nameno1had wrote:
Chess is not natural. It cannot be a part of "natural talent" in anyway.
So if the above line is true, then no chess player is talented?
Which Elite Chess Player of All Time Has the Most Natural Talent?
Sort:
SubNY wrote:
nameno1had wrote:
Chess is not natural. It cannot be a part of "natural talent" in anyway.
So if the above line is true, then no chess player is talented?
Not naturally.
I also dont see how you reached that conclusion.
Yereslov wrote:
SubNY wrote:
nameno1had wrote:
Chess is not natural. It cannot be a part of "natural talent" in anyway.
So if the above line is true, then no chess player is talented?
Not naturally.
synthetically?
SubNY wrote:
Yereslov wrote:
SubNY wrote:
nameno1had wrote:
Chess is not natural. It cannot be a part of "natural talent" in anyway.
So if the above line is true, then no chess player is talented?
Not naturally.
synthetically?
Sure, why not.
SubNY wrote:
Yereslov wrote:
SubNY wrote:
nameno1had wrote:
I don't waste my time mentioning something unless I know I am right.
We know and we hate your guts for it, especially when we have nothing better to do except try to argue.
I know. I am so lame, it is all I have to do too.
Yeah, I am glad no one else realizes how pathetic we are...
nameno1had wrote:
SubNY wrote:
Yereslov wrote:
SubNY wrote:
nameno1had wrote:
I don't waste my time mentioning something unless I know I am right.
We know and we hate your guts for it, especially when we have nothing better to do except try to argue.
I know. I am so lame, it is all I have to do too.
Yeah, I am glad no one else realizes how pathetic we are...
You have a wild imagination.
Yereslov wrote:
nameno1had wrote:
SubNY wrote:
Yereslov wrote:
SubNY wrote:
nameno1had wrote:
I don't waste my time mentioning something unless I know I am right.
We know and we hate your guts for it, especially when we have nothing better to do except try to argue.
I know. I am so lame, it is all I have to do too.
Yeah, I am glad no one else realizes how pathetic we are...
You have a wild imagination.
It is about time you recognized the diversity of my image nation...
nameno1had wrote:
Yereslov wrote:
nameno1had wrote:
SubNY wrote:
Yereslov wrote:
SubNY wrote:
nameno1had wrote:
I don't waste my time mentioning something unless I know I am right.
We know and we hate your guts for it, especially when we have nothing better to do except try to argue.
I know. I am so lame, it is all I have to do too.
Yeah, I am glad no one else realizes how pathetic we are...
You have a wild imagination.
It is about time you recognized the diversity of my image nation...
and the lack of any talent, natural or otherwise.
Crazychessplaya wrote:
bean_Fischer wrote:
Player of All Time who Has the Most Natural Talent is the one who invented Sicilian Defense.
Bah! The person who first played the Sicilian Defence was probably your average, overweight, right-handed patzer. 1...c5 is the easiest move to make, if you're playing black.
Have you ever heard of COLUMBUS Egg? It is easy for you to say that 1. e4 c5 is the easiest to make, when you have read and know about it.
After all these years, have anybody play a better defense than 1. e4 c5?
Look at the earliest of 1. e4 c5 posted by Yereslov played by played by the great Gioachino Greco. He even played 4. .. Nh6. How is that move evaluated by Houdini?
Ah yes, we have Houdini. But in 1620, how many players played 1. e4 c5? I bet the most popular move was 1. e4 e5.
And do you think GM Najdorf is an average player like me? He has his name on Sicilian Najdorf, in case you don't know.
Yereslov wrote:
nameno1had wrote:
Yereslov wrote:
nameno1had wrote:
sapientdust wrote:
nameno1had wrote:
sapientdust wrote:
nameno1had wrote:
sapientdust wrote:
SubNY wrote:
i believe the most naturally talented player was tal - simply because tal more than anything else did things that cant be taught or learnt.
Things that couldn't be learnt would have to be innate. As far as I know, Tal wasn't playing at GM-level when he came out of the womb, and he probably wasn't capable of calculating complex positions out for 15 moves right after he learned the moves. He learned everything he was capable of that he couldn't do as an infant.
