Illuminatus wrote:
Nice post, James, thanks.
Another way to put the 10, 000 hours theory.
You are a chess genius
Sort:
May 9, 2010
0
#4
GeniusKJ wrote:
Yep I'm geniuskj :)
You've a ways to go to get to that 10,000 hours.
May 9, 2010
0
#5
well... 90 days of summer vacation... 5 - 6 hours of chess a day = about 500 hours of chess. not 10000 but 500 should be enough to make me 2200 if I improve a point per hour which isn't hard... 1 hour of chess study should improve me a few points.
May 9, 2010
0
#6
If I want to be a "chess genius" or 3000... fide then I guess I'll need to study for a few decades lol. For now the goal is 2200 in 1 year.
May 9, 2010
0
#7
If you compare my eastern wa games to IEO games, you'll see a huge difference :)
May 9, 2010
0
#8
GeniusKJ wrote:
If you compare my eastern wa games to IEO games, you'll see a huge difference :)
I saw a huge difference over last fall in your game against Jeremy that you showed me right after it ended.
May 9, 2010
0
#9
yep :)
Do you agree that 450+ hours of chess this summer should be enough to make me a NM ?
May 9, 2010
0
#10
GeniusKJ wrote:
yep :)
Do you agree that 450+ hours of chess this summer should be enough to make me a NM ?
Call me skeptical. I can say neither yes nor no, but I will be surprised if you succeed. It get progressively more difficult to gain each rating step as you near the top of the pool of available opponents.
Curt Collyer was rated over 2100 when he played in the IEO his junior year of HS, but first peeped over 2200 two and one-half years later. He is the strongest player to have come out of the Spokane area. He was recently (in the past month or thereabouts) awarded the FM title. He graduated high school in 2003.
OTOH, your rating is provisional and unreliable. Most of your play has been here rather than OTB. It is harder to be certain how far you have to go than it was for a player that had been competing actively since elementary school.
May 9, 2010
0
#11
Be prepared to be surprised :)
I'm tactically fit and probably better than most 2200's (in tactics). My opening knowledge is minimal... so is my knowledge of pawn structures, opposite colored bishop stuff etc...
But tactics is the main component of chess! Once I create a strong repertoire, my rating should go up. Almost all of my losses are caused by opening inaccuracies/disasters. Game 4 and 5 were semi opening disasters... which is why I drew game 4 instead of win. Thankfully I won game 5 against Chris Copeland
All you need is five hours per day for ten years, and you will be a chess genius.
Such is the prospect suggested in David Shenk's new book, The Genius in All of Us (2010). Shenk is well known to chess players due to his earlier The Immortal Game: A History of Chess, or How 32 Carved Pieces on a Board Illuminated Our Understanding of War, Art, Science and the Human Brain (2006). In The Genius in All of Us, Shenk expands on his discussion in the earlier book concerning the science of memory and learning, and its relationship to genetics. If you still cling to the old nature/nurture dichotomy that is useful for starting discussions, but that has not reflected the best science for many decades, this book will disabuse you of your errors. Shenk does not offer anything new to those up to date on the sciences of learning and training nor of genetics, but aims, as he puts it, "to distill it all into a new lingua franca, adopting helpful new phrases and metaphors that scientists could share with teachers, journalists, politicians, and so on" (141).