How to these grand masters get chess very well?
Sort:
They read books and study
"One needs to devote some ten hours a day to chess and to everything connected with it – physical and psychological preparation" - Kramnik
"Every month I look through some ten thousand games, so not as to miss any new ideas and trends" - Kramnik
#3
It depends what books you study
https://rafaelleitao.com/chess-books-grandmaster/
Years and yeaaaars of experience
Nov 25, 2021
0
#9
In my opinion, the two biggest difference between top-rated players and average players are:
1) Consistency. I can play like a Master in one game, and then play like a moron in the next game. Titled players are much more consistent, playing at a high level in the great majority of their games.
2) Which moves they choose to analyze. Players tend to choose a move by making a "short list" of three to six possible moves (called "candidate-moves") and analyzing them to decide which move is best. You won't play the best move unless it was included in your short list of candidate-moves to analyze. Titled players tend to select better candidate-moves for analysis than average players do, so there is a much improved chance that they will end up playing the best move.
tygxc wrote:
"One needs to devote some ten hours a day to chess and to everything connected with it – physical and psychological preparation" - Kramnik
"Every month I look through some ten thousand games, so not as to miss any new ideas and trends" - Kramnik
10k games a month is a bit too much, kramnik got carried away there it would seem
#9
That is correct, but there are reasons for that.
1) Top players are never in a hurry, think carefully about their moves and remain calm. In any swiss open tournament the grandmasters at the top boards are usually thinking over move 6, while the weak players at the bottom boards already are at move 26. The weak players jump up after their move, the grandmasters remain seated and concentrated and you cannot even tell whose move it is without looking which clock is running.
2) Top players are not born with this ability. It comes from thousands of hours of play and analysis.
Nov 25, 2021
0
#12
I know that it's not popular nowadays to mention it, but they are also gifted with much more talent than the average player.
Nov 25, 2021
0
#13
I have never read a book, and never intend to. I just analyse my games, do puzzles and play.
It is very interesting how people can analyze and play chess in such a proficient way. 
Nov 25, 2021
0
#15
There is a difference between correct, deliberate practice with the help of people who know better and just practice for hours without any goal, analysis and feedback. Instead of studying chess "books", it would be better to complete beginner lessons over and over again, do some puzzles and games, see what type of puzzles and what part of the game you make misstakes on (pretty sure you get suggestions after every game) and then practice on those parts until you don't make same misstake.
#10
Kramnik did not do more than say Carlsen or Kasparov.
"I have only one talent, a talent for hard work" - Kasparov
A professional player cannot afford to lose a game the same way somebody else lost a few days ago.
Kramnik said his strength declined after he decided to work only 6 instead of 7 days.
#13
Dad Polgar denied the existence of talent and claimed he could make any child excell at chess, mathematics, or classical music, provided he could start training at a young age. He proved this with his 3 daughters.
Nov 25, 2021
0
#17
If there's no such thing as talent that means everyone is born with the same mental capabilities. I assume hardly anyone believes that.
Nov 25, 2021
0
#18
tygxc wrote:
#10
Kramnik did not do more than say Carlsen or Kasparov.
"I have only one talent, a talent for hard work" - Kasparov
A professional player cannot afford to lose a game the same way somebody else lost a few days ago.
Kramnik said his strength declined after he decided to work only 6 instead of 7 days.
#13
Dad Polgar denied the existence of talent and claimed he could make any child excell at chess, mathematics, or classical music, provided he could start training at a young age. He proved this with his 3 daughters.
papa polgar instead proved that even with similar training only 1 became a world class player while the other two became more ordinary GM/IM. Papa Polgar also wasnt exactly working with a good sample size, Papa Polgar also also failed to realize mad scientist types like him are not the genetic norm to test Marxist can-do spirit theories and push them on the general populace.
if you wish to be a credible scientist, dont be like Papa Polgar.
Nov 25, 2021
0
#19
Because they put in massive amounts of time, effort & practice. & they have very good brains for playing this game.
Nov 25, 2021
0
#20
darkunorthodox88 skrev:
tygxc wrote:
...
Dad Polgar denied the existence of talent and claimed he could make any child excell at chess, mathematics, or classical music, provided he could start training at a young age. He proved this with his 3 daughters.
papa polgar instead proved that even with similar training only 1 became a world class player while the other two became more ordinary GM/IM. Papa Polgar also wasnt exactly working with a good sample size, Papa Polgar also also failed to realize mad scientist types like him are not the genetic norm to test Marxist can-do spirit theories and push them on the general populace.
if you wish to be a credible scientist, dont be like Papa Polgar.
That's the biggest "flaw" is see in his experiment: claim you can teach anybody activities success in which often correlate with intelligence, then take sample size of three people whom all come from two highly intelligent people.
If he was going all in on his hypothesis and threw ethics away, why not adopt children or train an orphanage?
I know they practice but I also practice but I dont play better