Chess greatness CANNOT be taught or learned……

…..You are either born with it or you’ll never achieve it. 100% FACT!

Now, there is a clarification that is in order. What is greatness? Well, MY definition, it may not be yours, is the ELITE of chess. No, I’m not talking about a 2300 player. There’s a 2300 rated player on every street corner. I’m not talking about a 2500 GM. BAH…..a dime a dozen. I’m talking about someone rated in the top 25 of the WORLD. I’m talkin’ ‘bout a 2700+ player.

How can I back up such a claim as it is basically not provable? WITH LOGIC, FACTS, and COMMON SENSE.

I submit to you that if you took 1 million children and had a dream team of teachers, all of history’s greatest players (Kasparov, Fischer, Anand, etc.) teach them for years upon years, NOT ONE OF them would break the 2700 mark. Statistically this is as logical as “I think, therefore I am”. There are only 31 players in the WORLD who are ranked 2700+ among ALL the rated chess players.

So, what are the MAIN traits that make up an ELITE chess master? Hold on. Let me first preface my argument by illustrating the following. Let us use Athletic sports as an analogy. Not every one can become an NBA superstar. If you only grew to 5’5”, you will NEVER EVER EVER become an NBA superstar. If you are born without the use of your hands, you will NEVER EVER EVER become a superbowl MVP wide receiver. If you were born with gigantism and grew to 7’7”, forget the dream of being and NHL goalie…ain’t gonna happen. EVER!!! You can be dumb as a stump with the IQ of 90 and throw a 100mph fastball and sign with the Yankees and go on to fame and fortune because intelligence is not a prerequisite of being a sports HERO. See where I’m going? You must have been born with the PRIME REQUIREMENT to become ELITE at whatever it is you want to be elite at. What’s the prime requirement of being a supermodel? DUH--good looks. You are either born with it or not. Same with world class chess players.

First off, we KNOW that hard work and dedication doesn’t mean A THING when it comes to being an ELITE player--it can help you become a good player; maybe even a great player, but the buck stops there. The PROOF of that is because if hard work and perseverance were all it took, then all the OLD TIMERS who have been studying the game for DECADES would be ranked at the top because they have devoted much more time to the game than the younger players. A red flag should go up when a 12 year old can become a GM. What does that say to the credibility of chess? It says that the standards are LOW. What’s next, a CAT being awarded GM status?

Well then, what is IT that you need to be born with to become an ELITE chess master? MEMORY. That’s it!!!! Oh, of course, you need to study the game and have an exceptional work ethic, but if you can come to the table with a photographic memory, which will allow you to instantly recognize patterns, remember opening lines, combinations, end game theory, etc. YOU ARE IN.

Everyone knows computers are not smart. They don’t have a brain. They cannot “think”. They access a voluminous database and make their moves accordingly. The faster their processor and the more memory they have, the stronger they will be. If you were to put FRITZ 10 on a commodore 64 from 1984 and FRITZ 1 on the IBM supercomputer ROADRUNNER, guess what would happen. DING DING DING. FRITZ 1 would CRUSH FRITZ 10. Chess is an old game. There are no more moves being invented--it’s the advance of computers that make the programs stronger year after year, not some miracle of programming. Same old program, fancy new package = marketing SCAM of the century.

Did you all know that if you took ANY dime-a-dozen GM in the chess world and sat them at some random game in progress they could look at the board and INSTANTANEOUSLY (I love that word, it contains all 5 vowels) comprehend the game and begin to play at their GM level. It’s all about pattern recognition. It cannot be taught. They were BORN with a photographic memory.

I ALWAYS use the case of Josh Waitzkin as my whipping boy. Here is a kid who possessed every quality of being the next Bobby Fischer ( drawing a game at age 11 vs. Kasparov, won the U.S. Junior Chess championship 2 years in a row, defeating a titled MASTER at age 10, etc etc etc). But he never broke a 2500 rating. WHY? Did he not study hard enough? HARDLY, he lived, ate, breathed chess.. Was he not smart enough? He was a chess GENIUS. Was he not schooled well enough? One word: Pandolfini. He hit his personal ceiling. He went as far as He could go. That was it. He lacked the photographic memory. His brain did not possess any more room to store chess information. Not his fault. He knew it. Being one of the chess ELITE was not in the cards for him, hence his abandoning it in favor of martial arts.

So, in closing, if you aspire to be one of the greatest chess players in your state, country, world, or just neighborhood, but lose every time you play the card game Memory or Guess Who? then I’d like to save you a LOT of wasted time and effort…TAKE up checkers.

http://ratings.fide.com/top.phtml

http://www.exforsys.com/career-center/memory-skills/photographic-memory.html

guess who's back!haha

Well, you say it yourself... your claim is basically not provable. You do make a pretty good stab at it though.

