Intellgience vs. Experience

Is it me or do you stumble across these naive players who are like, "I've been playing for like one odd year and I'm 2000+".

There seems to be this form of, let's say, "short-cut" to the top. Let me tell you, this is an insult to the game itself. It takes years of practice and perspiration to become an expert in anything.

I never started playing tournament chess until I was well into my 30's and became obsessed with it for several years.  From 1987 to 1993 I managed to reach 1450 USCF and pretty much called quits after that so far as competitive chess was concerned.  I put many hours into study and practice but I realized after awhile that my ship had sailed as far as reaching any higher ranks.

I know a kid in high school who has been playing less than 2 years who is already strong Class A and is close to making expert.  Why?  I don't know.  All I know is some people have a knack for chess in ways others don't.

Some say you can go as high as you want with time and study.  I think of the many International Masters who have put in literally hundreds of hours dedicating themselves to chess but just can't get that final norm for the GM title.  That filters down to all the lower ranks also.  With time and study anyone can improve but there is an unknown ceiling for everyone.  Only a deluded individual thinks he can play at Magnus Carlsen's level with only dedication.  I'm thankful we aren't all the same because if we were then no one would stand out in anything. 

Yes, I've noticed this. The legendary Silman is IM and not GM.

As for why some players can improve much faster than others, their physical condition/health, the number of hours they train, how consistently they train, and the materials they use and what order they use them are pretty big factors. I guess their motivation and mentality during the training could also play a substantial role in their improvement.

I'm not a big believer in "inborn chess talent" personally, I think it's mainly a product of training, physical health, and the people around you.

There is nothing special about Magnus Carlsen or Judit Polgar?  They just study more?

"Everybody who below me are noobs, everybody who above me are nerds" (c)

Fischer said that the likes of Morphy wouldn't stand a chance in today's chess because of the theory.

May be if you were clever enough to notice that it was a typo that occurred in the thread title that cannot be changed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wzs33wvr9E

Have you not watched the documentary on the Polgar sisters?

Both experience and intelligence matters..more so intelligence...with

only exp. u can go only upto certain level(ceiling)after that it is the high

level of affinity to chess and the inherent capability which can carry u

forward to greater heights..

Yeah I watched it ages ago. So what are you trying to say?

If you had to recieve brain surgery from a 20 odd year veteran or a "I've only been doing it for a year or so but I'm as good as he is"; who would you pick?

She also reached her ceiling.  Just as you will.  I'll give you a hint.  It won't be equal to that of Carlsen.

Bouth Albert Einstein and Richard Feynman were good amateur chess players without much practicing , bouth highly intelligent, so i would 

conclude you need some sort of intelligence but practicing is 

what you need to get over the 1800 mark, without it you can't get 

higher .. 

Not just Silman.  Larry Kaufman never did reach it either.  He was only awarded the title because he won the Senior Championship.  Many of the GM "titles" are handed out for similar reasons without actually earning it the old fashioned way.

"Yeah I watched it ages ago. So what are you trying to say?"

It's pretty obvious. Laszlo believed you could create 'genius' through dedicated hard work and study. He used his own daughters in this experiment to prove it and he did.

"She also reached her ceiling.  Just as you will.  I'll give you a hint.  It won't be equal to that of Carlsen."

Yeah, pretty high ceiling. Also, thanks for the hint that my progress with not be the same as the highest rated chess player of all time because, for a moment I thought I might be able to top him, being 37 and 1700 and all...

Going back to the original point:

"Is it me or do you stumble across these naive players who are like, "I've been playing for like one odd year and I'm 2000+".

Yes it is just you, as I don't know anybody who is 2000+ after one year of learning chess. If you do can you post them please? Who learnt to move the pieces in January and was 2000+ in December?

In 1956 Bobby Fischer was rated 1726.  In 1957 he was rated 2231.  In 1958 He was rated 2626 and qualified for the Portorož Interzonal, the next step toward challenging the World Champion.^[125]

I'm sure that had nothing to do with talent.  Heck, even you could do that!

Thanks for your continual belief in my chess talent, I will try to match Fischer as well as Carlsen!

It looks like Fischer first learnt chess at the age of 6, in 1949 (according to the Wikipedia article on him.) So if that's true, that means he went from learning to move the pieces to 1726 in seven years (if your number is correct also.) So that's seven years to go from beginner to 1726 and this is Fischer, one of the greatest natural talents of all time. Even if these numbers are not correct he did not go from 0 to 2000 in one year. So who is going from 0 to 2000 in one year? Nobody. Because it's not possible.

I'm not saying that natural talent or intelligence (great memory?) is not a contributing factor in rapid chess improvement, it no doubt is, but to be the top of a field in virtually any pursuit, you simply have to put the time in from a young age and continually work at it. That's just how it is.

No one has ever said hard work isn't necessary although some would argue against that with Cappablanca.  The problem is those who say that talent is not a factor.  That there is no ceiling.  That is nonsense.

Study will help you reach your maximum potential, and thats all it will do

 there are plenty of little kids playing right now who have very little experience and no study ... and still able to beat GM's

I follow them in the news.

https://chessdailynews.com/tag/lykke-merlot-helliesen/

That little girl doesnt know a single opening, she's just played chess a little bit and only learned the game 6 months eariler.

"She played splendidly! She is much better than that Carlsen was when he was six years old,” Agdestein said after the game,

GM Agdestein was Norwegian chess champion seven times, and is Magnus Carlsen’s former coach. His brother, Espen Agdestein, is Carlsen’s manager.

"

In 1956 Bobby Fischer was rated 1726.  In 1957 he was rated 2231.  In 1958 He was rated 2626 and qualified for the Portorož Interzonal, the next step toward challenging the World Champion.^[125]

I'm sure that had nothing to do with talent.  Heck, even you could do that!"

In the beginning of 2014 my rating was around 2000, and I hadn't studied chess (barely played it really) during 2013. I was much worse than I had been when I got my 2000 rating in 2012. However beginning on January first of 2014, I studied on average 2 1/2 hours a day the entire year (I kept count of the hours) and before the year ended I achieved a 2205 rating, and had 3 2300 performance ratings over 5 tournaments.

If I had dropped out of college and studied 9-12 hours a day, and put together a good fitness/diet routine to go along with it, then I could have probably achieved something more along the lines of what Fischer did between 1956 and 1957. Don't knock training until you seriously go at it for a long period of time.