Great Chess Players... Born or Made?

To some of you this may seem silly or simplistic, however for me it very important. I have moments of (in my humble opinion) shear genius in my game play.... but only moments.

       I have listened and read the articles and annotated games, but it seems like alot of memorization, which worries me because then what do I do when I am up against a unorthodox player.

I'm 44 and afraid my ability to reach my goals in Chess may have passed me by, and I want to know if study of the game and great games will really help or do you have to be born with the heart and mind of a GM.

A Lover of the Game.

Chess players can be made. Alekhine was such a case. He took a long time to get to master strength and did so after being a strong postal chess player.

It is never too late. I have lost OTB to a player who was 90.

Was he called Joe?

No. He was called Nick Emodi. He died last year ages 95. RIP.

He still had a great positional sense.

I'm sorry Chwlo, but do you have an example of "sheer genius"? Because when you start playing chess against other beginners, it's more like towering errors which may give the illusion of genius. 

But getting back to your question, I think great chess players are made in the minds of the spectators, and through the results of performance.

I asked Dan Heisman a very similar question last night during his live Q&A show and he gave quite a comprehensive answer.

It is definitely worth watching if you can find the link. I have had a look around and can't seem to find it. I'll keep hunting and will post it here when I find it.

Basically he gave an example using Einstein and Lasker, who were friends and used to play chess together. 

Anyway, he put it far better than I was about to so I will spare you any more of my paraphrasing and have a search for the video.

Ok, no link as such but click on 'more' at the top of the screen then 'chess.com tv' and there is a link on that page saying 'videos' it is the first one on the list.

Philosophers have questioned the result of talent for ages. Confucious thought one was born a blank slate, and could develop any kind personality that can come from their experiences. The saying 'practice makes perfect' is a similar concept.

Others say that talent can be passed on through the family, and some say that everyone has limits with all of their being. Considering chess everyone has a different limit to all they can comprehend regardless of their effort, for humans are not perfect.

I presume that the truth lies somewhere inbetween, but practice never fails.

Born and made, I suspect.

It's the good old nature over nurture argument I suppose. In my opinion it is a bit of both.

Some people have a 'better' (for want of a better word) brain. There is so much variation in genetics that it is improbable that everyone could be born with equal 'blank slates'.In the same way that some people are much bigger than others. It doesn't mean they will grow up to be very strong or muscular, they still have to work at it, but they have a better canvas, assuming their goal is something like Rugby or American football.

On the other hand, if that person is never given the opportunity to excell or simply doesn't try then they could end up as average as anyone else.

For a person who may not be born with quite as able a brain, if they are encouraged, supported or even pushed into something from a young age, with hard work and drive they may achieve more than the person with a 'better' brain ever does.

Greater minds than mine have pondered this for years. This is just my opinion.

the whole natural born talent thing really gets to me. I'm a massive believer in hard work and dedication and I honestly do not believe "natural born talent" has much if anything to do with success. Some people may pick things up a bit more quickly than others but anyone who puts in the hard work will be rewarded. The natural talent thing annoys me because people have told me I have natural sporting talent. I've played soccer for 14 years and Tennis and I'm decent at most sports I try. However to think I'd be any good at any sport if I hadnt spent thousands of hours on the pitch at trainings and matches to me is just silly. The same goes with chess. Im an average chess player, I picked up the sport from a fairly young age. Why am I not better? I havent spent that many hours on deliberate practice in chess hence I'm not that good but if I was to spend hours and hours practicing, whilst someone with the same number of hours practice may be worse or better at that point (thats what people may call natural talent and what I would call practice effectiveness) if we all spent enough hours, however many that is, with useful practice, we could all become GM's.

How do you explain child prodigies?

i think that people are born with a massive leg up, and it takes years of natural learning and time to reach that level. as a result, in an ideal world, we could all eventually reach the levels of bobby fischer and capablanca, but we simply don't have the lifespan or health

I believe as a human you can become anything you want to become. So often everyday average Joes work so hard to and do something amazing. If you want to be a great chess player study, play and keep learning i am sure it will come to you.

This reminds me of Karpov. Karpov was once told by his teacher, Botvinnik, as having no talents and no future in chess. Early in his career, many prominent chess figures commented that Karpov copied ideas from others but unable to come up with his own.

Look at where Karpov stands now. He has made himself into not only a world champion, but also a chess legend - together with the great names of Tal, Capablanca, Lasker, Fischer, Kasparov, etc. How many of the recent world champions can be considered chess legends? I think even th current WC Anand still have much to prove in order to be considered worthy to stand among the giants of the past. Karpov's play baffles even the strongest grandmasters. Spassky, Korchnoi, Kramnik all stated that there is something mysterious about Karpov's play. They often didn't understand why they lose to Karpov.

I believe Karpov's case is a story of a self-made man. Hard work and determination beat talents.

"How do you explain child prodigies?"

Oh, they find a way to cram in practice, even in their limited lives, trust me.

It's a little unfortunate that people don't further inquire; they don't think about what that child's life and upbringing could have been like. They see a kid who is good and just stop. But then again, I used to do that because it often does seem like they couldn't possibly have enough time on earth.

