Is it a coincidence that Russia dominated chess for so long?
Good point. Soviet Union dominated chess for so long not just with secrecy. Proper training is a must for chess improvement. Everybody knows that. But which training is best and when? That's the question. Nowadays with the support of computers, chess improvement advanced to a higher level. But still there is only one single approach helps most: Analysing own games with titled players.
How do you explain child prodigies?
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?
I started teaching chess in an elementary school. One student I taught in the first grade just knew the moves. Now, in the second grade, he is rated USCF 1500.
And its sure not my doing. Other students run the gamut from still unrated to 500 or so, and many in higher grades.
Of course talent plays a role. If its not obvious to you, try teaching some kids. Some just get it, and others don't, and no amount of cajoling changes things.
They can all benefit from learning chess. And they have a lot of fun. But only a few will ever be really good at it.
very nice!!!
While Fischer was a talented Junior, he is generally not considered a prodigy. Until he was 14 he was a class B player. Reshevesky, Capablanca, and Morphy are examples of prodigies. Carlsen probably qualifies as a prodigy. True he memorized thousands of games, but it required little effort on his part. Contrary to the documentary you saw, He and Capablanca both have reputations for being lazy when it comes to the study of chess.
A player can be really good if they study hard, but to make master one needs some innate ability. For super GM levels I don't care if you study hard since you were six, you will never make it unless you have the innate talent.
On a serious note though you basically allowed white to aim for the weak e6 pawn and he even had a d6 outpost at one point, but somehow didn't see it.
The fact that true prodigies are rare does not prove that there is such thing as a talent for chess. It just takes one counter-example to disprove that thesis.
As the coach in Chariots of Fire said, "You can't put in what God left out."
Wayne Gretzky, Michael Jordan, and Garry Kasparov all had two things in common that made them exceptionally rare:
Amazing natural talent and an incredible work ethic. When you combine both, the results are greatness.
In chess, Jose Capablanca was incredibly gifted but did not have a great drive to improve. Viktor Korchnoi was an incredibly hard worker, but was less talented than many of his contemporary GMs. (Yes, I can cite sources for those who disagree with this.)
Talent may only be some predilection for a specific type of activity, it may be height, fast-twitch muscles, great hand-eye coordination from infancy, or some other genetic predisposition. But it does exist. It isn't always easily quantifiable, which makes it easy to pretend it doesn't exist. But all the attempts to show that hard work alone is sufficient fails in the face of the evidence.
The fact that true prodigies are rare does not prove that there is such thing as a talent for chess. It just takes one counter-example to disprove that thesis.
As the coach in Chariots of Fire said, "You can't put in what God left out."
Wouldn't the fact that no two people are genetically identical (except twins) prove that certain people are born with a 'talent' for certain things?
Certain brains will be wired differently than others. Some may be better at patter recognition, spacial awareness, have a better memory. While not a talent for chess specifically, certain brains will start out better at the fundementals required to become a good player.
I'm not saying that it means they automatically will be, or that someone without this type of brain from birth can't learn these things. They definitely can. I am just saying that the better your foundation, the easier it should be for you to improve.
We are all good at different things. Some people just don't understand math, while others can't get their head around art or music. With study they may get there but some people just 'get it' without having to put in the same effort (we all knew one of these kids at school). Surely this could be considered a talent.
Talent vs Hard work totally correlated with the Chinese zodiac. If you don't believe me, just check out FIDE top 100 players for past 30 years. You will be surprised to notice that following zodiac dominated to chess world: Rabbit : Kasparov, Karpov, Kramnik, Topalov both are belongs to rabbit. Just check it out. Other zodiacs give natural boost (called talent) as Ox and pigs. Most notable pig is Botvinnik and Ponomariov.
@ludrah: I totally agree with you about the accuracy of my claim depends on large quantity of data. I'll finish this research hopefully in 2013. Btw, you're also in the same boat with the V.V. Smyslov and Ivanchuk. I don't know your games, but just knowing that you belong to rooster zodiac means you love artistic play and end-games, probably containing rook endgames. Is that correct? If not so, I'm sure it will for the next decade or so...
@ludrah: I totally agree with you about the accuracy of my claim depends on large quantity of data. I'll finish this research hopefully in 2013. Btw, you're also in the same boat with the V.V. Smyslov and Ivanchuk. I don't know your games, but just knowing that you belong to rooster zodiac means you love artistic play and end-games, probably containing rook endgames. Is that correct? If not so, I'm sure it will for the next decade or so...
Are we seriously ruining a very interesting nature vs nurture discussion with nonsense about Astrology?
Any psychics in the house as well or are they out stealing from vulnerable old ladies?
I know an attorney that has no visual memory at all. Once an image is out of sight he can't recall it. He is highly intelligent with great verbal skills; but no matter how much time and effort he put into it, he will never be any good at chess.
Are we seriously ruining a very interesting nature vs nurture discussion with nonsense about Astrology?
I'm just putting a different angle on the nature vs nurture discussion. My intention wasn't ruin the discussion at all. Btw, I believe correct and hard work will win at the end.
Are we seriously ruining a very interesting nature vs nurture discussion with nonsense about Astrology?
I'm just putting a different angle on the nature vs nurture discussion. My intention wasn't ruin the discussion at all. Btw, I believe correct and hard work will win at the end.
I should apologise. Reading it back I was too harsh.
I just mean that the discussion is scientific and that Astrology is, for want of a better word, nonsense. I could have phrased it better though.
Talent vs Hard work totally correlated with the Chinese zodiac. If you don't believe me, just check out FIDE top 100 players for past 30 years. You will be surprised to notice that following zodiac dominated to chess world: Rabbit : Kasparov, Karpov, Kramnik, Topalov both are belongs to rabbit. Just check it out. Other zodiacs give natural boost (called talent) as Ox and pigs. Most notable pig is Botvinnik and Ponomariov.
There are 12 zodiac signs. You listed 3 of the 12. That gives the average population 1 in 4 chances to be able to dominate in chess.
I am not so sure that Astrology is complete nonsense. The moon's gravity is powerful as the tides show. It is possible that this force could affect a developing mind at a young age (or even before being born). Also a child exposed to winter as opposed to summer (or other seasons) durning formative stages could have an effect on his development.
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.
Where can i find out more information about these 300 "key positions?" Does anybody know of any books that give detailed information about these positions?
lol just two words for that whole Elubas-worthy essay?