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?
If there were ratings for brain surgery then I would pick the higher rated one. Experience means nothing if you're lower rated than someone else.
Fischer worked harder at chess than anyone ever; Fischer's gains in improvements (which have been measured) between 1956-57 is unlikely to be reproduced. He was hyper-intelligent and resourceful with outstanding concentration and memory.
Richard Rapport is hardest working player of the "new" generation AFAIK, studies about 10 hours a day I read in one his interviews as of a few years ago.
Its kind of funny referencing Kasparov when he was the hardest working grandmaster of his time, and he himself said his greatest talent was hard work. Many people would even argue he was the greatest player of all time. Fischer was single-mindedly focused on chess to the point he was outworking soviet players who were forced every week to go to a special school for chess and devote a big amount of their day to it. I don't think anyone was forcing Fischer though. He no doubt had more motivation and focus than most of the kids who were being forced to learn the game, which probably added to his advantage.
Fischer and Kasparov both did great things in their day, but just because they achieved so much doesn't mean they are anything but human, or that they were born special. They earned what they got, it wasn't just handed to them. I don't think some people realize that they are down playing just what these 2 greats accomplished by claiming it was just natural talent alone that did it for them.
Its kind of funny referencing Kasparov when he was the hardest working grandmaster of his time, and he himself said his greatest talent was hard work. Many people would even argue he was the greatest player of all time. Fischer was single-mindedly focused on chess to the point he was outworking soviet players who were forced every week to go to a special school for chess and devote a big amount of their day to it. I don't think anyone was forcing Fischer though. He no doubt had more motivation and focus than most of the kids who were being forced to learn the game, which probably added to his advantage.
Fischer and Kasparov both did great things in their day, but just because they achieved so much doesn't mean they are anything but human, or that they were born special. They earned what they got, it wasn't just handed to them. I don't think some people realize that they are down playing just what these 2 greats accomplished by claiming it was just natural talent alone that did it for them.
There you go again. Nobody but nobody has said it was by talent alone! It's the idea that everybody is the same in ability nonsense that is being espoused. Some people don't have the ability to become a math professor, a rocket scientist, aceing the SAT, or becoming a high rated chess player. Understand?
Just because someone achieved a high level of skill at something it doesn't mean they started out being unnaturally better than their peers when they first began. There are many people who were initially worse at some activity than the people around them, but overcame them with hardwork and competitive drive. Most people really don't work hard or give something their all for months and years on end, its seen as being unnatural. The tiny minority who do quickly pass everyone else by. It's the people who take action and improve constantly that end up at the top, not the people who relax into a sense of superiority when they get to a certain level, nor the people who assume they don't have what it takes and stop moving forward when they encounter disappointment.
Just because someone achieved a high level of skill at something it doesn't mean they started out being unnaturally better than their peers when they first began. There are many people who were initially worse at some activity than the people around them, but overcame them with hardwork and competitive drive. Most people really don't work hard or give something their all for months and years on end, its seen as being unnatural. The tiny minority who do quickly pass everyone else by. It's the people who take action and improve constantly that end up at the top, not the people who relax into a sense of superiority when they get to a certain level, nor the people who assume they don't have what it takes and stop moving forward when they encounter disappointment.
Unbelievable the brainwashing being done today.
Its kind of funny referencing Kasparov when he was the hardest working grandmaster of his time, and he himself said his greatest talent was hard work. Many people would even argue he was the greatest player of all time. Fischer was single-mindedly focused on chess to the point he was outworking soviet players who were forced every week to go to a special school for chess and devote a big amount of their day to it. I don't think anyone was forcing Fischer though. He no doubt had more motivation and focus than most of the kids who were being forced to learn the game, which probably added to his advantage.
Fischer and Kasparov both did great things in their day, but just because they achieved so much doesn't mean they are anything but human, or that they were born special. They earned what they got, it wasn't just handed to them. I don't think some people realize that they are down playing just what these 2 greats accomplished by claiming it was just natural talent alone that did it for them.
There you go again. Nobody but nobody has said it was by talent alone! It's the idea that everybody is the same in ability nonsense that is being espoused. Some people don't have the ability to become a math professor, a rocket scientist, aceing the SAT, or becoming a high rated chess player. Understand?