So how do we measure talent, since in your opinion, it is apparently only displayed through what we can show, that we've learned ?
IMO, some obvious things that show talent in it's rawest form despite work ethic and education:
1) Higher level of skill compared to everyone else ( the younger it becomes manifest, the more talented normally )
a) In his prime, Tal was unmatched in terms of tactical ability, sacrifice, blitz play and learning his opponents limits, then taking advantage of them. Tal became the youngest WCC, at the time, when age 23.
b) Fischer showed perhaps the greatest disparity in skill compared to his contemporaries than any other player. Fischer displayed great ability as a teen. At 15, he became both the youngest GM and WCC candidate at that time.
c) Kasparov broke Tal's record for youngest WCC at 22. Other than Karpov, totally outmatched his contemporaries.
d) Karpov also was a young WCC at 24. Other than Kasparov, was better than all of his contemporaries.
e) The fact Petrosian rarely lost, said a mouthful about his skills compared to everyone else.
Displaying of a comparable or a higher level of skill compared to one's contemporaries, especially while at some other sort of disadvantage, age, health, collusion, etc...
a) Tal falls into this catergory.
b) Fischer experienced Soviet collusion.
I didn't mention talent at all, and was only pointing out the logical flaw in assuming that Tal had chess abilities that cannot be learned.
The question of talent depends on definition. I am not a skeptic about whether "talent" exists, as many here are, but a skeptic might assert that every one of your points is actually a point about skills, not talent.
Chess skill is what win games, world championships, etc. Talent is a hypothesis for why some people acquire much greater skill with less effort and at earlier ages, and why some people go further than others and plateau at a much higher level. I think talent does exist, in part because my life experience has made it plainly obvious that some people just learn much faster than others, even when the others are better prepared in terms of their past experience and learning and how much effort they apply.
Regardless of how you may try turning the idea to support a potentially opposing opinion, contrary to my own, you implied the idea of talent by, making statements about Tal's ability, before his training.
Hence, you weren't attacking Tal's ability or people's opinion of it, as much as the use the idea of talent, by the OP, to try getting to a logical conclusion about the subject. Unless of course, if was concocted to watch a debate that he could care less about.
So like it or not, you mentioned talent indirectly....
Wow, are you actually serious? Here is what I said:
sapientdust wrote:
SubNY wrote:
i believe the most naturally talented player was tal - simply because tal more than anything else did things that cant be taught or learnt.
Things that couldn't be learnt would have to be innate. As far as I know, Tal wasn't playing at GM-level when he came out of the womb, and he probably wasn't capable of calculating complex positions out for 15 moves right after he learned the moves. He learned everything he was capable of that he couldn't do as an infant.
Again, I said nothing of talent, and I had nothing in mind of talent. I was merely pointing out a logical error. Here it is again, in different words: since newborn infants aren't able to play chess, and chess newbs are not able to calculate 15 moves deep, it therefore follows that Tal (and every other GM who ever lived) did actually learn their skills. Thus it is silly to talk about "things that can't be learnt", as there are no such things when it comes to chess.
Note again that I made no mention of talent, and in fact what I said is perfectly consistent with any position on whether talent exists.
If you overhear children arguing and one of them says "9 is the only prime number less than 10", correcting them about and pointing out the consequences of their assertion does not in any way imply that you are indirectly arguing for one or the other of two unrelated positions they were arguing about.
If you want to color the outside of the image on a page and say you didn't color the picture, because your crayon didn't go inside of the image, that doesn't mean in my eyes, you didn't didn't create a contrast and still color a picture. You fail to see the forest for the trees. You even later admitted in your own words that the basis for your original thought commented on had to do with the fact that you felt talent was what gave someone the ability to gain skill and that those with more talent gained more skill than others, now you are saying it is an irrelevant discussion because anyone has the talent( ability ) to learn and perform anything chessically...
...you really should spend some time making your mind up instead of trying to tell me what I think and arguing about it with me when I tell you, no , I still think it....
If you are arguing that artificial knowledge is innate in a human being right from the start of natural birth, then how would that be possible?
