bigpoison wrote:
Yereslov wrote:
In reality, anyone can be a GM if they devote enough time to the game.
I guess that depends of what the definition of "be" be.
be
/bē/
|
Verb
|
how much of chess is natural talent
Sort:
bigpoison wrote:
Yereslov wrote:
In reality, anyone can be a GM if they devote enough time to the game.
I guess that depends of what the definition of "be" be.
He means "become a gm" if you were wondering
amd87 wrote:
@Argonaut13 I think you understand me :-) My quote was a bit broad I guess but I was referring to e.g. natural tendency to know what good moves are, figuring out the correct way to proceed in a given position without having to be told etc. It's all learnable I'm sure but the less talented just have a harder time doing so and so this perhaps stops them reaching the highest levels.
Talent is largely a myth. It all comes down to the nature vs. nurture debate (it might be reversed).
Not to stifle anyone's ambitions yet is unlikely for a person to become the best in the world at anything at all without some natural-talent in that discipline.
Doesn't mean that the ability to play a decent-game of chess cannot be learned if dedicated enough to do so.
netzach wrote:
Not to stifle anyone's ambitions yet is unlikely for a person to become the best in the world at anything at all without some natural-talent in that discipline.
Doesn't mean that the ability to play a decent-game of chess cannot be learned if dedicated enough to do so.
Why would chess require talent? It's all theory.
Mar 5, 2013
0
#87
Yereslov wrote:
Chess is not art, it is a science.
Anyone with a decent mind and enough training can reach the heights of Carlsen.
Notice how his rating spiked after some training with Kasparov? It's all knowledge-based.
Interesting if true. What knowledge are you proposing that Kasparov gave Carlsen that he didn't have access to already? The implications of this is astonisting no less. Kasparov must have gotten that knowledge at very early stage. In his biography he speaks of gaining strenght pretty quickly and soon starting to beat kids much older than him.
If one could only get hold on that knowledge and write books about it one would soon be rich. Provided of course that people didn't share this knowledge but that is pretty obvious they wouldn't as they would get harder resistance from people also having the knowledge.
Are you going to learn the game yourself one day Yeresov?
netzach wrote:
Are you going to learn the game yourself one day Yeresov?
I play chess to waste time. I don't have the same spirit as the typical chess nerd.
Yereslov wrote:
In reality, anyone can be a GM if they devote enough time to the game.
Yeah, and I also suppose anyone hard-working enough can become the richest man on Earth, or that enough practice will get you to beat computers at chess. Good old American dream, I guess ?
This is just not true.
I don't know where the limit a untalented but hard-working person (= a slave) could achieve, but certainly not GM. On this site there are a couple of professionals who devoted their lives to chess, and they are not GM yet.
Chess is not all theory. You actually have to move the pieces around, ya' know?
You can't bullshit a job done. You have to actually do it.
netzach wrote:
Are you going to learn the game yourself one day Yeresov?
Idk why but I see allot of people dislike you yereslov
sluck72 wrote:
Yereslov wrote:
Chess is not art, it is a science.
Anyone with a decent mind and enough training can reach the heights of Carlsen.
Notice how his rating spiked after some training with Kasparov? It's all knowledge-based.
Interesting if true. What knowledge are you proposing that Kasparov gave Carlsen that he didn't have access to already? The implications of this is astonisting no less. Kasparov must have gotten that knowledge at very early stage. In his biography he speaks of gaining strenght pretty quickly and soon starting to beat kids much older than him.
If one could only get hold on that knowledge and write books about it one would soon be rich. Provided of course that people didn't share this knowledge but that is pretty obvious they wouldn't as they would get harder resistance from people also having the knowledge.
You have no idea how much one can improve with a chess tutor. Your sarcasm is not needed. Chess knowledge is very accessible, but I doubt anyone has the time to study it all. An excelent grasp of the opening and ending would probably be enough to reach the GM level. It's all covered.
There are hundreds of books on the French alone. It is all just a matter of inspiration.
I enjoy the middlegame most and never studied openings/endings at all much. Of course never desired to be professional-player or GM just to enjoy the game. To do the other you must study.
