Cats? I don't think so.
Actually the greatest natural mathmatical minds on earth are camels. (re: Discworld, Pratchett, Terry)
Can an average person ever break 2000?
Sort:
Movie idea: The computers begin to revolt against the human race, and the final showdown is in the form of a chess match. Ultimately, it is an elite group of camels who come to humanity's aid in the final battle for Earth.
checkevrytim wrote:
Movie idea: The computers begin to revolt against the human race, and the final showdown is in the form of a chess match. Ultimately, it is an elite group of camels who come to humanity's aid in the final battle for Earth.
Elite Camels, lol
haha, Tyra's Camels are stupid they could only get a modeling gig 
From hamsters to cats to camels...
SmyslovFan wrote:
I think after 648 posts I have a definitive answer.
It is impossible for an average* adult** person*** to reach 2000****.
If an adult person reaches 2000 they have shown they are not average.
I'm not sure how serious this post was but I didn't realise we had come to this conclusion, certainly about the bottom one. I thought that as we had shown that as there is no link between IQ and chess (in studies since 1924) and that as at least one, maybe more poster, who admit to being an average sort of chap and 2000+ rating, that 'average' and 2000 could indeed co-exist. I didn't think we had proven that massive hard work and dedication in chess gets you to 1500 max.
In terms of the other question of adults learning chess we don't seem to have any adult learners above 2000. This is a bit of a blow and I can't believe that such a person doesn't exist to break this rule as there must be someone out there who has done it at some point - though maybe if they are around they are well above average!
Cue pictures of animals...
Trying to lay it out:
The average person who learns chess as a child has some chance to reach 2000. This isn't related to IQ, the biggest factors we know correllate to this achievement are time spent in deliberate practice and family support. It is still a small chance even with those factors in their favor.
The average person who learns chess as an adult has no measurable chance to obtain a titled rating.
What is average? If you want it, 2000 is easy for anyone!
Kingpatzer wrote:
Trying to lay it out:
The average person who learns chess as a child has some chance to reach 2000. This isn't related to IQ, the biggest factors we know correllate to this achievement are time spent in deliberate practice and family support. It is still a small chance even with those factors in their favor.
The average person who learns chess as an adult has no measurable chance to obtain a titled rating.
A good post in summary and completely free of animal imagery!
I know though that IF I was an adult learner who was determined to get to 2000 I would make a bloody good show of trying to get there, if only to disprove the sort of rule. Fortunately though I am neither of those. I would love for one to get there though.
FirebrandX wrote:
sisu wrote:
What is average? If you want it, 2000 is easy for anyone!
History has shown otherwise. That's been the crux of the debate for dozens of pages now. Try to read them before making such a blanket claim.
What history? That people are lazy or don't love chess enough?
this thread needs a moderator, and more animal pics..
Can an average person ever break 2000?
I think for the average person reaching 2000 USCF or becoming a "titled" chess player would come down to a matter of sacrifice. Adults have clearly established behavioral patterns. The theory, opening knowledge and tactical accumen a person would need to develop would likely tap quite a bit of an average person's time.
I played billiards 7 days a weeks and 8 hours a day and was able to win tournements and earn job quality money. I'm assuming Titled chess players at some point put in similiar time at least at some point in thier career. Any natural born 2000's? Or does is as a matter of fact require study.
No one in this thread is saying that it's "natural born."
I took up chess six months ago at age 49, having not played since age 10. I have progressed to 1300+/- rating and hope to attain a high rating with effort and time.
My son seems to have more ability. At age four he plays and understands pins, skewers, and other tactics. He often solves the chess puzzle of the day and handles tactics trainer at 1100-1200 rating level. He would have a much better chance than I will to reach a high level if he works at it as he grows up.
Dec 31, 2012
0
#576
Seraphimity wrote:
this thread needs a moderator, and more animal pics..
Like pigeons playing chess?
Do pigeons play for bread?
not but cats play for pigeons:
I think after 648 posts I have a definitive answer.
It is impossible for an average* adult** person*** to reach 2000****.
If an adult person reaches 2000 they have shown they are not average.
Oh? We're changing the discussion to what is normal? No, a normal person doesn't spend his days playing chess obsessively.
I hope I answered the question.*****
*Average in this case means someone who falls within the middle two-thirds of the bell-curve. Which bell-curve? I dunno. The one that measures averageness, I guess.
**Adult in this case means someone who is mentally mature. Oh, wait. That doesn't work on a chess site. Ok. Ummm. How about a person who is currently between the ages of 18 and 128? Errm... in earth years. Yes, counting leap years. Oh. ... I didn't consider emotional age.
***Person in this case refers to a sentient human. No, Engines do not count as persons in 2012 and I doubt they will count as such in 2013 either. Cats? Cats is stupid. Dogs? Well, I guess it depends on the dog.
****2000in this case is 2000 USCF. Yes, the official United States Chess Federation. Which rating? USCF has more than one rating system? Hmmm. Ok. Standard over-the-board rating. No, correspondence rating is not standard. I know chess.com considers online rating to be more important than live ratings. We're talking about USCF. Oh? Chess.com doesn't actually have a position about which is more important or legitimate? I learned something. Do provisional ratings count? No. They're provisional. What if someone does what? Throw all their games to get somebody an artificially high rating? Well, if you allow cheating the discussion kinda loses its point, doesn't it?
*****But I realise this thread will probably go on for another 100+ posts before dissipating into the ether.
Cats are awesome, I bet they are better in chess than you and me. They just don't want to show it.
Other than that +1