No.
Are good chess brains inherited?
Sort:
Natural ability is second to hard work. Any person with a completely average IQ can become a very good chess player, it is just a matter of hard work and a love for the game. Loving the game and being completely infatuated with it makes the work easy, and hence becoming better is easier, but you have to want to improve. The Polgar sisters are a great example of what hard work can do, it's not like Mr. and Mrs. Polgar born 3 chess einsteins. Chess is anything but inherited.
Jul 26, 2011
0
#4
Actually this is not completly true. It's a well known truth that inheritance has a great deal when it comes to top play. Chess history has known a lots of hard workers, but most of the legends were known to be gifted. Let's put it that way:
for the same ammount of work, DNA is what makes a difference.
This is a known fact in athletism where most of the professional achieve the maximum ammount of preparation possible (That might explain why there is so much doping) and where we have supposedly reached the human body limit.
In other words, each one of us has a limit, defined by our genes. For some it would be 2400, for others it's 3000. Of course, the most talented chess player won't pass the 2000Elo without a good preparation and lots of work. You are actually rated 1000, you have plenty of margin before you reach you limit, till then you'll have to work hard :) (the same applies for me and for pretty much everyone under the 2000Elo)
I can't remember who estimated that given a good trainning, a player can win 100 Elo per year until he reachs his limit. Also keep in mind that the Elo system is an auto-inflatting system (meaning its limit is supposedly continiously increasing), one day we may reach the 4000 rating :)
lcfseth wrote:
Actually this is not completly true. It's a well known truth that inheritance has a great deal when it comes to top play. Chess history has known a lots of hard workers, but most of the legends were known to be gifted. Let's put it that way:
for the same ammount of work, DNA is what makes a difference.
This is a known fact in athletism where most of the professional achieve the maximum ammount of preparation possible (That might explain why there is so much doping) and where we have supposedly reached the human body limit.
In other words, each one of us has a limit, defined by our genes. For some it would be 2400, for others it's 3000. Of course, the most talented chess player won't pass the 2000Elo without a good preparation and lots of work. You are actually rated 1000, you have plenty of margin before you reach you limit, till then you'll have to work hard :) (the same applies for me and for pretty much everyone under the 2000Elo)
I can't remember who estimated that given a good trainning, a player can win 100 Elo per year until he reachs his limit. Also keep in mind that the Elo system is an auto-inflatting system (meaning its limit is supposedly continiously increasing), one day we may reach the 4000 rating :)
You just expanded on what I said in my first sentence.
The two Laskers were unrelated to each other.
Thanks fraggle_jock for that bit of info, I thought they were like uncle & nephew or something
But are you aware that according to wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emanuel_Lasker that Edward claimed to be distantly related to Emmanuel??
Are good chess brains inherited? I know there were the 2 Laskers, but does anyone know whether any of the great chess players of either gender passed on their natural abilities to any of their offspring?
Sorry if this topic is already posted, searched but couldn't find it