I'd speculate about the natural talent player....not in combination with the other categories. Without study and experience, I would guess such a player might take longer to move since he is reinventing solutions. He might also be more susceptible to classic traps.
However, I don't think this would enable you to diffentiate very accurately.
I guess you can say, there's no way to tell.
IMO, there is no way to tell.
IMO, there is no way to tell.
and it's probably dangerous to try... if you accidentally assign an opponent to the wrong category it' probably gonna bite you in the bum.
I read an article a while ago about categorising players by the way they look. It said something like : older players will avoid complications, play solid classical openings, etc... Now I consider myself an older player, and if my opponent has his mind set on playing this stereotype, well, he's in for a susrprise.
"and it's probably dangerous to try... if you accidentally assign an opponent to the wrong category it' probably gonna bite you in the bum."
how does it matter, really? i can understand an interest in trying to figure it out for curiosity sake, but does it change the way you would play. does someone from each catagory have a style that would by typical of that catagory?
"and it's probably dangerous to try... if you accidentally assign an opponent to the wrong category it' probably gonna bite you in the bum."
how does it matter, really? i can understand an interest in trying to figure it out for curiosity sake, but does it change the way you would play. does someone from each catagory have a style that would by typical of that catagory?
Purely for curiosity's sake. Anyhow, I'm not good enough of a player to think long-term and positionally (yet), so I really can't factor in my opponent's "play style", even if I knew it. So, essentially, no change in how I play.
IMO
---Rating Limit---
3 >> 1 >> 2
3+2 >> 3+1
---Rating Increase Acceleration---
1 >> 3 >> 2
1+2 > 1+3 (> = "not by much")
---Gaining Intuition and Good Habits---
2 >> 1 >> 3
2+3 > 2+1
While I certainly do not hold this as law, it is an observation of mine of the many chess players I have met.
Points of interests
> Natural talents will obviously produce a higher rating over a shorter time period than the other types of players due to the ease in which they soak up material and put it into practice.
> I've seen many people who are only in categories 1 and 2, and almost all of them have hit a rating wall. On the flip-side, almost everyone I know over 2000 has told me they've studied in some way shape or form.
> practice practice practice. Practice is the best compliment to any learning style; study players get to put what they learn into practical matters, and natural talent players get more experience. One thing in particular I've seen of players who are Long-time practice players is the ease they show in complicated or unfamiliar positions. They've played enough so it doesn't faze them and have developed good chess habits over the years.
Anyways as far as I can tell the only way to spot these different types of learning styles in an opponent is to view their games over a period of time. Are they getting rating points fast? Are they employing good chess habits overall? Are they in the know with the latest theory but with skill matching their rating following the opening? Stuff like that.
piturtle: sorry, i wasn't clear. i understand the curiosity associated with it. i am also not good enough change my game according to such things. i was curious what rooperi was say about how it could get you in trouble. it seems to me that natural ability would not govern whether someone is aggressive or strategic, positional or tactic, etc. those seem like the types of things that would change your approach to the game.
which category are people that study strategy and call it natural talent
So, though I'm not very good at chess, I'm aware of three kinds of players.
1. Natural talent players.
2. Long-time practice players.
3. Study players.
(4. Combination of all 3, but 4s are usually too high ranking for me
.)
I realize that this is usually irrelevant to the actual game. Nonetheless, I (for some reason) find it interesting to know. Because I'm too shy to ask the player, and because I'd like to be able to tell without doing so, is there any way to spot which category my opponent falls under? As in, general playing styles for each category?