Yereslov wrote:
What the Capablanca quote implies is that opening is just a gateway to the endgame. Everything is in relation to the endgame.
Nope, that's not at all what the Cuban was saying. Read it again...slowly.
how much of chess is natural talent
Sort:
HurricaneMichael1 wrote:
-BEES- wrote:
I see no reason why anyone with a reasonably above-average amount of intelligence and a very strong interest in chess could not become a grandmaster eventually with sufficient time and effort, assuming they started playing the game early enough.
As for whether genes are what separate the world masters from the grandmasters, I don't know, but I suspect that is not the case. We do know that genes play almost no role in musicianship among symphony orchestra players. Studies have shown that first violinists in major orchestras typically have a few thousand more hours of practice than 2nd 3rd violinists and so on. This seems to be consistent. If genes played a role in this ability then we should see some 1st violins that had to practice much less than others to get to their level, yet they all have around the same amount of time clocked.
The act of playing a technically challenging instrument like a violin is similar to chess in many ways--a lot of it is tightening one's actions: controlling the mental soup of noise that interferes with their play, and making their actions more consistent. Practice is the only thing that can do that.
Violin is something to do with your body, it is a lot easier to change your body than your mind. Some people do not have to kind of mind that calculates the type of things that you calculate in chess.
Both are actually mental tasks. They both rely on procedural memory. Learning how to play the violin is a process where you gradually rewire your brain to control your arms more precisely, more accurately, and more quickly.
Most of chess is tactics, and the process of learning tactics is much the same: reprogramming your brain to be more accurate and consistent in its calculations of the relationships of the pieces on the board. I don't think there is much difference in overall intelligence among players above 1800. The ones that get to 1800 and stay there for life apply their talents to other things, never really putting the energy into getting better at chess. The ones that keep going put that much more work into it.
It's not so much "talent" as the brain having facility for calculating the game quickly and then learning to use that facility so that it becomes more powerful with additional synaptic connections. It's not that Russians are more talented than Americans, but rather that few Americans are exposed to the game at all. My example in this is the Polgar sisters. The brain facility was there all along, but it was deliberately cultivated and improved.
All of it? I don't understand, rmurray?
to the OP, i told you since the first page.....
this would be an unending debate..
it's quite pointless to argue which-is-which and which-is-what..
What matters to a chess player vis'-a-vis' a strong opponent is not how much chess talent he and his opponent has.. but on how he'll BEAT that opponent..
well i guess for the real ingenious player its either talent or a beautiful mind.
im bad in chess therefore it must be 100 % talent and not intelligence
TetsuoShima wrote:
im bad in chess therefore it must be 100 % talent and not intelligence
Huh ?
I hope this was ironical. Unless you consider yourself 1- very intelligent (which is possible) 2- very dedicated to chess study (which is incompatible with 1 for quality-to-cost ratio reasons).
Because otherwise : I'm bad at maths, so it must be talent. I'm a poor sword fighter, so it must be talent. Etc.
Irontiger wrote:
TetsuoShima wrote:
im bad in chess therefore it must be 100 % talent and not intelligence
Huh ?
I hope this was ironical. Unless you consider yourself 1- very intelligent (which is possible) 2- very dedicated to chess study (which is incompatible with 1 for quality-to-cost ratio reasons).
Because otherwise : I'm bad at maths, so it must be talent. I'm a poor sword fighter, so it must be talent. Etc.
it was ironical, i thought it was obvious
The idea that the love of chess is engrained in your DNA is unscientific.
Chess is an abstract concept. Likes and dislikes cannot be passed from one person to another.
If a man loses his arm in his thirties, that does not mean that his son will be born armless.
The same applies here.
Moses2792796 wrote:
JDzokic wrote:
Yes, and we now know that the Tabula Rasa theory is completely wrong and that a very large part of your potential capabilities are defined by your genetics. Why should chess be any different?
what is there a chess gene?
or maybe this whole topic just a way to discuss, again, the relationship between i.q. and chess without stating it upfront?
seems pretty clear to me that anyone who is highly intelligent will be able to attain expert strength at least. to get to FM, IM, GM level you probably have to be an SD or two above the average in regards to intelligence, but intelligence is not the only factor. it's only one part of the equation. it's readily possible to have two people with nearly identicle i.q.'s but one of them being a much better chess player.
Of course there is not a 'chess gene', but it is likely that a large part of your chess potential is genetically based, depending on the scope and type of your intelligence. As you say, IQ is not the sole factor in determining chess potential, certain people are more naturally inclined to the type of thought processes that high level chess requires. So you've already admitted that a reasonably high level of intelligence (a largely genetic factor) is a prerequisite for being a strong chess player, I would say that the other factors are genetic too. Even work ethic, which is necessary to reach your potential, is probably genetically influenced.
I suggest you study up a bit more.
"While all cells in your body contain essentially the same genome, the chemical tags on the DNA and histones get rearranged in different cell types. The epigenome can also change throughout a person's lifetime.
Consider the case of identical twins. Although they share nearly the same genome, their bodies may not be exactly identical. One twin may weigh more, for example, or develop arthritis. Researchers think that at least some of these differences are due to changes in the epigenome."
http://www.genome.gov/27532724
Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7dDd1bvNfA
None of it! None of it is talent or how hard you try or study or any of that nonsense. It's all luck. Just plain ol' simple luck, like flipping a coin. Chesss is just all luck people
Just a game of luck
We can all just quit now. It was fun while it lasted... but, every one of you are wasting your time trying to get any better because, must I say it again?
It's just luck
Ok. My work here is done. I'll go bother another thread now
If being "very good" at chess can be linked to having a high rating (I.e. being better at it than most of the rest) how can everyone potentially be better than everyone, i.e. "good"?... :/
In one of his articles ("Why Blitz", for Tkachiev's site WhyChess), Seirawan wrote that we often forget how complex chess is and how good amateurs actually are at it. I think even being "average" at it means we've mastered a complex and beautiful system. Something to be proud of, no? :)
It's not natural talent per se, but how much you accomplished in your childhood with respect to chess. It's like learning a language. If you're 18 years old and speak no Portuguese whatsoever, you'll have a lot of trouble learning it, and if/when you do, you'll never be able to get rid of your thick accent. Similarly, if you're 18 years old and 1100, you're never going to be a 2300. But if you start learning Portuguese at 8 years old, or if you get to 1100 by 10 years old, you may have a chance to accomplish your goals.
also many gms hide their talend i believe. like GM Magesh he pretends that his program pointed out that one move doesnt work, but when he was asked what someone could play in a position he was so fast showing it so quick in seconds. I believer there is no chance he ever would need an engine to find a flaw in supposed line.