Maybe many decades ago great chess players are born. but now...theyre made.

i think people need to learn chess from good players. Chess is pattern recognition- i learned from poor chess players and would fall prey to the ' kitchen table opening gambit' And so it goes for most chess players. But consider say GM Sam Shankland- he learned his chess at the Berkley chess club from decent players. Evev Bobby Fischer-who displayed no great accumen for 1 year was schooled by the masters at the Brooklyn Chess club...and how 'bout Soviet style....in short if you how to play the game from good players right from the start...you probably become 2200 player in reasonable time...5 - 7 years..oh and you need the time for OTB play too easier for the youngsters with good parents

There is a saying, "After 15 years of hard work, he was an overnight success." This applies very well to "child prodigies". No one sees the years of hard work. They only see the young person who is highly skilled. Fischer learned to play chess in May of 1949. In May of 1956 his USCF rating was 1726. After 6 years of obsessing over chess, he was only 1726. Not exactly "natural talent" there. By May 1957, after playing chess 7 years, he had a master level rating. Let's be honest, 7 years to a child is a lot more free time than 7 years to an adult. Adults have jobs and all kinds of family responsibilities. Most married adults with families would be lucky to study chess 1 hour per day. A child could study chess 6-8 hours a day if they chose, maybe more. So it took a child 7 years of obsessing over chess to get to master level, and in 1957 Bobby Fischer is proclaimed a "chess prodigy". There are clearly people with extraordinary abilities, like Kim Peek, Stephen Wiltshire, and others whose brains do not seem to be wired like the rest of us. But I would say 99% of "prodigies" are the result of hard work. Maybe 99% is conservative.

"Natural talent" in chess is a ridiculous idea. Who was born knowing how to win a king and pawn vs king ending? No one. Zero people in the history of the universe. Everyone who can consistently win that ending had to learn how to do it.

Here is how I think of it. Suppose you and I enter a contest. The contest is, you and I get dropped off at different, random locations in New York City. The goal is to purchase a watermelon, and take the watermelon to a hospital. Whoever arrives at the hospital with a watermelon first is the winner. It seems like we each have a 50-50 chance of winning. But I forgot to mention, I have been a New York City cab driver for 30 years. I know exactly the closest place to get a watermelon, and the closest hospital. I am in completely familiar territory. I will almost always win. Once in a blue moon, you may get dropped off right in front of a fruit stand across from a hospital, and you will win by chance.

It's the same in chess. Why does a GM beat an amateur? Natural talent? No. The GM wins because he has worked harder to gain more experience. In short, he is in "familiar territory" more often than the amateur. The amateur is scrounging around for simple tactics, while the GM is thinking, "I remember a game very similar to this one, and I know the winning plan".

The Russian school of chess says that there are 300 "key positions", and if you know those 300 positions fully and completely, then you will be a master level player. That doesn't mean to simply memorize positions. It means, for example, that you "know" the Phildor position, and by "know", I mean you are able to recognize it instantly, and able to play it perfectly by instinct, without thinking, the same way you walk down the street without thinking about putting one foot in front of the other. I don't know if it's 300 positions, but the principle seems to have been proven valid. These "key positions that you know instinctively" are what puts a GM in "familiar territory" more often than their amateur opponents. And those key positions have to be learned by studying for many years. It takes hard work.

Magnus Carlsen has said he has memorized 10,000 games of chess. From seeing documentaries and interviews with him, it's clear he spends almost every waking moment of his life thinking about chess. To call him a prodigy would be an insult. He has put in years of hard work and achieved very highly.

There is some degree of genetic limitation. I will never make it to the NBA, no matter how hard I work. I'm not tall enough. Most of us, while we love chess, don't have the obsessive willpower to study chess every waking moment, and don't have the willpower and discipline to do the hard, boring work it takes to improve. Activity is not the same as progress. If you spend a lot of time trying to improve at chess, and you aren't improving, you probably aren't studying correctly. It is easy for us all to think we work extremely hard, but if we spent time with the best players in the world and tried to keep pace, we would bow out completely exhausted after a few days. It's easy and fun to do tactical problems, but at some point if you want to improve further, it's going to take a lot of discipline to practice in ways that are probably a lot more boring than you're used to. To some people, analyzing things and spending hours hunched over a chess board is like an addictive drug to their brain. So in that way genetics play a part.

I have heard people say that they know people who couldn't get better at chess no matter how hard they worked. I'm sure there is a small percentage that may not be able to improve, due to some genetic issue, or someone who is mentally handicapped or other special circumstances. My grandmother with alzheimer's would never improve, because she doesn't remember what she had for breakfast. But in general, I think most people could become very strong chess players if it was important to them. If aliens took over the world and made everyone slaves, and the only way they would let you out of slavery was to become a chess master, guess how many people would suddenly be able to improve at chess. The reality is, it's not important to most people, so they don't improve. Russia was like this a long time ago. If you had no special skill, life probably wasn't great for you in Russia. But if you could play chess, you could be famous and rich. Is it a coincidence that Russia dominated chess for so long?

Well said.