Chess is not natural. It cannot be a part of "natural talent" in anyway.
We are all born with some ability to learn and perform certain tasks, once we learn certain things. We all have our limits, that we determined even before.
Anand was born to be a champion. I am willing to bet if poured all of the humanly resources into either you Sapientdust or you Yereslov, you'd realize champions are born and not made. Then maybe you'd understand what talent is and isn't. Put that into you list of mental skills if you can...
How can someone be born to be a Chess Champion, if the title is artificial?
the title is a natural thing for someone so good at chess like anand.
it is also a natural thing for someone as talented as Anand...
nameno1had wrote:
it is also a natural thing for someone as talented as Anand...
not you again. i thought i had seen you off
You need me......Without me, you'd still be shackin' down tea houses for chump change ....
SubNY wrote:
VicB wrote:
SubNY wrote:
yet again I ask - how much of anand do readers think is natural talent (great speed) and how much methodical preparation (probably the first to take to computers) and hard work ?
i believe the most naturally talented player was tal - simply because tal more than anything else did things that cant be taught or learnt.
If you read David Norwood's book on Anand or Patrick Wolfe, you'll discover that Anand didn't study much at all even up to and including his winning of the World Junior Championship in 1987. His lightening speed is mostly due to his incredible board vision and natural talent not some great preparation. Even Kasparov was stunned at the rapidity of Vishy's calculative skill. Then there is the famous remark of Korchnoi who said 'Kasparov is stonger at home [alluding to his incredbile opening prep] but Anand is stonger OTB'. In any event, I really doubt it's due to prep more than prep is important for any player, no matter the talent at WC level.
so you are saying that anand is a fantastic natural talent - the speed is there to see - but then now the question - why did anand have to wait till about 35 to win the WC -- the one in teheran against shirov should not count - even the KO in mexico doesnt - but the one against kramnik came at about 37ish.
tal, kasparov, kramnik and karpov all won in their early 20ies, and so could have fisher, if he was russian or they had KO system for the candidates.
This argument doesn't hold much water. Just because Anand didn't win earlier doesn't mean he doesn't have tremendous natual talent. Afterall, he did contest for the WCC when he was 24 and just ran into a Kasparov, probably at the peak of his form. And you also have to realize, Anand didn't have the virtues of any chess school such as exisited (exists) in Russia. In fact, when he became a GM, he was India's first so he didn't have much, if anything, in the way of high level mentoring. Much of the subsequent 'delay' was a lot of chess politics - PCA vs. FIDE split, his opting out in 2000 etc. In 1998, (I believe), he went through a rigourous candidates set of matches where he was something like +10 =11 -0 (or 1) and then ran into a very rested Karpov to whom he lost to in a tie-breaker. Lots of articles I have read have said that from 1998 until 2007, it was clear that Anand and Kasparov (unitl his 2005 retirement) were the 2 strongest players in the world.
nameno1had wrote:
You need me......Without me, you'd still be shackin' tea houses for chump change ....
er....well said.
VicB wrote:
. Lots of articles I have read have said that from 1998 until 2007, it was clear that Anand and Kasparov (unitl his 2005 retirement) were the 2 strongest players in the world.
ok then why would anand not win the wc except once in teheran while kramnik (by knocking out GK) and topalov both do so. Also anand was not always #2 ranked between 98 and 07
i believe the most naturally talented player was tal - simply because tal more than anything else did things that cant be taught or learnt.
Things that couldn't be learnt would have to be innate. As far as I know, Tal wasn't playing at GM-level when he came out of the womb, and he probably wasn't capable of calculating complex positions out for 15 moves right after he learned the moves. He learned everything he was capable of that he couldn't do as an infant.
So how do we measure talent, since in your opinion, it is apparently only displayed through what we can show, that we've learned ?
