Improving is a long struggle, even for Bobby Fischer

Estragon: This argument is used a lot, but it doesn't allow for any conclusions because we don't know how they studied, or what their approach was to the game.

Now, if we could see a six year old kid, on his own, reach master in a year, without spending more than three hours a day, then I think that would be pretty conclusive for nature.

In other words, the negative in paragraph one, "training (seemingly) didn't work for most students," is less effective (due to the ambiguity of "training") than the second paragraph, as the second shows an independance between training and high ability. Of course I know that nobody argues for complete independence between the two, but I would imagine they do think that talent without hard work carries you decently far, just not all the way, and for that, I think they are looking for evidence similar to that of paragraph two.

And I don't buy arguments founded entirely on common sense (speaking of your argument presented here, not for the nature argument in general).

So you have come up with a little shred of "potential evidence." You've still got a lot of work to do

It's nature AND nurture, of course. If Bobby wasn't as naturally brilliant as he was all of the nurturing in the world wouldn't have made him what he was, but with all of his natural talent without the tremendously hard work that he did to develop it he never would have become one of the great chess players of all time.

Well, one could say that Bobby Fischer worked his butt off on chess (and only chess) his whole life from the time he was 7 (around 1953) till the the early 1970's.  With nothing at all in his life except for chess (except for his Mom, who totally encouraged his chess studies.)

From what little I know about Alekhine, it seems he led a rather eventful life outside of chess as an aristocrat in Russia, then fleeing to France, then trying to avoid the Nazis after the fall of France (since he had a Jewish wife), then eventually collaborating with the Nazis . . . while having a major drinking problem to boot.

Capablanca, the previous WC, by all accounts, led the life of a Latin playboy when he wasn't playing chess; definately not putting in the hours that the heremetically-sealed Fischer did.

Spassky also seemed like a relatively well-rounded person.  I have no idea about Waitzkin.

Cheers,

Becky

But at the same time badbishop, people seem to try to use the very fact that they "didn't have to learn" to get good at an extremely young age as evidence of genius, despite how logical your own points are.

It's just such a complex issue.

I think the main question is how do we weight the two. Is it 50/50? 80/20? What do you think? My ratio is certainly not 100/0 for hard work, but I probably rate hard work higher than most people.

(I just named several masters to make a point, knowing few details about them, the point being that in the history of chess I doubt that Bobby was the only person to ever have worked that hard-the only person I made sure specifically not to mention was Capablanca! But anyway...)

I mean, what are we even arguing here? Yes, Bobby needed to take a real interest in chess to be good. Chess IS something you learn, after all. And Bobby worked a lot harder than most people, and this was a big part of the reason that he was so much BETTER than anybody else. But do we really believe that without natural talent he would have become the (arguably) best player of all time?

If I thought I had a chance to become Bobby Fischer I'd give up school right now and work on being a professional chess player full time. But I'm not going to do that because I'm not as smart as he is-just like I won't try and get into baseball or football full time. Even if I devoted myself to chess I guarantee you that no matter what I'll never be Bobby Fischer. Or John Elway. Or Joe Dimmaggio.

Well, where we disagree is that I think Bobby could have had an otherwise similar personality, but less, intelligence (whatever we are calling talent), perhaps, and still be a great player. Maybe not a world champion, but I don't think a strong grandmaster, for example, would be out of the question.

A common problem is how hard talent is to define. What do we mean when we say chess talent? Memory? Interest in logic? How fast one can do math problems? One could argue that it could be simply part of Fischer's personality that made him study chess so much. Other personalities might have chosen a different path in life.

Good question. And I think...that I have absolutely no clue whatsoever. I would rate hard work higher, I think. The reason is that, even with what I said above as a caveat, if I truly devoted myself I could probably become a Master, perhaps with intense full time devotion a Grandmaster. I'm certainly no talent-I started out rated at around 600! And I have no evidence to state this. I just feel like with the resources out there given what I know of chess now it wouldn't be impossible. But no matter what I'll never become Kasparov.

Well, Bellomy, are you familiar with the historical school of thought of "the times make the man," (structural theory) versus "the man makes the times" (great man theory)?

One could plausibly argue that Bobby Fischer was a direct product of the immediate prosperous (and urbanised) post-war era in the United States (aka "Baby Boom," 1950's "Eisenhower Era," etc.) and such an upbringing and childhood that Fischer had (having been born in the US in 1946 and growing up in New York City) is unlikely to be replicated in any other nation, in any other time...  Any thoughts?

Cheers,

Becky

"...perhaps with intense full time devotion a Grandmaster."

It seems like we don't disagree much, then.

"But no matter what I'll never become Kasparov."

Well, maybe if you started younger

Yeah, I have thought of that, and it's a good point, but I think Kasparov probably throws things in for a loop a bit. After Fischer, we really HAVE had players who played at a level as high as his, or extremely close. So it's not something that can ONLY happen once.

Perhaps if I studied chess as intently as Fischer I'd go as insane as he did!

But perhaps insanity is a talent...?

I doubt the "average" person has the ability to reach a 2000 Fide rating.

To get over that, you need "talent".

Some are so talented that they can reach that without much hard work at all. To go much higher than that, some work is probably necessary, except for the supremely talented. (Mir Sultan Kahn, for eg?) If that guy had real interest and put in some work, he would have rewritten all the best player posts in here

"Some are so talented that they can reach that without much hard work at all."

And yet Bobby Fischer, even with five years of hard work from age seven, still didn't manage to become a great player by age 12.

How many 12 year old "great" players are there? I'd say he was probably great for a 12 year old...

Fischer's first real success was winning the U.S. Junior Chess Championship in July 1956. He scored 8½/10 at Philadelphia to become the youngest-ever Junior Champion at age 13,a record that still stands.

we Be dumb. When u understand that, youre on the right path....

Absolutely.

My point was that his every waking moment was dominated by playing and studying chess for five solid years from age 7 to 12 but he was still losing fairly regularly to non masters, then boom! he becomes 'Bobby Fischer'. I'm past that point in the book now and Brady can't explain it either, other than this is where Jack Collins took him under his wing and became his father figure.

It really is astonishing how much time and effort Fischer put into it, he must have played tens of thousands of games and read dozens of books (in different languages) by the time he hit his teens. He doesn't appear to have kept many notes either, everything was stored in his mind. Its just one way of developing obviously, but a reminder to all of us who think 'study' is automatically going to make us better that you gotta get out there and play to really see any improvement.

hr