Hard Work Alone Can Never Make You a Master
Sort:
nen1 wrote:
A quick Google search shows that there have been a number of scientific studies on this topic, and the studies I glanced at did not support the idea of an innate "chess talent."
Edit: They didn't find intelligence to be an overly significant determinant of chess potential either.
Of course innate chess talent exist, there are lot of examples: Paul morphy, reshevsky, carlsen, karjakin, fischer .. Come on how you can say that chess talent does not exist. What kind of studies are that?
Apr 8, 2014
0
#26
there Is chess talent, but its only needed when you want to become one of the best. You can easiliy become a good player without talent.
holon23 wrote:
Of course innate chess talent exist, there are lot of examples: Paul morphy, reshevsky, carlsen, karjakin, fischer .. Come on how you can say that chess talent does not exist. What kind of studies are that?
Those exceptional players weren't part of the studies. They were studying more typical players to determine if there was a relationship between intelligence and chess ability, and they found that experience was by far the most important factor. Of course there is chess talent, but I don't believe that it is as important as the OP claims.
I think someone may have tried to say this, but it was not clear.
There is no such thing as innate 'chess' talent. In fact, there is no such thing as innate talent at all.
What there are are innate extra-abilities that can translate very well to certain activities.
For example; If you have an innate extra-ability to visualize real or abstract structures, you might be better at chess, music or programming.
If you have an innate extra-ability to control your body you might be better at sports.
And it takes more than 1 of these extra-abilities to create a 'talent'.
Personally, I would say that if you have the right combination of these, then, yes, you do have a chess 'talent'.
All that aside though. I do agree that you don't need talent to become a master at anything. Hard work will get most people there.
Talent is what makes the ones who work hard move beyond master.
I agree with you, that players must have an "affinity" for chess. But I think the majority of people who are consistent players on chess.com (and rated at least 1200+), and practically all tournament players have that affinity. Those without it just give up chess because they aren't any good and aren't able to improve.
So I guess it's true that on some level you need an innate "talent" or "affinity" for the game... but in my opinion the majority of chess players have that affinity, and just don't put in the work.
I suppose you've probably more knowledgable on the subject, since you have clearly been playing longer than me. But I just thought I'd put in my $0.02
Because of the economic downslide, your $0.02 worth is only worth $0.013897 on todays market.
so true
kleelof wrote:
Because of the economic downslide, your $0.02 worth is only worth $0.013897 on todays market.
Wow, really? That sucks, that $0.02 was my entire life savings.
I believe that with hard work, dedication, anyone can become a master and expert. At least that is my goal.
Apr 8, 2014
0
#34
Sashko97 wrote:
I believe that with hard work, dedication, anyone can become a master and expert. At least that is my goal.
Well, it looks like you are going well 
Apr 8, 2014
0
#35
I've read every post on this blog and must admit that I find myself back on the negative side of this subject. I just don't make the progress that I wished for when I started playing almost daily, now nine months ago. I'm so frustrated! But I refuse to quit this hobby just because of that. I don't expect to get get a master title, but I do believe that once my whole life would be a bit more harmonious, my spirit a bit more at piece, my chess game will follow that positive line.
pfren wrote:
I have no talent.
I have worked hard.
I am positive that before I depart this veil of tears I shall at last ascend to mediocrity.
please_let_me_win wrote:
I'm not even good and I beat a 2200 FIDE rated player on this site. I didn't do anything spectacular, but my play was very solid. With a bit of self confidence anything is possible
Try opening a tin of corned beef with a banana.
ILove-mating wrote:
I'm giving myself exactly one year to make FM or I will walk
away from competitive chess :)
Can I give you an unrated game in a year's time?
chess_gg wrote:
SicilianSveshnikov wrote:
So I guess it's true that on some level you need an innate "talent" or "affinity" for the game... but in my opinion the majority of chess players have that affinity, and just don't put in the work.
*******************************
Well, I have been speaking in general terms. For example, when I said you can't be stupid I believe that is true in chess but not necessarily for Hollywood celebrities.
So, when we are talking about "talent" and I threw in "affinity", well, we have to call it something. You say that the majority of chess players have this "affinity". Perhaps we both have a different perspective on that word.
There are those that try chess and find it's not for them and fade away.
Then there are those who overestimate their competence at it and believe that time, study, practice and hard work will elevate them to the lofty levels.
Too, there are those who are realistic, can see their shortcomings, set goals...
Wait a minute! What was the question?
The American dream works fine for movie stars and presidents; not so sure for chess though.
It's not chess talent. It's a bunch of other innate factors that translate into chess talent.
Not to diminish hard work. But honestly, nobody knows the exact answer to the question, and as someone has stated, it's a pretty bad question anyways.