Do you believe you have the capacity to be a GM?
Sort:
[COMMENT DELETED]
Learning the mechanics of chess is much more... mechanical, than artistic. Learning chess is extremely systematic. IMO, really good chess is like 99% logical and 1% creative. Whenever I try to be too creative, I usually come to realize (after I lose) that I just don't understand the logic of chess well enough. Tactics are logic, according to the rules of the board and pieces.
I wonder how you define logic and creativity. Was Thomas Alva Edison logical or creative? Was Leonardo Da Vinci logical or creative? Was Kasparov logical or Creative? The list goes on.
Tactics are not only logic but also creative. They follow rules don't make them any less creative.
bean_Fischer wrote:
I wonder how you define logic and creativity. Was Thomas Alva Edison logical or creative? Was Leonardo Da Vinci logical or creative? Was Kasparov logical or Creative? The list goes on.
Tactics are not only logic but also creative. They follow rules don't make them any less creative.
"Creativity" in chess doesn't help you at all if you don't play the best move, and the other guy does. It doesn't help you if the other guy knows and recalls 1,000 more patterns than you. You will still lose. I am probably a more "creative" "artistic" person than most the people who beat me. Does that help me? Rarely. There is way less room in chess for creativity.
"I always play carefully and try to avoid unnecessary risks. I consider my method to be right as any superfluous ‘daring’ runs counter to the essential character of chess, which is not a gamble but a purely intellectual combat conducted in accordance with the exact rules of logic." – Jose Raul Capablanca
Firslty, IQ doesn't necessarily mean good at chess. My IQ is in the genius category however, the only way I could beat a GM is if the GM has stopped breathing for at least 24 hours before the game.
waynet, if your IQ is in the genius category then i am surprised at your rating.
how long have you been playing?
I'M EVERY CHESS PLAYER IT'S ALL IN ME
Been playing for ages but never really focused on the game. Like I said, IQ has little or no bearing on chess play. Anything to do with mathematics, quantum physics, etc., that's another story.
bean_Fischer wrote:
I wonder how you define logic and creativity. Was Thomas Alva Edison logical or creative? Was Leonardo Da Vinci logical or creative? Was Kasparov logical or Creative? The list goes on.
Tactics are not only logic but also creative. They follow rules don't make them any less creative.
I think chess and creativity in a certain sense are polar opposites. Chess is about planning, if you get creative you're just guessing and not choosing the best path possible that you've logically mapped out in your head. But maybe considering every path possible requires a fair bit of creativity and picturing the road ahead in your mind must require some creative skill. Maybe your chess skill is based on your grasp on logic and how creative your mind is. I don't claim to understand it, but I strive to.
checkevrytim wrote:
"Creativity" in chess doesn't help you at all if you don't play the best move, and the other guy does. ...... Does that help me? Rarely. There is way less room in chess for creativity.
"I always play carefully and try to avoid unnecessary risks. I consider my method to be right as any superfluous ‘daring’ runs counter to the essential character of chess, which is not a gamble but a purely intellectual combat conducted in accordance with the exact rules of logic." – Jose Raul Capablanca
I think you consider creativity as risks. There are many type of risks, one of them is calculated risks.
Athough creativity rarely helps you atm, it will in the future. And Creativity is limitless in Chess.
Sporocarp wrote:
Maybe your chess skill is based on your grasp on logic and how creative your mind is. I don't claim to understand it, but I strive to.
Exactly. On the Spot. Creativity in Chess is only limited by our minds.
checkevrytim wrote:
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.
Lets say, things have changed since the 90th. A fast increase of the number of high rated players means a higher percentage of average people. The competiveness does not allow top players to have another profession. Running from one tournament to the other hunting for rating and price, necessary to receive new inviations that would feed you...
Still, there are many educated people among chess players who love literature, music or some science: Kramnik, Nunn, Ivantchuk.
I repeat, chess is Art, Logic and Sports, all in one...
A bad example is Topalov (this doesn't change the fact that he is a Mozart IN CHESS).
bean_Fischer wrote:
I wonder how you define logic and creativity. Was Thomas Alva Edison logical or creative? Was Leonardo Da Vinci logical or creative? Was Kasparov logical or Creative? The list goes on.
Tactics are not only logic but also creative. They follow rules don't make them any less creative.
When you are talking theoretical science into physical existense then it is both creative and logical processes at work. It starts with the idea in the head or visual image. Then it is the logical understanding of the processes involved that takes the picture and brings it into the real world. With chess, as opposed to art or music, the artistic approach is just an instinctual approach. If tempered with the logical understanding of the game then this can be a deadly combination for the opponnent. If not tempered with the logical understanding then the games will be decided by luck if the opponnent is careless in their games.
Yes, I do. (Good thread OP!)
bean_Fischer wrote:
checkevrytim wrote:
"Creativity" in chess doesn't help you at all if you don't play the best move, and the other guy does. ...... Does that help me? Rarely. There is way less room in chess for creativity.
"I always play carefully and try to avoid unnecessary risks. I consider my method to be right as any superfluous ‘daring’ runs counter to the essential character of chess, which is not a gamble but a purely intellectual combat conducted in accordance with the exact rules of logic." – Jose Raul Capablanca
I think you consider creativity as risks.
Not really. I consider it the ability to make something new. My "new" and "different" ideas in chess don't really matter. I will just lose. People who are booked up will simply beat me, because certain moves are better. They will remember learning about those moves, and will simply repeat them. Most moves in chess are forced.
The only time I can be very creative is when I'm drunk and playing my drunk friends who suck at chess. They don't punish me for my creativity, because they aren't good players. Most players above Class C at a USCF tournament will beat me. Not with their creativity, but with their calculation skills, memorization, and and knowledge of chess principles.
dlordmagic wrote:
When you are talking theoretical science into physical existense then it is both creative and logical processes at work. It starts with the idea in the head or visual image. Then it is the logical understanding of the processes involved that takes the picture and brings it into the real world. With chess, as opposed to art or music, the artistic approach is just an instinctual approach. If tempered with the logical understanding of the game then this can be a deadly combination for the opponnent. If not tempered with the logical understanding then the games will be decided by luck if the opponnent is careless in their games.
It is just amazing how our minds work in solving problems, in particular Chess. 
checkevrytim wrote:
Not really. I consider it the ability to make something new. My "new" and "different" ideas in chess don't really matter. I will just lose. People who are booked up will simply beat me, because certain moves are better. They will remember learning about those moves, and will simply repeat them. Most moves in chess are forced.
I hope you are not giving up being creative. Atm, let them beat you, but continue to be creative. Some time in future, you will see your potential. It takes me a very long time, about 10 years, to be aware of my potential. It is long, very long and too long time. Don't give up becoz opponents beat you. Good luck.