Card counting isn't actually illegal. Casinos would just like you to think so. The major problem with Cheater's analysis is Laszlo Polgar's daughters. They seem to of disproved much of his theory. It should also be noted that one need not learn from an unreasonably young age. Though I can't remember the names of either of the players I'm thinking of I do know of at least one top player who didn't start until he was nine and another who held off until he was thirteen.
Chess greatness CANNOT be taught or learned……
Sort:
I disagree, checkers has many variations which need to be memorized.
Welcome back Cheater_1... I for one, missed your views...
This subject is, well, interesting to me on a personal level, since I'm currently at a point in my game where I don't know what to do to get better. Fortunately, I'm also a weak enough player that after studying some good books and programs, I've found many points of attack where I can improve. Now all that remains is to put it to the test to see if I can bring my ratings up...
However, I'm one of those players that believes a rating is rarely worth the pixels or paper it's printed on. What is a rating anyways? It's just your place in the population; a location in space that shows where you are on the curve of all the players. It is only determined (greatly simplified) by your win/loss record; a higher ranked player doesn't start the game with more pieces, better cards, or a bigger brain. To say that someone is a "2500 player" means nothing to someone who is rated 1200, 1500, or 2000, for that matter. Yes, percentage-wise, the 2000 player probably has better chances against the 2500 than a lower-ranked player would, but to say that the 2500 is "better" than the 2000, ignores the details that define players at the highest levels.
It was interesting that you brought up Josh Waitzkin, since I've recently finished Josh's book "The Art of Learning". He goes to great length in explaining how top athletes and performers operate at high levels, and also does a fair bit of explaining how "being one of the chess ELITE was not in the cards for him". It's worth checking out. But to say that Josh couldn't "hit 2500", or that there was some artificial or biological obstacle to hitting a particular rank, is an over-simplification of the math involved. Part of the reason why anyone has a particular rating is based on the ratings of the opponents they face. This is also part of the reason why pundits continue to maintain that Bobby Fischer couldn't have a rating of "2800" or "2900" or "9000" or whatever. They tend to ignore the fact that Bobby Fischer faced the toughest opposition he could find, and did the best he could against what the world could throw at him. If he were alive today, and so inclined to challenge them, there isn't any reason to think he couldn't have whatever highest rating the current population of players could support.
Although Mr. Waitzkin's prime candidate for comparison is martial arts, I always like to compare chess performance to pro football, especially when there's a team that is always being held up to a certain standard. It always tickles me to see that so-called, "unbeatable" team fall to the lower ranked opponent. Chess of course allows for the draw, so there's some distinction between being "unbeatable" and being "unmatable", as we all know far too well. I tend to think that a draw against a higher-ranked player is as good as a win for someone like me.
I like your forum Niven42 i think i have to agree with you
Rich's post is actually a Matthew Syed piece from The Times.
Feb 14, 2009
0
#47
NIVEN, thanks for the recommendation. I have just added Waitkin's book to my list of books to read. He'll have to wait till I PLOD through another Stephen King tome (and people think I'm long winded)
AKUNI, I understand about recessive genes, etc. But as another poster pointed out, there are things such as birth defects that result from NON hereditary reasons, such as the mother consuming mushrooms or some sort of drug during pregnancy. The point is: being born with something does NOT mean it was inherited, in the strictest sense.
Feb 15, 2009
0
#48
ih8sens wrote:
Oh by the way cheater... any self respecting troll leaves when they say they're leaving.
I teach my 11, 8, and 3 year olds not to call people names, didn't your mom teach you that's not nice?
cheater_1 wrote:
…..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.
this is actually true.
SukerPuncher333 wrote:
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.
this is more bs than anything else though. when people talk about "natural talent" in chess they indeed are talking about the above 2600 crowd. they aren't really talking about anyone else (especially not below 2000 internet blitzers...sorry)
Jan 10, 2014
0
#51
bluesteelzzz wrote:
cheater_1 wrote:
{BLAH BLAH, Nothing here matters}
this is actually true.
Please don't necro super old threads, especially ones started by that idiot. Also, you shouldn't align youself with him, it might be contagious.
Stop bringing back 5 year old threads.
Jan 10, 2014
0
#53
furtiveking wrote:
bluesteelzzz wrote:
cheater_1 wrote:
{BLAH BLAH, Nothing here matters}
this is actually true.
Please don't necro super old threads, especially ones started by that idiot. Also, you shouldn't align youself with him, it might be contagious.
might be the same guy...he replied to the same guy in another 5 yr old thread...
NomadicKnight wrote:
Stop bringing back 5 year old threads.
why? scared? jelly?
furtiveking wrote:
bluesteelzzz wrote:
cheater_1 wrote:
{BLAH BLAH, so so so scandalous...scandalous.... Nothing here matters}
this is actually true.
Please don't necro super old threads, especially ones started by that idiot. Also, you shouldn't align youself with him, it might be contagious.
he may have been a troll, but on this single point he is actually right. "natural talent" in regards to chess is 2600 and above. that's who people are talking about when they talk about the "naturally talented" in regards to chess. the above 2600s. people like karpov, kasparov, fischer, carlsen, anand, topalov, kramnik, svidler, ivanchuck. you either have that or you don't.
and don't confuse this as saying anyone below 2600 is definitively devoid of "natural talent". obviously sometimes life (work, kids, marriage) can get in the way of achieving one's full chess potential. but it's of course also a gigantic magnum claim to make in saying you would have been equal with the likes of korchnoi, nakamura, adams, caruana, polgar if not for...possible, but this situation is likely exceedingly rare.
Tedious. Didn't finish.
Well I hope you didn't work at it for five years only to arrive at that conclusion. I mean, it was tedious, but not that tedious.
ih8sens wrote:
That same obsession drove Fischer mad once he 'topped out' ... likely due partially to age.
It was the other way around. The madness caused the obsession.
cheater_1 is RIGHT.
Gone are the days of brilliant tactical maneuvering, secret opening TNs, and innovative strategy.
Chess is no longer about getting inside your opponent's head, anticipating his or her moves, and breaking his or her will with relentless tactical aggression.
It's all been done before. There's nothing new under the sun. Memorize the entire database in your head and stick to it 100% with no errors. It's like CARD-COUNTING except it's not illegal. And computers can do it a hell of a lot better than humans can.
cheater_1 we await your response.