anyone can be a super GM

Longer study will become redundant, and counter productive for the patzer.

I thought you were self-actualized. Now we have confirmation!

TetsuoShima wrote:

socialista wrote:

Another idea,

Since some people here is saying that being an slower learner doesn´t mean that you can´t go to the top, and understanding talent as being a fast learner (even when I´m not sure if that´s a correct way to define it):

In order to simplify let´s say that there are two class of people:

Class A (with talent): They learn chess at "speed 100"

Class B (without talent): They learn chess at "speed 50"

Both classes start learning chess when they are 10 years old and study 7 hours per day during his whole life, who is going to be at the top and be the super gms?

Class A of course.

It doesn´t matter how much they trie, Class B can never catch Class A, even if Class A stop improving at let say age 45, life is not long enough for class B to catch up.

but lets say a is not that rigid and in reality he only learns chess for 5 hours a day and the other one learns at 10 hours a day..

Also you must take into account what there learning differences are after 5 years, the brain builds new connections (sorry i forgot the proper term).

So maybe the gap in learning speed becomes smaller. Well im not saying it is so, but unless someone educates me it could be a possibility.

--------

Tetsuo, if I understand you correctly, this means that when you are not taking sh**e about Fischer you actually do make sense sometimes. As Scottrf said, you're alright when your not sucking off Fischer.

I paraphrased

A mod should lock this thread. It wasn't terribly bright right from the start, but it's becoming more and more stupid with every new post.

Notice how in general, nobody with a high rating says things like this? It's only people who have no idea about chess and think it's no big deal to get to the top. For every talentless person who works all day at something, there is a talented person who also works all day at something. Don't think that hard work is limited only to patzers. Lets say the talented person becomes a super-GM. Since chess is a competetive game, you can only win rating by taking it from others. Do you think that the talentless person  can be a super-GM? He would need to be better than the talented person, who put in the same amount of hours as he did but actually had some aptitude for the game.

I didn't say talented people didn't work hard. I'm just saying extremely long hours will be counter productive studying anything.

My comment wasn't directed towards you. It was directed towards the OP and people who defended his line of reasoning.

Please be relevant, helpful & nice! Oh.

I never implied that it's "no big deal" to get to the top. It's a very big deal, and it requires a collosal amount of work. Not talent. Work.

On the contrary to your argument, I notice in general that many low-rated players believe "talent" is a necessity for improving, which is part of the reason why I'm so argumentative against the notion.

No, "talent" is not a prerequisite. It's something you earn through hard work.

Tetsuo touched on the science of it when he mentioned neural plasticity and neural networks--the synaptical clustering that occurs through extended thought repetition, along with the pruning that removes unused neural pathways.

The brain is constantly reshaping itself (especially in the childhood formative  years) and this is where the "talent" that people think they observe comes from--those intuitive moves players make that seem to defy all logic and observers mistake for the mark of a "gifted" or "talented" player are really just the fruition of years of cognitive development due to exposure, repetition, study, and practice.

Talent is earned, and getting to the top is certainly a big deal, but you get there through work. The "gifts" that people believe in are developed along the way.

If there was some sort of way to cram in a million patterns reasonably well recognized, as long as you could draw from them, I'm not sure you'd have to, for example, have a high IQ to be able to keep coming up with plans that turn out well -- you would have a feel for what kind of pressure will actually lead to a good position and in which cases it is just an illusion. Someone who is a much better problem solver in general would probably still fail to come up with better ideas most of the time because the person with patterns has too much experience and can often know when something will work by recalling it. I think there is genetic influence; I'm just saying that well recognized patterns give you a really good shortcut to solving chess problems, and perhaps make non chess players perceive of you as smarter than you really are

A bigger question is whether it's the talent that determines who is going to be able to retain those patterns the best. Probably -- again I think it depends on lots of factors -- general intelligence will help, a fascination with solving the game's secrets, logic, patience, and although this may seem contradictory to the first paragraph, general problem solving skills will probably nonetheless give players a boost. Which aspects are more important I have no idea -- maybe some are very unimportant, others super important. In my opinion it's hard to do more than guess.

lol...what are you talking about?  Plenty of stuff is impossible.

Maybe he is.

If I just get enough sleep, eat plenty of fruits & vegetables and act kindly toward the elderly, I'll be 2500 FIDE right away!

Spoken like a true winged kitten!

Have you inhaled pure carbon dioxide for sixty seconds and lived?

Boy, is that livin'!

Try hammering in a nail with a souflé.

Or scraping rust with marshmallows.