impossible or not - Chess Forums - Page 2

justice_avocado

Aug 16, 2007

0

#21

"Becoming a GM is no joke."

so stop laughing. NOW. this is serious business, mister, and you're about to be in for a whole world of pain.

farrellr

Aug 16, 2007

0

#22

Creg wrote: tbirdtird wrote:

Richard, you've obviously never known a person with a true photographic memory..these people are amazing. A person with a TRUE photograhpic memorie does understand what he/she reads instantly. Gerenally though these people want nothing to do with their gift-or are otherwise incapable of putting it to the best use(mostly from complications due to physical disabilites).There are those who can memorize quickly and then gain understanding, but that is not a true photograhpic mind.

There is insufficient scientific proof of photographic memory. It is widely accepted to be a myth. This is not to say that there are no people with incredible memories, or the ability for incredible recall...Kim Peak. Kim of course is a savant, but the studies on him are on going, and he is but 1 out of 6 billion people. For a story that brings this to light please read the following.

http://www.slate.com/id/2140685/

The larger issue, of course, is that a perfect memory wouldn't make a person a grandmaster. It wouldn't even make them a Class B. In ten or fifteen moves you are out of book and looking at a position that has never been seen before in the history of chess. You may have memorized a lot of similar positions, but applying that information to a unique situation is another matter entirely. Data is not knowledge, and knowledge itself is only a part of skill.

Creg

Aug 16, 2007

0

#23

<farrelr> I wholeheartedly agree. Memorizing opening lines does not prepare you for what can be summed up as board vision. I just wanted to point out that there is no such thing as a photographic memory.

justice_avocado

Aug 16, 2007

0

#24

can't we just solve this unbelievably irrelevant argument with a good old paper-scissors-rock tournament?

okay best of three wins GO

justice_avocado

Aug 16, 2007

0

#25

holy crap that's the best thing i've ever seen!!

richard...thank you

(the scissors sandwich was definitely the best)

Etienne

Aug 16, 2007

0

#26

cheapciggies wrote: According to above calc lets say 14 hours a day study 2 hours free time and 8 hours sleep would bring us to 5110 hours of study in one year, the potential to be a very good player is there alright.

Depends what you mean by very good player. But if by very good you mean GM, then no.

wingsxzhao

Aug 16, 2007

0

#27

Mission impossible

cmh0114

Aug 16, 2007

0

#28

Creg wrote:

Chess has been used in many a study on the human mind. One study, or actually many, and I'll need to find something to confirm this, is that it takes approximately 10,000 hours of study to become an expert/master at the game of chess, and other areas of life as well. One is not an expert craftsman the day they pick up a hammer?! When you look at the many so called experts of golf, or tennis, and or even chess you will find that each of these professionals spent close to this amount of time before reaching their full potential. Based on this calculation, and that there are only 24 hours in a day, and 365 days in a year, the answer is no, a person could not master the game of chess in just one year.

I've heard that it takes 12,000 hours of study to become an expert at something, but either way, there's only 8760 hours in a year, so someone would have to study for 15-18 months straight. I think it's more likely that it would take 15-18 years to become a GM, instead of 15-18 months.

Creg

Aug 16, 2007

0

#29

<cmh0114> 10,000 -- 12,000 eh, ever so tiny a difference, but there are many an artricle out there about the theory of becoming an expert. One such document refers to the 10 year rule, rather than hours. The following is a snipet from this long disertation.....

The one thing that all expertise theorists agree on is that it takes enormous effort to build these structures in the mind. Simon coined a psychological law of his own, the 10-year rule, which states that it takes approximately a decade of heavy labor to master any field.

......

If you want to attempt to read it, and I wish you good luck, here is the link:

http://scientificamerican.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=00010347-101C-14C1-8F9E83414B7F4945

Apoapsis

Dec 10, 2007

0

#30

Wanna talk about something else? Is this position mate twice?

This position is Mate in the first move, because the black pawn never reaches 2 forward because of en passant. There are 3 views:

1. It should be mate beacuse of the pawn never getting 2 squares ahead.
2. Mate IS blocked by the pawn.
3. The whole debate is crazy and the world should just forget about it.

theCandyman

Dec 10, 2007

0

#31

I don't get what you mean. The pawn very obviously made it to d5.

Reservesmonkey

Dec 10, 2007

0

#32

Etienne wrote: Haven't been done yet, and no one has ever been close to doing it. So unless your friend has one of the deepest intellect we've ever seen and train VERY hard, I doubt it. You got to realise that some talented people spend dozens of years or even a life trying and never achieve it.

Not everyone who picks up a basketball becomes Larry Bird no matter how much they practice like he did. To become a GM you have to have that top percentile helping of natural ability and talent. You can study 24hrs a day under the top coach and never make it to Wimbledon if you don't have the needed raw material. EVERY junior scholastic chess player thinks they are going to sit across from Anand someday and how many will?

likesforests

Dec 10, 2007

0

#33

No. If you're new to chess, the most you could hope for in one year is around 1800, and you would have to be exceptionally talented to accomplish that.

4moveloss

Dec 10, 2007

0

#34

Possible but very hard

Jeremy_feilong

Dec 20, 2024

0

#35

Hi

Jeremy_feilong

Dec 20, 2024

0

#36

17 years ago

sawdof

Dec 20, 2024

0

#37

Jeremy_feilong wrote:

17 years ago

Yes it was a feifeilong time ago. But why did you have to bump it?