbringing to determine what kind of path they will take in life. We all have the option to change. Saying "Yes, well I'm not naturally gifted so I won't try," or "He's always going to be better than me because he was naturally talented", is b*******!
If your determined enough to do something in life, especially at an early age, you will achieve it!!
I believe intelligence is abstract, we are all born 'dumb', some people work hard at nurturing their brain and absorb knowledge, others don't..
Wasn't Einstein born a genius? His IQ was estimated to be genius level.
"Equally talented" doesn't make much sense, woodshover, and since you quoted me, I'm assuming that you think I made such a claim. I didn't. I said people can not study, nor concentrate the same way. Too many variables and factors involved. What I do understand is that you don't think much of your sister's painting, nor hers, or theirs clarinet playing.
Their. Two different people. One blood sister, one foster. You said talent doesn't exist.
I hate to repeat myself, woodshover, but I said "talent", as a word used to compliment, does exist. What doesn't exist are fairies touching their magical wands on certain impregnated wombs.
Why do those who argue against innate talent always bring magic/religion into it?
I hate to argue with frenchmen, but all men are not created equal.
Aren't most biological traits, including intelligence, normally distributed?
It is highly probable that some people will be off in the tails of the curve.
Guys, natural talent obviously does not exist. People's brains are all exactly equal at birth just like every other part of their anatomy!
Because the word "innate" carries with it, "predetermination". Predetermination implies a metaphysical being directing the fate of free-being's choices. This metaphysical being is very elusive, as if magically appearing at the moment where a rational mind has an unanswerable question. In Philosophy, this metaphysical being is referred to as "the god of gaps" in understanding.
Nah. What'd Hegel know, anyway?
Innate just means you're born with it.
I believe in luck; many of my buddies give me hell for it. "Luck God, etc."
Luck's just a statistical anomaly...like talent.
So by your logic the fact that I can predetermine my moves in CC implies I am god?
Unless you can demonstrate how such a thing as being born with talent can be shown, then we are left with the experience of the individual, coupled with the motivations of the spectator, in deciding who is "talented", or not.
If you wish people to worship you for doing nothing, then there is no doubt that you are a god.
I can't recall seeing many arguments consisting of statistics vs philosophy. This should be entertaining.
No, no. Some things are empirical.
For instance, who can throw this rock the farthest?
I wasn't born with the rhetorical talent to trade barbs with you, trysts.
Let's posit that intelligence can take several different forms such as:
Shouldn't there be a distribution curve for each aspect of intelligence? Some might more commonly have an intersection, but nevertheless, there is a range of intelligence (call it aptitude, if you will) for various skill areas.
5/20/2013 - Mate in 3
by MitchellOberfoell a few minutes ago
5/18/2013 - Mate in 4
by TaiKwanCheck a few minutes ago
by anajonb 6 minutes ago
why do people stall when they are losing?
by LoekBergman 12 minutes ago
Solve this Riddle if you can
by learningthemoves 15 minutes ago
NEED PGN VIEWAR WIT SOUND PLS...
by ticcherr 17 minutes ago
Computer Analysis says 1...c5 is an Inaccuracy ???
by awsomeness321 34 minutes ago
chess.tv not archiving videos
by romanic666 35 minutes ago
Game aborted by server?
by Kansha 44 minutes ago
by Kansha 45 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com