IMO, some obvious things that show talent in it's rawest form despite work ethic and education:
1) Higher level of skill compared to everyone else ( the younger it becomes manifest, the more talented normally )
a) In his prime, Tal was unmatched in terms of tactical ability, sacrifice, blitz play and learning his opponents limits, then taking advantage of them. Tal became the youngest WCC, at the time, when age 23.
b) Fischer showed perhaps the greatest disparity in skill compared to his contemporaries than any other player. Fischer displayed great ability as a teen. At 15, he became both the youngest GM and WCC candidate at that time.
c) Kasparov broke Tal's record for youngest WCC at 22. Other than Karpov, totally outmatched his contemporaries.
d) Karpov also was a young WCC at 24. Other than Kasparov, was better than all of his contemporaries.
e) The fact Petrosian rarely lost, said a mouthful about his skills compared to everyone else.
Displaying of a comparable or a higher level of skill compared to one's contemporaries, especially while at some other sort of disadvantage, age, health, collusion, etc...
a) Tal falls into this catergory.
b) Fischer experienced Soviet collusion.
I didn't mention talent at all, and was only pointing out the logical flaw in assuming that Tal had chess abilities that cannot be learned.
The question of talent depends on definition. I am not a skeptic about whether "talent" exists, as many here are, but a skeptic might assert that every one of your points is actually a point about skills, not talent.
Chess skill is what win games, world championships, etc. Talent is a hypothesis for why some people acquire much greater skill with less effort and at earlier ages, and why some people go further than others and plateau at a much higher level. I think talent does exist, in part because my life experience has made it plainly obvious that some people just learn much faster than others, even when the others are better prepared in terms of their past experience and learning and how much effort they apply.
Regardless of how you may try turning the idea to support a potentially opposing opinion, contrary to my own, you implied the idea of talent by, making statements about Tal's ability, before his training.
Hence, you weren't attacking Tal's ability or people's opinion of it, as much as the use the idea of talent, by the OP, to try getting to a logical conclusion about the subject. Unless of course, if was concocted to watch a debate that he could care less about.
So like it or not, you mentioned talent indirectly....
Wow, are you actually serious? Here is what I said:
i believe the most naturally talented player was tal - simply because tal more than anything else did things that cant be taught or learnt.
Things that couldn't be learnt would have to be innate. As far as I know, Tal wasn't playing at GM-level when he came out of the womb, and he probably wasn't capable of calculating complex positions out for 15 moves right after he learned the moves. He learned everything he was capable of that he couldn't do as an infant.
Again, I said nothing of talent, and I had nothing in mind of talent. I was merely pointing out a logical error. Here it is again, in different words: since newborn infants aren't able to play chess, and chess newbs are not able to calculate 15 moves deep, it therefore follows that Tal (and every other GM who ever lived) did actually learn their skills. Thus it is silly to talk about "things that can't be learnt", as there are no such things when it comes to chess.
Note again that I made no mention of talent, and in fact what I said is perfectly consistent with any position on whether talent exists.
If you overhear children arguing and one of them says "9 is the only prime number less than 10", correcting them about and pointing out the consequences of their assertion does not in any way imply that you are indirectly arguing for one or the other of two unrelated positions they were arguing about.
If you want to color the outside of the image on a page and say you didn't color the picture, because your crayon didn't go inside of the image, that doesn't mean in my eyes, you didn't didn't create a contrast and still color a picture. You fail to see the forest for the trees. You even later admitted in your own words that the basis for your original thought commented on had to do with the fact that you felt talent was what gave someone the ability to gain skill and that those with more talent gained more skill than others, now you are saying it is an irrelevant discussion because anyone has the talent( ability ) to learn and perform anything chessically...
...you really should spend some time making your mind up instead of trying to tell me what I think and arguing about it with me when I tell you, no , I still think it....
If you are arguing that artificial knowledge is innate in a human being right from the start of natural birth, then how would that be possible?
Chess is not natural. It cannot be a part of "natural talent" in anyway.
We are all born with some ability to learn and perform certain tasks, once we learn certain things. We all have our limits, that we determined even before.
Anand was born to be a champion. I am willing to bet if poured all of the humanly resources into either you Sapientdust or you Yereslov, you'd realize champions are born and not made. Then maybe you'd understand what talent is and isn't. Put that into you list of mental skills if you can...
How can someone be born to be a Chess Champion, if the title is artificial?