Irontiger wrote:
Yereslov wrote:
In reality, anyone can be a GM if they devote enough time to the game.
Yeah, and I also suppose anyone hard-working enough can become the richest man on Earth, or that enough practice will get you to beat computers at chess. Good old American dream, I guess ?
This is just not true.
I don't know where the limit a untalented but hard-working person (= a slave) could achieve, but certainly not GM. On this site there are a couple of professionals who devoted their lives to chess, and they are not GM yet.
Are you claiming that Fischer just randomly gained "talent" before his match with Spassky?
Spassky crushed him everytime they met before 1972. It's the same with Botvinnik.
Tal defeated him, and he went back to the drawing board. Chess is too simpe to require any talent.
Now, games like go require talent, since they are a better expression of the mental processes.
Yereslov wrote:
sluck72 wrote:
Yereslov wrote:
Chess is not art, it is a science.
Anyone with a decent mind and enough training can reach the heights of Carlsen.
Notice how his rating spiked after some training with Kasparov? It's all knowledge-based.
Interesting if true. What knowledge are you proposing that Kasparov gave Carlsen that he didn't have access to already? The implications of this is astonisting no less. Kasparov must have gotten that knowledge at very early stage. In his biography he speaks of gaining strenght pretty quickly and soon starting to beat kids much older than him.
If one could only get hold on that knowledge and write books about it one would soon be rich. Provided of course that people didn't share this knowledge but that is pretty obvious they wouldn't as they would get harder resistance from people also having the knowledge.
You have no idea how much one can improve with a chess tutor. Your sarcasm is not needed. Chess knowledge is very accessible, but I doubt anyone has the time to study it all. An excelent grasp of the opening and ending would probably be enough to reach the GM level. It's all covered.
There are hundreds of books on the French alone. It is all just a matter of inspiration.
I would say you need middle game also but not as much as endgame
netzach wrote:
I enjoy the middlegame most and never studied openings/endings at all much. Of course never desired to be professional-player or GM just to enjoy the game. To do the other you must study.
Argonaut13 wrote:
Yereslov wrote:
sluck72 wrote:
Yereslov wrote:
Chess is not art, it is a science.
Anyone with a decent mind and enough training can reach the heights of Carlsen.
Notice how his rating spiked after some training with Kasparov? It's all knowledge-based.
Interesting if true. What knowledge are you proposing that Kasparov gave Carlsen that he didn't have access to already? The implications of this is astonisting no less. Kasparov must have gotten that knowledge at very early stage. In his biography he speaks of gaining strenght pretty quickly and soon starting to beat kids much older than him.
If one could only get hold on that knowledge and write books about it one would soon be rich. Provided of course that people didn't share this knowledge but that is pretty obvious they wouldn't as they would get harder resistance from people also having the knowledge.
You have no idea how much one can improve with a chess tutor. Your sarcasm is not needed. Chess knowledge is very accessible, but I doubt anyone has the time to study it all. An excelent grasp of the opening and ending would probably be enough to reach the GM level. It's all covered.
There are hundreds of books on the French alone. It is all just a matter of inspiration.
I would say you need middle game also but not as much as endgame
Uh, wrong...
The entire game develops towards the ending. It is the most important step in chess. The fact that people ignore studying even basic endings is just pathetic.
Yereslov wrote:
netzach wrote:
I enjoy the middlegame most and never studied openings/endings at all much. Of course never desired to be professional-player or GM just to enjoy the game. To do the other you must study.
Might wanna edit that?
Yereslov wrote:
Chess is not art, it is a science.
Anyone with a decent mind and enough training can reach the heights of Carlsen.
Notice how his rating spiked after some training with Kasparov? It's all knowledge-based.
no its also imagination, i dont think you can learn imagination. Sure you can study basic technique that enable you to be creative, but i dont think you can train imagination
the less talented just have a harder time doing so and so this perhaps stops them reaching the highest levels.
You're arguing in circles (it's all just a matter of semantics).
I do not see how he is arguing in circles.
He is claiming that the less talented have a difficult time getting better (conclusion), while those who are talented improve much faster (premise).
It is logical, regardless of whether it's true or not.