b) No. I'd be chuffed if I could crack 2000 FIDE.
Do you believe you have the capacity to be a GM?
Sort:
reflectivist wrote:
Why do you think you could or could not be GM if you wanted to at this point? What limits you or gives you confidence?
Honestly, I would never want to be a GM even if I had the intellectual horsepower.
I love chess but there's a law of diminishing returns and to go above expert/master you need to put an insane amount of effort for every and each tiny improvement. You need to have some mental obsession. Can you spend months studying a line 20 moves deep knowing that you'll encounter it only a handful of times in your life? And most likely it won't even decide the game, just give you a microscopic advantage?
Also, if you have the mental capacity of being a GM (i.e. great mathematical intelligence) wouldn't have been more fulfilling to get into investment banking and make a ton of money? Instead of wasting your life pushing little pieces of plastic around.
Just sayin'. Everybody here acts like GMs are some sort of supernatural beings, while in reality if they were actually smart they would have a real career.
Jun 9, 2013
0
#44
u dont need to start young. there are plenty of IMs and GMs that started in their teens.
plutonia wrote:
reflectivist wrote:
Why do you think you could or could not be GM if you wanted to at this point? What limits you or gives you confidence?
Honestly, I would never want to be a GM even if I had the intellectual horsepower.
I love chess but there's a law of diminishing returns and to go above expert/master you need to put an insane amount of effort for every and each tiny improvement. You need to have some mental obsession. Can you spend months studying a line 20 moves deep knowing that you'll encounter it only a handful of times in your life? And most likely it won't even decide the game, just give you a microscopic advantage?
Also, if you have the mental capacity of being a GM (i.e. great mathematical intelligence) wouldn't have been more fulfilling to get into investment banking and make a ton of money? Instead of wasting your life pushing little pieces of plastic around.
Just sayin'. Everybody here acts like GMs are some sort of supernatural beings, while in reality if they were actually smart they would have a real career.
"Real Career" like banking... banking, taking unreasonable risks with other peoples money because govt will bail u out when you f*ck up... thats not a career its fraud... and I know many miserable investment bankers who have money but don't have a life worth living.
If you love chess and are good enough to make even $80k/yr with it so be it... Kasparov said he sucks at math so mathematical ability has nothing to do with chess (surprisingly)... chess is a specific skillset that has nothing to do with numbers.
That said there are many fairly strong players who will never be good enough even to cover travel and tournament costs... those are the ones who need a side job.
So what if I believe I could? GM is not easy, even Waltzkin (sorry for spelling) cannot do it. Do you think you are strong as he is? If you do, then you should beat him.
I could maybe reach NM if I tried really really hard. But I don't think I have what it takes to be anything more than that. Being a GM doesn't necessarily mean you're a more "intelligent" person in general, but it does mean you have way more talent and intelligence at chess, most likely with a great pre-disposition for it. We could call that innate talent. Not even a "chess" intelligence necessarily, but the "types" of intelligence required to be a good chess player. Yeah, it's 2013, it is time to get over the false idea that there is one be-all end-all "intelligence." There are so many different "types" of intelligences, and different inclinations towards different things.
plutonia wrote:
reflectivist wrote:
Why do you think you could or could not be GM if you wanted to at this point? What limits you or gives you confidence?
Honestly, I would never want to be a GM even if I had the intellectual horsepower.
I love chess but there's a law of diminishing returns and to go above expert/master you need to put an insane amount of effort for every and each tiny improvement. You need to have some mental obsession. Can you spend months studying a line 20 moves deep knowing that you'll encounter it only a handful of times in your life? And most likely it won't even decide the game, just give you a microscopic advantage?
I agree with this, anyways. But it applies to nearly everything, not just chess. Essentially... it's wise to simply do what you love and what you are good at. And hopefully those are the same thing.
My goal is to reach expert within 10 years, and I'll be happy. :)
But chess is barely in my top 3 hobbies, if it is at all.
Natalia_Pogonina wrote:
This should make a good poll.
Do you believe you can become a GM?
a) Yes
b) No
c) Theoretically - yes, practically - no
d) I am a GM already
e) What is a GM?
e.
Jun 9, 2013
0
#49
Natalia_Pogonina wrote:
This should make a good poll.
Do you believe you can become a GM?
a) Yes
b) No
c) Theoretically - yes, practically - no
d) I am a GM already
e) What is a GM?
c.
shockinn wrote:
... If you have a diverse mind i.e. you have interest in a lot of things in life and you like to indulge yourself then say goodbye to becoming a GM. Mentally you need to be kinda one dimensional(i cant remember the right word ... something like one-mindedness or something :p, you need to have that).
It is a very mechanical and systemetic process. If you're an artistic person then chances are low that you will be dedicated enough to become a GM in chess.
This is right on. :)
for me it is answer c), because I am too old, and have many other obligations.
--------------------------
About the last thread, I think there are some REALLY 'artistic' persons (both in character and education, sometimes in profession) who where Super-GM's,
Tal, Aliekhine, Bronstein, Taimanov (he is a pianist), Smyslov (an opera singer), Tartakover (a sharp-tongued writer and journalist), Philidor (a famous composer of his time).
