I mean, the analogies are drawn between chess and language because both are extremely complicated (though might seem relatively simple if you're extremely familiar with them and had tons of practice, as is the case with language). And thus, there is just going to be a mass quantity of things to learn about chess. It would be like learning a strategy game with 157 different types of units or buildings, each with their own strengths and weaknesses. No matter how smart you are, you still will have to take in a ton of time just to know what these all are, let alone know what makes them good/bad, and how they work together.
Even if the child doesn't have as deep of an understanding as an adult would when learning these things for the first time, he might be able to develop patterns more quickly, and that could be more useful. Later when he matures he can get a better understanding of these patterns.
And the idea that a lot of chess learning is about quantity is quite corroborated by the fact that GMs constantly tell people simplistic sounding advice like "just do a ridiculous amount of puzzles" etc, just shove them down your throat almost. Of course we know that it's not so simple, but developing patterns (almost) like a zombie is one important aspect for getting good at chess, and that probably doesn't require as much problem solving skills as you would think.
It's just weird that you have these really "dumb" kids, whose problem solving is probably hundreds of times worse than a lot of adults, yet they're becoming IMs etc. Yes, only a very low percentage of them get there, but the fact that an even lower percentage of adults get there, who you'd think would be thousands of times more capable of understanding chess, seems even more surprising. Of course to be fair, the kids pretty much need fantastic coaches to do anything like this.
I don't know, just some thoughts. This might have been a tangent -- I guess now I'm talking more about how much of chess is helped by learning early, etc, which doesn't necessarily tie into whether chess requires a lot of talent or not. But it's still interesting to discuss.
Define natural talent. If you have experience playing ga.es of strategy and tactics then qhen you firat start the the the playing chess you have an advatage
Haed qork goes a llong way talentwd or not
Haha, haven't seen you in so long, royalbishop! Remember me? :)
Haha, really, or are you just messing with me? I guess it was a while ago. You probably wouldn't want to remember me though, anyway :)
I have changed since then. More docuaed on game. I jpined a chess club and they real opened my eyes ti the game. So much that i thought i qas good at others were wau stronger.my bigesr leason was game preparation. I ran into some tricky players that practice that all the time. In a tourny clock is ticking.
In touny I did not know about all the different clock rules. Laugh if you want but idid not know you better brung your own clock for awveral rwasons
Sorry not to Ger off topi . I just noticed. Been gone a while sorry for multi post.
But the clock plays a serious role in tourny. Talente or not..
If you get to tourny later than opponent rhey can pull ouy their clock.
Say the clock iis damaged and in rhe last 10 sec it jums to 1 sec- game over and you had more time than opponent. And that happens randomlu. So you have ro prove it. Plus show how much much time waa left on borh sides in a game you know you had won
Oh yeah, there's nothing like playing chess over the board with a clock.
Yes, time is almost as important as the game itself. You want to use every single minute wisely. I've screwed up so many great positions because I didn't have enough time to play them properly, and I still do.