gbidari, the accepted custom here in the chess.com forums when you are in the wrong is to raise to the volume, change the subject, insult the corrector, and call everyone a fag.
Please respect our way, and I thank you.
Josh Waitzkin's resignation from competitive chess
Sort:
Sep 13, 2009
0
#43
goldendog wrote:
gbidari, the accepted custom here in the chess.com forums when you are in the wrong is to raise to the volume, change the subject, insult the corrector, and call everyone a fag.
Please respect our way, and I thank you.
I got tears from laughing at that!
to gbidari, thanks for the kind book offer, maybe you can send it to someone who hasn't read it yet, it's a great book
.
IM the next Fischer?hahaha...even an unrated chess player can beat an IM in a regular string of chess matches..provided that the unrated is a regular chess player too...
sure_shock wrote:
IM the next Fischer?hahaha...even an unrated chess player can beat an IM in a regular string of chess matches..provided that the unrated is a regular chess player too...
Provided that the unrated player is also IM or GM strength..
I'm sure that's what he meant
Sep 15, 2009
0
#49
philtheforce wrote:
Why has he resigned from competitive chess for?
Reposted:
(1) At age 11, he and prodigy K. K. Karanja were the only two children to draw with World Champion Garry Kasparov in an exhibition game where Kasparov played simultaneously against 59 youngsters[1]. Two years later, he earned the title of National Master, and at age 16 became an International Master. His focus has since shifted to the martial art Tai Chi Chuan, in which he has won four pushing hands tournaments.
(2) Waitzkin announced the formation of the JW foundation on April 8, 2008.
"The JW Foundation is dedicated to helping teachers, parents, and educational institutions nurture the unique potential of children and young adults. Our mission is to help students discover a creative, resilient passion for learning while embracing and overcoming challenges".
(3) Writing: Joshua Waitzkin is the author of Attacking Chess: Aggressive Strategies, Inside Moves from the U.S. Junior Chess Champion (1995) and The Art of Learning: An Inner Journey to Optimal Performance (2008). He is also the spokesperson for the Chessmaster computer game series, and is featured in the game giving advice and game analysis.
(4) Waitzkin is active in the fight against Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy. He does not have Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy; however, a close friend of his, Jonathan Wade, suffers from the medical condition.
pskogli wrote:
tonydal wrote:
pskogli wrote:
So if he was (is) that talented and worked that hard, why did he only reach the IM level?
Because (as I believed I was implying) it takes great talent and a massive amount of work even to reach "only" the IM level.
Hm.. so either he was lazy or not that talented. IM dosent give you much in chess these days, even ordinary GM's at 2500 is common, you need to reach the 2700 limit to be remembered as a real talent.
I agree. Even though you have to be more talented than most to reach the IM level, I don't think he had the talent to reach world class level. Even with the small bit I've read so far of his 1995 book "Attacking Chess" I can tell he wanted to reach the GM level so bad he could taste it. I believe he tried for several years after that, and was forced to admit to himself he didn't have the talent. My question is: If he didn't like his coach, why didn't he just fire him, and hire one more to his liking?
tonydal wrote:
pskogli wrote:
So if he was (is) that talented and worked that hard, why did he only reach the IM level?
Because (as I believed I was implying) it takes great talent and a massive amount of work even to reach "only" the IM level.
I think he was talented, and worked very hard, but he wasn't talented enough to reach the world class level. I just finished reading a lot of what he wrote in his book called "Attacking Chess" which he wrote when he was 18 years old, and you could tell he wanted to get to the GM level so bad he could taste it. He made it very clear he "LOVED watching men squirm, thinking they might lose." Apparently when he was unable to dominate other men across a chessboard anymore he "Lost the love." He obviously doesn't like to be the one squirming. You ought to read the book, not for the chess, necessarily, but the psychology.
I think Josh Waitzkin fell victim to a common deterrent at GM level -
He wasn't looking forward to spending countless hours memorizing computer-generated lines in order to circumvent a drawn game as White and secure a drawn game as Black. I believe that Bobby Fischer held a similar view in this regard, which is why he encouraged Fischer Random as a means to re-foster "human" creativity into the game of chess.
philidor_position wrote:
I'd like to know your thoughts about this subject. For those who may not know, here's a quick link to the wiki entry about Waitzkin:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Waitzkin
He was
-believed to be the "next Fischer" in USA for some time, after being one of the youngest IMs in the world at that date.
-the main character of the book and movie "searching for bobby fischer", which brought him huge popularity, and probably more than he would want.
-is the main lecturer in popular software Chess Master's courses.
-is the author of the book "the art of learning"
-is the Thai Chi world champion at the moment, a martial art which he took on years ago after he quit chess, and showed amazing improvement and skill.
My thoughts about the guy are very positive. I think his lectures on chess master are the best (literally, I haven't seen any better so far), I love his approach to the game and to learning. I've read his Art of Learning too, and although there were glimpses of some NLP style from time to time, I liked the book very much.
Now what I don't appreciate about him is the reasons he puts forward about him quitting chess. He openly accuses Dvoretsky (again, for those who may not know, he is one of the best chess writers and coaches in the world) for killing his love of the game, and impose a chess style that didn't suit him.
I think that's not fair at all to Dvoretsky, and seems like he just couldn't get out of his romantic passion for attacking to take his game to the next level (a world class GM).
He explains that his heroes of the game were Kasparov and Tal, who had attacking styles, often producing beautiful tactical play decorated with a lot of sacrifices.
He blaims Dvoretsky to try to teach him a more defensive and positional style, like Karpov. He cites him saying things like "try to find how Karpov would play this position?", and always worked on his defensive abilities.
