[correction]
There is a book, titled "Genius in chess", in which you will find positions to assess someone's natural talent for the game - there are benchmarks with players of various strenghts
How is the meaurement of chess potencialities
Sort:
I believe that a quick test, is to have someone construct a position on the board, then look at it for approximately 15 seconds, and attempt to reconstruct the board. This indicates natural strength.
I think the only true 'benchmark' is, the stronger the opponents you beat (consistantly), the stronger a chess player you are. But thats just my opinion.
Red
Red, the question is not about how well do you currently play chess, but what is your natural talent potential for the game.
ketchuplover wrote: look at a diagram in a book for 10 seconds. set book aside. try to recreate the position on a "real" board. The fewer errors you make the better your chance of being a good player.
The experiment done on this originally included, I believe, Max Euwe. He was able to reconstruct positions perfectly. As you went down in playing strength , more mistakes crept in such as moving pieces one square or more, piece omissions, swapping white and black pieces etc. Until at weak playing strength, only something like half the pieces were correct.
What is quite interesting is the follow up where pieces were randomly placed on the board. In this case there was much less difference in the abilities of weak players with potential and strong masters.
It was realised that master players see the pieces in groups, not units, in a real game e.g. a fianchetto on the kingside is one block like this:
The conclusion is that pattern recognition is one of the important factors in playing chess well. This takes experience as well as natural ability. However, in answer to the original question, the ability to set up positions more accurately than other people with your level of experience does indeed indicate a strong natural ability. I am not contradicting anybody here, just adding a little background.
Loomis wrote: Red, the question is not about how well do you currently play chess, but what is your natural talent potential for the game.
Hi Loomis, You can look at all the positions you like, but at the end of the day you are only going to know your 'natural talent' by playing chess, not solving problems. You know as well as I that playing in a tournament is quite different from solving problems, recreating diagrams etc. So for me, chess potential comes from beating higher rated players. I have answered the question.
Red
Chess potential / talent is shown by improving at a faster rate than the average player . So it doesn't have anything to do with your current rating
TalFan wrote:
Chess potential / talent is shown by improving at a faster rate than the average player . So it doesn't have anything to do with your current rating
Hi Talfan, So what your saying is, no matter how many higher rated players a person plays and wins, you say this is not an indication of his/her potential? Even when childeren beat grandmasters, you still say this is not an indication of potential? The point i'm making is that you have to be able to play and win higher rated players than yourself to see what that potential is. It's no good looking at positions and recreating diagrams if you can't play chess otb. Recreating diagrams indicates that you have a good short term memory. solving problems on a page only shows that you are good at static problems, not to mention how long it took to solve that problem. Like I said, it's otb in tournament conditions that define chess potential.
Red
Ok , I see what you are saying . But what I mean is that you could have potential or talent for the game before you get to the level when you can beat grandmasters etc . Obviously those kids are already playing a a high level , and their rapd learning to get there showed that they have talent for the game
TalFan wrote: Ok , I see what you are saying . But what I mean is that you could have potential or talent for the game before you get to the level when you can beat grandmasters etc . Obviously those kids are already playing a a high level , and their rapd learning to get there showed that they have talent for the game
Hi Tal, what you say is true, but does that define the potential to become a great player? Now I'm not being funny with you, but I don't know of any great chess player who had earned the accolade 'great player' because he could solve problems or recreate positions. They are called great because of the games they play. Their potential to be great comes from the ability to play otb. The problem solving books and recreating positions are training tools. They help you to a degree but if you can't play otb on the fly so to speak, then you don't have the potential to become a great player. Solve all the problems you want, recreate as many positions as you wish, but at the end of the day, it's otb. Like I said in my other post, this is just my opinion.
Red
Could someone tell me why it means people that are great in memory going to be great in the game?
Hello.
I wanna know how can a person can be diagnosed with a great potenciality of become a great chess player.
I've read about the "chunks" in the mind of the great chess player, but if someone can provide a link with complete info about chess, mind, brain, intelligence, etc. I would be very grated.
thanks