Botwinnik was married to a famous ballet dancer.
I mean, saying that dedication implies narrowmindedness is just plain wrong. Chess is a mixture of Art, Logic and Sports, and will always be. That's why the affinity of many famous players to Art.
I can go with 'stubbornness' as a characteristics of many chessplayers. After all, chess does not pay well its lovers, and it does not make you a celebrity (which gazette cares about GM's with elo below 2500 ?) .
But if you want to be good at something, stubbornness is a precondition.
[COMMENT DELETED]
reflectivist wrote:
Do you think you could really become an IM/GM if you put your mind to it?
You either have the nerves and what it takes to handle stress shock and extreme pressure in high level compeitive play or you just don't there's no in between if you haven't got it you can forget it.
Some men have meltdowns (Ivanchuck is a recent example) sometimes the shock of devastating losses is too much for a player and they quit chess, some men have nervous breakdowns and end up in the hospital and then there are players who go insane like Steinitz.
Iron nerves, shock, extreme pressure? We still talking about chess here?
Natalia_Pogonina wrote:
This should make a good poll.
Do you believe you can become a GM?
a) Yes
b) No
c) Theoretically - yes, practically - no
d) I am a GM already
e) What is a GM?
If you conducted that poll with the general population, I predict the results would be something like:
a. 5%
b. 105
c. 5%
d. none
e. 80%
No.
schlechter55 wrote:
About the last thread, I think there are some REALLY 'artistic' persons (both in character and education, sometimes in profession) who where Super-GM's,
Tal, Aliekhine, Bronstein, Taimanov (he is a pianist), Smyslov (an opera singer), Tartakover (a sharp-tongued writer and journalist), Philidor (a famous composer of his time).
Botwinnik was married to a famous ballet dancer.
I mean, saying that dedication implies narrowmindedness is just plain wrong. Chess is a mixture of Art, Logic and Sports, and will always be. That's why the affinity of many famous players to Art.
I can go with 'stubbornness' as a characteristics of many chessplayers. After all, chess does not pay well its lovers, and it does not make you a celebrity (which gazette cares about GM's with elo below 2500 ?) .
But if you want to be good at something, stubbornness is a precondition.
Yeah, but I think those are more "exceptions" than the rule. I'd guess that most GM's are extremely focused on chess, with little time for other interests.
shockinn wrote:
It is a very mechanical and systemetic process. If you're an artistic person then chances are low that you will be dedicated enough to become a GM in chess.
Disagree.
Chess is a very mechanical and systemetic process? If you are a computer, the answer maybe "yes". As a human, chess player is not a mechanical and systemetic engine. That's why it is played worldwide.
Secondly, Chess, among many things, is an Art. That says it all. Chess players often behave and act like artists.
bean_Fischer wrote:
shockinn wrote:
It is a very mechanical and systemetic process. If you're an artistic person then chances are low that you will be dedicated enough to become a GM in chess.
Disagree.
Chess is a very mechanical and systemetic process? If you are a computer, the answer maybe "yes". As a human, chess player is not a mechanical and systemetic engine. That's why it is played worldwide.
Secondly, Chess, among many things, is an Art. That says it all. Chess players often behave and act like artists.
Hmmmm... I disagree. Chess players often behave like Mad Men with an obsession for destroying their opponents and seeing them suffer.
Do you think you could really become an IM/GM if you put your mind to it? Seriously. How confident are you of that, and why? And if you think you have the IQ necessary, do you think you have the temperment and habits that would allow you to fulfill the goal if you decided to go for it?
Why do you think you could or could not be GM if you wanted to at this point? What limits you or gives you confidence?
IQ is a very subjective misunderstood often overstated thing... high IQ in what, music, basketball, economics, relationships... high talent for chess is a better statement. I don't think I have exceptional talent for chess even if Botvinik was my coach.
This is because most GMs progress from zero to 1800 by age 10yrs - easily. Kasparov was beating his father at age 7yrs... thats about 6months after he learnt the moves. So you need a depth of talent - photo memory, calculating ability, positional intuition etc. Most adults who play very actively and study very hard, even take a few classes, can begin to scratch 1800, but I think thats the limit for average players. Carlsen was playing a 1800 at age 8yrs (see magnuscarlsen.com).
So if you take this incredible natural ability and then enhance with good coaching (even a few hours a week), the kid who is 1800 at 10yrs should touching IM at 14yr or so and GM at 16yr or 17yrs. Kasparov got his GM title at 16yrs, although I am sure he was already GM strength at 14yrs. An 11yr old Fischer was already beating weak masters in New York coffee houses. Carlsen was an IM at 12yrs 2400+. For us mere mortals the best I think we can get to is 1800 and thats after serious study, practice and dedication... plus a few expensive classes with a GM whose name ends with -ov or -iev, or -vili.
Just like Mozart could remember a symphony at heart when he was 10yrs, so would Carslen remember 20games at the Norwegian open.. They are specially talented people. Don't get started with the Polgar sisters, their father did a cruel experiment on these girls and anyway only 1 turned out to be a proper GM.