Genius and chess

What makes a chess genius? Is it a greater working memory than normal people, or just that having been taught the game at such a young age and having studied it so intensely, they have developed an ability to read much deeper into the postion- for example Capablanca said that he only looked one move ahead, but the move he chose was always the right one. Does it come from nature or nurture? If it is down mostly to natural talent (probably the case) what hope is there for the rest of us? Does anyone think that even with say, several years of dedicated study, a player with decent ability can ever hope to obtain an IM or GM title or are they forever out of reach?

Sorry about the numerous questions in this one post, but it's a topic with endless talking points. Any comments will be much appreciated.

I think chess much like life is heavily reliant on the opening... if a foundation is not laid early it is much more difficult for a persons mind to attain greatness in chess.  If you consider how spongelike a childs brain is and the number of years it takes a "normal" child to reach a great ranking and then consider how much longer it could take an adult new to the game to commit themselves to learning the same amount of knowledge.

 In some ways I think you could say that the way chess pieces move and create problems is almost like a language.  Something that children are able to pick up and become naturals at far more effectively than adults.

That is not to say that I think a person without a foundation in chess thinking is going to be unable to reach master level.  Just all the kids have a head start on you :P

I'm currently reading art of learning by Waitzkin which touches on this idea slightly.  I highly recommend this book to anyone :P

It's a good subject. I'm convinced that great players are born that way. No amount of training or education could turn me into a GM even though I have a high IQ. I just don't have "chessvision" - the ability to see the patterns evolving several variations into the future. Another setback for me is that I'm not really a competitive person. My interest in chess is artistic and academic. I'm from the Marcel Duchamp school of chess - sometimes it's just plain beautiful. And it's a great exercise for the aging mind.

Chess players who say they only look one move ahead are being facetious (or sarcastic). I don't think it was Capablanca who said that. I think it was Lasker but Kasparov has said essentially the same thing. The point is - they get tired of being asked that question. Capa said you should start thinking about the endgame during the middlegame. 

Chess certainly appeals to the intellect - but a chess game is essentially a fight. Personally I think it is more akin to boxing than any other sport. It has been said that boxing is 99% mental. I think I agree.

Im sure I read some time ago (cant remember where) that the 3 areas where genius tended to show, were Mathematics, Music & Chess. If this is true they all require one thing to enable a student to excel...a definitive sense of logic. Taking chess as an example the correct move has to be the one that is most logical to make in response to the position and your opponents moves. There is always only "one best move".  If you make the right move everytime, its because its the most logical given the circumstances of the game (which very good players tend to do this). Win enough games against class opposition it won't be long before your labelled "a Genius". As for brilliancies and the flair moves these would naturally occur during the course of making consistently logical moves..think about it, on reflection when your mulling over a lost position, if youv'e made a bad move or 2 its because the moves you made, although intensly thought out were the wrong moves...illogical moves. I realise strategy, tactics, patience etc etc are key requirements for great chess but wthout a keen sense of logic to utilise these qualities, theyr'e of little use. I guess the point im trying to make a chess genius is someone who posesses a finely honed sense of logic (better than most) which allows him or her to devise the best strategy & tactics for a given situation on a chess board. Whether Logic is nature or nurture, thats one for the boffins!

Chess strength doesn't rely heavily upon IQ, though a high IQ certainly could help. A famous study of chess concluded that chess strength resulted more from the spacial recognition sector of the brain than it did from the higher order sector. What this means is that the more aware of the board you are, the stronger your grasp of possible moves and threats will be. In addition to this study, other studies have concluded that pattern recognition is KEY- that is, knowing certain pawn formations and aiming for them, or how a long series of exchanges will end up. These are all things that can be learned, and certainly aren't part of your basic "common sense" knowledge (which is the somewhat comical argument for Capablanca's "natural" talent) Oh, by the way, it was Reti who said he only looks one move ahead. Anyway, it seems that what determines a good chess player is, not a high IQ (though one may result from the study you put in), but a large amount of methodical study which pertains to the fundamental laws of chess (such as minor piece play, endgames, and retaining tempo) and the structures that result from them (such as the numerous, yet finite, legal chess positions.) If you want inspiration, look at the Polgar children, 3 out of 3 isn't bad. Nor is it coincidence. A flawless correlation pushes the point. If you want a backing of my argument, check out My Brilliant Mind at http://video.aol.com/video-detail/my-brilliant-mind/2142600276.

There is plenty of evidence that genius doesn't exist except for on paper (the bell curve), but I've forgotten my sources. hope this helps

wormrose wrote:

 I'm by no means a great player, but the better I've gotten, the more true that saying rings to me. -when I started, I looked allover the board, moved pieces to great depths, and thought the good players went even deeper! but the better I got, the less moves I look into and the less deep I calculate. it's all gone to a point where claims of deep calculation on every move makes me think the one saying it has a very shallow understanding of chess.

that said, of course there are positions which absolutely require you to go deep. but they're a rarity, and the overwhelming majority of moves require very little depth. you don't calculate those positions but understand them instead. as a rule I only look 2 or less moves deep, unless it's forced and you need to go as deep as it takes. normally there are maybe 3 plausible candidates, and it very often happens you analyse them for a week and end up choosing the first one you looked at in the first seconds.

as for the genius part, the best 'talent' for chess you can have is thick skin on your ass. the ability to sit down and work hard day in day out. -and that applies equally to chess, mathematics, music, writing or mastering any area of expertise. as an academic rule of thumb, mastering any field takes roughly 10 years of hard devoted work, and even more to reach the 'guru' level. (we're talking about scientific 'guru' expertise here, not religious). start at age 5, and you'll get there in your teens. start an academic career at 18, and you'll get there at 30. can't put in the hours because of *pick a random adult responsibility*? too bad. but that's how it works. art/craft is 1% of inspiration, and 99% of perspiration.

(edit: damn it, for some reason the quoted text jumps to the end of my post, and cut&paste seems to do nothing to the problem. I tried to put it in bold to separate from my text, but I don't know it it'll work any better... yay, it did! the following was written by wormrose:)

Chess players who say they only look one move ahead are being facetious (or sarcastic). I don't think it was Capablanca who said that. I think it was Lasker but Kasparov has said essentially the same thing. The point is - they get tired of being asked that question. Capa said you should start thinking about the endgame during the middlegame.