According to Frank Brady, Fischer said "When I was eleven, I just got good".
Anyone else have zero to little talent at the game?
Sort:
MC told Charlie Rose in an interview something like, 'i dont know why im good in chess'.
llamonade2 wrote:
... Lets instead look at the average person on the forum. Probably rated closer to 1000 than 1500. Probably asking questions that amount to "how can I improve while ignoring 90% of what I should be studying?"
Do you feel that you have some reliable way of knowing what an individual is studying? Is there some way to know that the nature of the person’s study is the only factor?
Jan 9, 2020
0
#45
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
According to Frank Brady, Fischer said "When I was eleven, I just got good".
According to Brady's account and Fischer's, that "just" involved a lot of study and dedication to chess.
Ziryab wrote:
... I would not call [capacity for hard work] the "only" quality. Rather, it is the most vital.
Magnus Carlsen, for example, clearly has some intellectual gifts that he developed into chess skill. But, without the intense work that he puts in, you would not know his name. He claims to have spent time studying 10,000 games. This study gives him an enormous array of tools for finding the strongest moves in the new positions that he encounters at work.
Without some capacity for memory, going through 10,000 games might have been a futile exercise.
What does it mean to say that a quality is “the most vital”? Is the engine more vital to a car than the gas tank?
Ziryab wrote:
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
According to Frank Brady, Fischer said "When I was eleven, I just got good".
According to Brady's account and Fischer's, that "just" involved a lot of study and dedication to chess.
Is there a way for anyone to know?
Jan 9, 2020
0
#48
*raises hand* With all the work I've put into chess so far, I should be much higher than in the 2100s.
PSV-1988 wrote:
*raises hand* With all the work I've put into chess so far, I should be much higher than in the 2100s.
Not sure if I am following you correctly. Are you saying that Fischer’s chess goodness was not “just” a lot of study and dedication?
Jan 9, 2020
0
#50
kindaspongey wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
... I would not call [capacity for hard work] the "only" quality. Rather, it is the most vital.
Magnus Carlsen, for example, clearly has some intellectual gifts that he developed into chess skill. But, without the intense work that he puts in, you would not know his name. He claims to have spent time studying 10,000 games. This study gives him an enormous array of tools for finding the strongest moves in the new positions that he encounters at work.
Without some capacity for memory, going through 10,000 games might have been a futile exercise.
What does it mean to say that a quality is “the most vital”? Is the engine more vital to a car than the gas tank?
Yes.
Cars run on several sorts of fuel. None run without an engine.
I was thinking about a different comparison: the conquest of the Americas. There were many factors that led to European success over indigenes—diplomacy, organization, technology, ... The decisive factor, however, was disease. Now, it is true that Europeans conquered other areas of the world without the weapon of epidemic disease (deployed without active volition), but those areas (India, Africa) successfully decolonized (at least in terms of political control) in the twentieth century, while the indigenous peoples of the Americas remain wholly surrounded and subordinate with a fraction of the population they had in 1500.
Jan 9, 2020
0
#51
kindaspongey wrote:
PSV-1988 wrote:
*raises hand* With all the work I've put into chess so far, I should be much higher than in the 2100s.
Not sure if I am following you correctly. Are you saying that Fischer’s chess goodness was not “just” a lot of study and dedication?
And exceptional talent.
Yes patzers unite count me in! 
Jan 9, 2020
0
#53
gf3 wrote:
Here is what 10k hours in music sounds like
I’ll try to listen this evening.
As for 10K hours. It may be worth pointing out that I read Anders Ericsson, not Malcolm Gladwell. One is a researcher; the other a popularizer who distorts the original. The 10K claims stem from the latter who misses the critical focus of “deliberate practice” in the manner that it targets demonstrated weakness.
Jan 9, 2020
0
#54
I would say no, Since I lost alot of games but at least I learn quickly... 3 days per move is amazing I could think of 30 moves into the future with in 2 days, well I write down all the notations and stuff.. and after I won 3 games.. it was truly a beautiful game.. Check it out on my profile. but I'm still a noob can't play a 3,5,10,30 minute game.. Without a blunder.
Ziryab wrote:
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
According to Frank Brady, Fischer said "When I was eleven, I just got good".
According to Brady's account and Fischer's, that "just" involved a lot of study and dedication to chess.
u keep hanging onto ur little hope chest. as it isnt what it isnt.
and s/e. if a person cant play an impressive game of blindfold ?....then they really dont see the board.
and another thing. there's very few people alive today that actually u/s chess. trust me. they started w/ immense talent.
and at 2300 ?....s/o like u doesnt. depending if ur 'stuck' there or not....that will tell u. so be honest w/ urself.
Jan 9, 2020
0
#56
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
According to Frank Brady, Fischer said "When I was eleven, I just got good".
According to Brady's account and Fischer's, that "just" involved a lot of study and dedication to chess.
u keep hanging onto ur little hope chest. as it isnt what it isnt.
and s/e. if a person cant play an impressive game of blindfold ?....then they really dont see the board.
and another thing. there's very few people alive today that actually u/s chess. trust me. they started w/ immense talent.
and at 2300 ?....s/o like u doesnt. depending if ur 'stuck' there or not....that will tell u. so be honest w/ urself.
I'd be interested to know what you are talking about.
kindaspongey έγραψε:
Would it be appropriate to explain your below-GM title as laziness?
Certainly yes - on top of few other things.
Jan 9, 2020
0
#59
ghost_of_pushwood wrote:
Dang, I must be a sloth!
lol, what does that make me 
Everything I know about the game is a product of hard work reading books. I have no natural ability.
Do we have a way to know that there aren't others who would have more difficulty with the same books?
... what kindaquotey means is that some people may have difficulty understanding the content of the book.
Content like forks and passed pawns?
There really aren't any difficult concepts in chess... otherwise you wouldn't have super strong kids. What those kids have (among other things) is a good memory for positions and good calculation habits. ...
Is there reason to believe that these habits are acquired with equal ease by everyone?
No.
I think the real talent is capacity for hard work. ...
Is there an identifiable reason to believe that that is the only quality involved?
Reading the portion you omitted from the quote offers clear evidence that I would not call it the "only" quality. Rather, it is the most vital.
Magnus Carlsen, for example, clearly has some intellectual gifts that he developed into chess skill. But, without the intense work that he puts in, you would not know his name. He claims to have spent time studying 10,000 games. This study gives him an enormous array of tools for finding the strongest moves in the new positions that he encounters at work.
Without some capacity for memory, going through 10,000 games might have been a futile exercise.