A 12 year old becoming a GM is not at all comparable to a cat doing the same thing. Mainly because the 12-year-olds brain is far superior to that of our feline friends, and always shall be. (Unless evolution swings their way!)

I agree with you that natural ability is required to reach the 2700+'s. Obviously, these people have had an advantage always over everyone else. Theres no way we could teach any child chess from the age of 1 and expect him/her to become a grandmaster by 12 (or even ever...).

I'm not sure of the relevance of your paragraph on computers, though I expect it is because of the relation with memory and chess-playing skill. Nice argumental link, I like it. There's no need to point out to anyone that old programs in new boxes are scams, though- a) because it's not relevant to the argument, and b) because any intelligent being would have realised this anyway.

So, yeah, I like what you've put. I'm always a fan of the way your posts come across, especially the use of CAPITALS to make points. Very effective!  I completely agree with you- am I to take it that you are of the opinion that chess CAN be learnt up to around 2300-2500 rating? I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.

Nytik

Very nice logic and facts.  (sarcasm)

Chess is irrelevant, pointless if you will. Just play and have fun, if God wills you to be an "elite gm" then you will be, but be ready for anything.

I can recommend some psychological, or maybe in this case psychiatric help if you are interested. Just let me know

Nytik, I always APPRECIATE constructive criticisms. Thanks. If only everyone would learn to present themselves as you have, it would be much more civil in these forums. However, I have donned my anti-troll armor and am awaiting their onslaught.

You're going to have quite a fight on your hands... I wish you luck!

Jbeatty, I am anti-drugs of any sort. I will not take any medications of any sort, unless it's Ibuprofen for my toothache. Psychiatrists are in cahoots with the drug companies anyway. Besides, a healthy diet and exercise will heal nearly EVERYTHING.

Isn't it a bit silly to say GM's are a dime a dozen? I think you may be correct though about everyone having a ceiling, but it is an accomplishment none the less to reach that ceiling in whatever one does.

I think you've summed the argument up there. If it's true to say that each person has a ceiling, the best anyone can do in a given field is to reach that ceiling.

Try psychotherapy then, no drugs, just talking.

I don't like drugs either, and a healthy lifestyle is good for everything, but talking can also help.

I have to admit that I think this is quite an interesting topic, both the over 2700 angle and the possibility of "normal" people attaining high ranking under 2700.  I forget who it was, but a famous chess player (maybe Reuben Fine?) did conclude that a person of average intelligence could reach something like IM level.  I think Dan Heisman also talks about this in some of his writings (www.danheisman.com).  And don't forget the Polgar sisters and their father's book of chess problems that weighs something like 10 pounds.  He believed that chess ability could be learned through study, and you see the results (Susan and Judit).

I have also heard that a grandmaster instantly recognizes something like 10,000 positions and knows how to play them, but I also heard that this is a learned skill and just takes a lot of time and playing, not necessarily photographic memory.  I might grant you that the over 2700 have the photographic memory.

I do believe that if Bobby Fischer was in his prime and there were 2700's around, he would study until he found a way to beat them, photographic memory or not.  There's something to be said for persistence, single-mindedness, and force of will.

Jeremy

cheater_1, it's true that achieving 2700+ rating requires natural talent. But so is achieving 2500+, or 2300+, or even 2000+ ratings. In fact, being able to understand the rules and play chess at all requires some level of natural mental capacity.

I'm sure there are people born with disabilities that prevent them from playing chess, from walking, from speaking, etc., no matter how much training they get. So what's the point of discussing whether or not achieving super-GM status requires natural talent? Almost everything requires natural talent.

There's also the aspect of playing into positions that require creativity over the board, where a photographic memory might not help.  David Bronstein did this against Mikhail Bottvinik and drew this world title match (so Bottvinik retained the title).  Bronstein very nearly beat him, he was ahead with 2 games to go.

But all the same, Fischer clearly had a phenomenal natural talent coupled with an obsessive and insatiable appetite for chess. Without study, he would have merely been a very talented player, but it seems the slightest mistake or inaccuracy in his play annoyed him to his core, and so motivated him to purge it. It's almost like he viewed chess inaccuracy in the same way as an cleanliness-OCD sufferer would view having mud on their arm: he just had to get rid of it.

interesting analysis on Fischer's obsession - I think maybe you're on to something there.

By the way, I have been reading Elie Agur's 1992 analysis of Fischers games and style, it is fascinating.

That same obsession drove Fischer mad once he 'topped out' ... likely due partially to age.

Oh by the way cheater... any self respecting troll leaves when they say they're leaving.