My thoughts about this is that Dvoretsky analyzed the young man's games, and spotted a weakness in his abilities to defend and play somewhat more positionally. I think this approach is the correct one if one wishes to improve his game: spotting weaknesses and working on them.
Kasparov had said many times that in their first match with Karpov, he wasn't ready yet. His style was too aggressive, and his sacrifices for activity just hit the defensive wall of Karpov and got refuted. He then slowly learned the game from Karpov, he worked on his weaknesses, he worked on his endgames, defensive abilities, and actually, he learned Karpov's style of chess, and built his own upon that. He's said he thought of the match as free lessons.
Within this perspective, I think Waitzkin just couldn't handle the necessity of broadening his arsenal with other styles, and when he reached to the limits of natural talents, he decided to quit, instead of trying to change.
what do you think?
Well, Sarwer, (the guy who drew with Waitzkin in the national championship) was 2 years younger than Waitzkin and had beaten him earlier in the tournament. I think he was a much bigger hope than Waitzkin.
Estragon wrote:
There's plenty of "human creativity" left in chess, as the current top five in the world, plus Ivanchuk and Shirov and Karjakin and Nakamura, among others, regularly demonstrate.
If you look at the many GMs Dvoretsky trained, and the esteem in which they hold him, it seems a bit ridiculous for a player of lesser ability and results to be complaining at all.
Waitzkin hit a wall, as many players do at various levels. In order to advance, the most acclaimed coach of all time felt he needed to learn to play better defense and improve his positional understanding. If Josh felt this wasn't "fun" anymore, that's his privilege, a personal decision. But that doesn't mean he "coulda been a contender" at all. He didn't have the chops for it.
Ivanchuk is a good example. The guy takes mad risks, sacs pieces against 2700+ opponents, plays for beauty - BUT he knows enough not to throw away half-points when the chances just aren't there (well, usually). Waitzkin had a long way to go before he would have ever been a GM, much less a "strong GM" and not even to mention a "super-GM" like the world's top 30 today. He never got close.
It's great that Josh has reached high levels in other unrelated disciplines, but it means absolutely nothing in terms of what he shoulda-woulda-coulda done in chess.
Speculation about what heights a player might reach can be justified where players die young. When they walk away, the inference that they reached as high as they could and realized they could go no higher seems most probable.
I fully agree. It was obvious when I read his 1995 book "Attacking Chess" that he had high hopes to become a GM, and would practically have sold his buns to the devel to reach the level, but after several more years of trying, he was finally forced to admit to himself that he didn't have the talent.
AnthonyCG wrote:
It seems to me that becoming a GM requires a mastery of all of the elements of chess and blunt memorization of positions, openings e.t.c; Some just don't care for that imo. That's why there are so many IMs compared to GMs. That and the fee required to get your GM badge. And yes you must PAY MONEY to get your GM badge.
What bothers me is that people seem to take Waitzkin's resignation personally as if it's an insult to the chess community(??) (or them individually?!?) when in reality, he was simply making a decision on what he wanted to do with his life. He got tired of chess. So what. I'm sure many people do get tired of chess. It's just a game. The complexity and beautity of chess is irrelevant - it's still a game. His comments reflect his feelings on chess - not you. To take it personally is a bit... soft... But then again this is the internet...
I didn't notice anyone taking it personally. The rest of your post is silly too.
Mar 6, 2010
0
#56
If you keep learning from your blunders, you can keep getting better forever
He last pushed to get some GM norms at the same time maurice Ashley pushed for his norms now in my opinion josh had lots more natural talent however Maurice got his norm result first black grandmaster.For shame he did not work for it if he had put in half the time maurice did josh would have the gm title.Yes he may not have had the natural skills to be a 2700 level gm he did have natural 2600 level skills.With all the gm norm mill tournments where even a 2500level natural skills player like Maurice gets the Gm title then a player like josh with enough money an time to play in these tournaments just did not become a gm because he had no drive at all.At this time at 50 years of age after much hard work i play at high A player level an a few time came online close to 2000 level.So if i had half the natural skills he had i would have went as far as he did,No i have no time for him hes become rich om gm chess master 6 thru 12 an i will not buy this product again until hes off an they put some one like maurice on the game.I always wished i had master level skills so i have no time for a young man who had the skills of a joel benjamin but would not put in the hard work.
nice one , hentener, that gotta be one of the most inarticulate paragraphs I has ever clambered through
Really though, what is there that says that he has this extraordinary skill? Because he managed to become IM? That doesn't really make him a candidate for World champion. Because he won the US-kidschampionship? Heck, one kid wins that every year and I haven't seen a new Bobby Fischer every year from US.
Hype and nothing else.
@ Hentener: I didn't understand a lot of what you said, but I'll try and respond anyway:
To say that he didn't have any "drive" is completely laughable. Read the Art of learning and you'll see exactly how much blood and sweat he put into chess throughout his career. None of us here can hold a candle up to the amount of effort he put in. You say he "did have natural 2600 level skills", well what are you basing that on?
And you sound like you're showing exactly the kind of thinking he was speaking about negatively in his book. In reality I'm about 99% sure that saying why you haven't gone further with chess was because you didn't have the talent is not true at all. The only way you can seriously say that you could have reached Josh's level if you had the talent is if you've been studying for many hours every day for years from a young age, which doesn't seem likely to me. And using online grades to base your level on (i.e. don't play OTB) shows me that you haven't exactly been that dedicated...
philidor_position: I feel like such a dope. You're right! He did say it was a combined effect. That's news to me as I have always heard him in interviews just mention the movie as the weighing factor. I apologize wholeheartedly for saying you were mistaken and for the other stupid things I said. If you want send me a message and "The Art of Learning" is yours.