Quote by Capablanca:
"In order to improve your game, you must study the endgame before everything else. For whereas the endings can be studied and mastered by themselves, the middle game and end game must be studied in relation to the end game."
how much of chess is natural talent
Sort:
[COMMENT DELETED]
Yereslov wrote:
Quote by Capablanca:
"In order to improve your game, you must study the endgame before everything else. For whereas the endings can be studied and mastered by themselves, the middle game and end game must be studied in relation to the end game."
Good advice for improving your game from a chess-giant. Of course he could already play not bad :)
Yereslov wrote:
Quote by Capablanca:
"In order to improve your game, you must study the endgame before everything else. For whereas the endings can be studied and mastered by themselves, the middle game and end game must be studied in relation to the end game."
I think I know what my next study about chess is.
Yereslov wrote:
Do you honestly think Fischer was talented?
It was his obsessive nature that made him World Champion.
If anyone was as passionate about chess as Fischer, they would be the next Fischer. Spassky was crushing him, until Fischer sat down and studied every one of his games. It was only through hard work that he managed to win.
There is no talent in chess. It's all learning.
right and his great imaginative ideas everyone was in aww of, even world champions said i never saw it before, its so pretty and crazy its something totally new i never ever saw that idea. Do you really think that can be learned like that?? i mean its like learning to be beautifuf. do you think someone with hard work can be beautiful?
Yereslov wrote:
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.
Could you think outside the binary it's talent OR it's hard work ?
"Talent" is not a magical rating boost. It is the fact that you reach more easily higher objectives (in chess, performances).
Probably Spassky had reached some performance plateau while that Fischer was still improving in the years before the 1972 WC match.
And I would very much like your justification of why go needs talent and not chess. Your last sentence is not very clear or convincing. If it means 'chess is much simpler than go', I guess you are a much better player at go than at chess. (link)
Pretty good point there
netzach wrote:
Yereslov wrote:
Quote by Capablanca:
"In order to improve your game, you must study the endgame before everything else. For whereas the endings can be studied and mastered by themselves, the middle game and end game must be studied in relation to the end game."
Good advice for improving your game from a chess-giant. Of course he could already play not bad :)
It also destroys the notion that the endgame is pointless.
You can't expect a knockout everytime, nor can you expect the opponent to blunder in the endgame. It really is the hardest part of chess.
Irontiger wrote:
Yereslov wrote:
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.
Could you think outside the binary it's talent OR it's hard work ?
"Talent" is not a magical rating boost. It is the fact that you reach more easily higher objectives (in chess, performances).
Probably Spassky had reached some performance plateau while that Fischer was still improving in the years before the 1972 WC match.
And I would very much like your justification of why go needs talent and not chess. Your last sentence is not very clear or convincing. If it means 'chess is much simpler than go', I guess you are a much better player at go than at chess. (link)
You assume that there is talent. It's all learned, and it's no coincendence that the Russians have dominated chess since the days of Alekhine.
Yereslov wrote:
You assume that there is talent. It's all learned, and it's no coincendence that the Russians have dominated chess since the days of Alekhine.
I will write it bigger as it seems you failed to see it :
STOP THINKING IT IS TALENT OR WORK BUT IT CANNOT BE BOTH. THERE ARE INTERMEDIARY OPTIONS.
Supposing talent/work is 25/75 (which is of course exaggerated), the Russian would still rule chess if they managed (invested) to get a perfect training for enough people on the 75% work part.
I do agree that the endgame is the hardest but you also need to worry about the opening also, you need a good foundation before the middle/endgame. If you have a very bad position in the opening and a little but into the middlegame then the endgame won't be as important as if it was an equal game the entire time from what I think. I would just resign if I am down by allot or just in a terrible position and there is nothing I can do in the endgame. That's why I think opening is pretty important also.
Irontiger wrote:
Yereslov wrote:
You assume that there is talent. It's all learned, and it's no coincendence that the Russians have dominated chess since the days of Alekhine.
I will write it bigger as it seems you failed to see it :
STOP THINKING IT IS TALENT OR WORK BUT IT CANNOT BE BOTH. THERE ARE INTERMEDIARY OPTIONS.
Supposing talent/work is 25/75 (which is of course exaggerated), the Russian would still rule chess if they managed (invested) to get a perfect training for enough people on the 75% work part.
not to mention they also had a greater chance to get a talented person to get to know chess and play professionally. So it could still theoretically be 100 % talent.
Argonaut13 wrote:
I do agree that the endgame is the hardest but you also need to worry about the opening also, you need a good foundation before the middle/endgame. If you have a very bad position in the opening and a little but into the middlegame then the endgame won't be as important as if it was an equal game the entire time from what I think. I would just resign if I am down by allot or just in a terrible position and there is nothing I can do in the endgame. That's why I think opening is pretty important also.
What the Capablanca quote implies is that opening is just a gateway to the endgame. Everything is in relation to the endgame.
Are you seriously expecting a quick knockout in every game?
But if you want to get better than you need to learn more, I would say studying has to do allot with it
TetsuoShima wrote:
not to mention they also had a greater chance to get a talented person to get to know chess and play professionally. So it could still theoretically be 100 % talent.
Well, yes, but it would be less probable. Russians did not train more chess people than all the other contries together, so if it was 100% talent, Russia's chance to have the WC at some time is (number of tournament players in Russia)/(number of tournament players in the world). That's not huge, and that's not something you would expect to last 50 years.
Irontiger wrote:
Yereslov wrote:
You assume that there is talent. It's all learned, and it's no coincendence that the Russians have dominated chess since the days of Alekhine.
I will write it bigger as it seems you failed to see it :
STOP THINKING IT IS TALENT OR WORK BUT IT CANNOT BE BOTH. THERE ARE INTERMEDIARY OPTIONS.
Supposing talent/work is 25/75 (which is of course exaggerated), the Russian would still rule chess if they managed (invested) to get a perfect training for enough people on the 75% work part.
It cannot be both, since that would be logically impossible following my conclusion.
My conclusion: there is no talent.
Yereslov wrote:
Are you seriously expecting a quick knockout in every game?
It's certainly better not to get quickly knock-outed. You might be very good at endgames, if you give me one more rook, I think I can beat you.
Capablanca's advice does not apply to beginners, but to intermediate / advanced players that usually reach the endgame with approximatively equal material.
Yereslov wrote:
Irontiger wrote:
Yereslov wrote:
You assume that there is talent. It's all learned, and it's no coincendence that the Russians have dominated chess since the days of Alekhine.
I will write it bigger as it seems you failed to see it :
STOP THINKING IT IS TALENT OR WORK BUT IT CANNOT BE BOTH. THERE ARE INTERMEDIARY OPTIONS.
Supposing talent/work is 25/75 (which is of course exaggerated), the Russian would still rule chess if they managed (invested) to get a perfect training for enough people on the 75% work part.
It cannot be both, since that would be logically impossible following my conclusion.
My conclusion: there is no talent.
I agree but if you have a little bit more experience with problem solving then you will be better of when playing
Yereslov wrote:
It cannot be both, since that would be logically impossible following my conclusion.
My conclusion: there is no talent.
Write again your reasoning, it seems we missed something.
How the hell do you "prove" it must be either pure work, either pure talent, but not a mix of both ?!
And make sure your reasoning does not apply to go, as you told us there is talent there.
Now i get it. Couldn't figure it out before.
You're not saying there's no such thing as talent; rather, that it isn't necessary to be a world class chess player.
I'm with ya'. If I wasn't so lazy, Anand would be in big trouble!