Chess = Intelligence Or Dedication?

Plus talent for the high levels.

did someone mention fighting spirit ?

Daz-Batty, I like your Forum. Cheers : )))

DonJuan_DeMarco - you really are a childish person aren't you? There are lots of positive feedback and also ideas that are worth reading and absorbing. 

That's what we are here for, to communicate like adults; to talk; to just ' hang around ' and talk. ' Grow a pair ' will you mate and ' man-up. ' 

Thanks George. :-)  

I think it's conclusive from what most have been saying, that dedication is the key. I guess it's like anything else ( as Romeo3000 mentioned, and a few others too ); if you want to be good at it, then the ability to be dedicated has to be present within one's own mind set. Some people just can't focus on anything. I think that the wonderful game of chess deserves to be studied and made a focal point, because as I am proving to myself, if I don't put more time in, then I will never regain my former play; which wasn't brilliant to start off with, but it was certainly better than the ' pants ' that I am churning out at the moment! 

Thanks everyone for your time and in your responses. I do believe that it's not far off 100%; leaning towards the dedication trail. 

ffs, I posted once on this thing, and now i keep getting new comment alerts, only to be accosted by batty's inane and vacuous patter, which has now descended into the man-up-I've-got-large-testicles rubbish, from someone with obvious virility issues. You need to find you inner child matey, and stop persisting in your Grown Up Box.

I know you're trying to be clever Batty, but you're going to have to try harder.

Overconfidence itself may be the reason your game has decayed leading to unhappiness with performance.

Need to take the game seriously respecting opponent's abilities.

Richardep - seriously? I mean; seriously? lol  

I certainly don't disrespect my oppenants Netzach, but perhaps the knowledge that I used to be able to play and the fact that I can't right now, is the reason why my game is pants, or at least in part.

What I do need is what virtually everyone agrees with; practice and then practice some more. Plus overconfidence over the board certainly isn't happening, that's for sure. I have a serious lack of playing confidence. 

However; one must crack on! 

It does remind me though of a few months back when I went with a mate to have a game of snooker. I used to play for hours and hours when I was younger and was plenty confident of my playing ability. However; the knowledge of my then ability and my actual playing ability ( on that day a few months back ), were two very separate elements! I missed potting balls that were '  right over the pocket. '  I checked my stance; I looked back at how straight my arm was; I looked down and checked that my feet were in the right place etc and still missed a relatively easy shot. Which does, definitely prove the theory of: Without constant practice, one is pants. With constant practice, one is considerably better than being pants. 

I guess we are all alike when it comes to becoming good at anything. 

Anyway my friend; I have started ( yet again ) on my chess journey; my first game has begun! 

terrible insult!!!

is that all you got ??

EDIT: Irrelevant comment with deleted posts.

beam us up there Scotty

It's starting to sound more like a biography

Batty's Musings, more comedy gold from the resident pseud.

I have been reading a book I bought called " Logical chess. "  What I find fascinating, is that the games of chess that are showcased in the book are between GM's. Not every game is between GM's, but mostly, they are. 

In some of these games, one GM can make another GM that he is playing, look like a total beginner. 

In the last post I referenced my recent games of snooker. I haven't played snooker for many, many years and to go back to the table after all of these years; well let's just put it this way; if you looked up the word pants in the dictionary, it would show a picture of me holding a snooker cue... 

The reason for the snooker reference is this:                                                        When two professional snooker players are playing in a match, even though there is going to be a winner and a loser, the loser of the match, once he has his chance at the table, plays his snooker at a professional level. And I know about the famous games of snooker that show both players under pressure and playing pants. I refer to the average game whereby they both maintain a professional level of play. 

Now in this book; " Logical Chess; " one player ( the loser and not just any loser, a GM loser ), usually plays total pants chess and the other player ( his opponent ), plays bewildering, psychologically destroying super fantastic, no holds barred chess! Now why would this be? 

All of you folk up into your 1800's and higher, know many different types of plays; you have many manoeuvres committed to memory and can understand many positions just by giving them a few minutes of your time. So a GM's knowledge of moves certainly supersedes that of an 1800 etc. So if you can see that a certain move shouldn't be played, why wouldn't a GM? 

Maybe the book is just highlighting that fact that a GM can mess up as much as anyone else. 

I have read that Philidor used to psychologically destroy his opponents. That he used to purposefully ' play with his victim, ' until they ' gave up the ghost! ' 

Anyhoot; my latest game is one whereby I am going to emulate Philidor's game play. Apparently, he was the master of the attack and as such, he even got an attack named after him, it's called; " The Philidor attack. "  

After this game I am currently playing; I am more than certain that a new chess term will arise... The Batty Beastmaster!    

Oh and thanks Andy - I do try...  

Philidor psychologically destroying his opponents...huh?