Obviously not everyone is the same in ability, I never claimed that. I just think natural inborn talent is pretty bogus, for mental activities atleast. Physical sports I think you can be born with advantages, but your environment and the choices you make everyday also play a large part in how well you do.
Its kind of funny referencing Kasparov when he was the hardest working grandmaster of his time, and he himself said his greatest talent was hard work. Many people would even argue he was the greatest player of all time. Fischer was single-mindedly focused on chess to the point he was outworking soviet players who were forced every week to go to a special school for chess and devote a big amount of their day to it. I don't think anyone was forcing Fischer though. He no doubt had more motivation and focus than most of the kids who were being forced to learn the game, which probably added to his advantage.
Fischer and Kasparov both did great things in their day, but just because they achieved so much doesn't mean they are anything but human, or that they were born special. They earned what they got, it wasn't just handed to them. I don't think some people realize that they are down playing just what these 2 greats accomplished by claiming it was just natural talent alone that did it for them.
There you go again. Nobody but nobody has said it was by talent alone! It's the idea that everybody is the same in ability nonsense that is being espoused. Some people don't have the ability to become a math professor, a rocket scientist, aceing the SAT, or becoming a high rated chess player. Understand?
Obviously not everyone is the same in ability, I never claimed that. I just think natural inborn talent is pretty bogus, for mental activities atleast. Physical sports I think you can be born with advantages, but your environment and the choices you make everyday also play a large part in how well you do.
Mental abilities are based in the brain, and not all brains are the same.
Ya but you don't have to worry about brain injuries from training too much the way you do with physical activities, making mental training far more useful and something you can really outpace your opponent in. Also the more you know about chess, the easier it is to learn even more. The same seems to be true of mental activies besides chess too. People who have their multipiclation tables down cold will have a far better time in algebra than someone who is constantly using a calculator. People who are masters of guitar can learn whole new songs in a single day versus amateurs who can spend weeks learning a song and getting the timings right. The advantage you get from learning new knowledge is far more than having a slightly better memory or thinking slightly faster. As far as that sort of thing goes, it almost doesn't matter.
That being said, I would advise you not to learn openings too soon, as that is the sort of knowledge that doesn't compound on itself or let you learn anything else much better. It's very niche in its usefulness and wont make you a better player, until you get to the level where you can understand everything behind it and appreciate it.
Computers play chess in a completely different way than humans do. So you can't say those "skills" used by a computer are what is required for human chess.
BTW, someone plays more chess in one year at 5 hours a day than another person plays in 10 years at 1 hour a week.
"1 year" or "10 years" is not the best way to judge how much chess experience one has.
That said, experience is more important than intelligence in chess. Being super intelligent alone wouldn't make anyone a great chess player. Unlike in some other fields, being a good chess player requires you to see thousands and thousands of games and positions. Chess isn't a game of pure logic, it's a game of chess logic. Certain people are more inclined to it, but chess is a man made game with man made rules. Being in tune with the natural world can only help you so much, unlike with science or art or something where you can be a genius at 5 years old.
Computers play chess in a completely different way than humans do. So you can't say those "skills" used by a computer are what is required for human chess.
BTW, someone plays more chess in one year at 5 hours a day than another person plays in 10 years at 1 hour a week.
"1 year" or "10 years" is not the best way to judge how much chess experience one has.
That said, experience is more important than intelligence in chess. Being super intelligent alone wouldn't make anyone a great chess player. Unlike in some other fields, being a good chess player requires you to see thousands and thousands of games and positions. Chess isn't a game of pure logic, it's a game of chess logic. Certain people are more inclined to it, but chess is a man made game with man made rules. Being in tune with the natural world can only help you so much, unlike with science or art or something where you can be a genius at 5 years old.
You said "Being super intelligent alone wouldn't make anyone a great chess player"
So then how do you explain little kids who just learned to play 6 months ago, beating a GM. ? Massively strong players who have 40 or 50 years of professional experience and training, and who were also exceptional 1 in 50 million chess prodigies to begin with.
isn't the 6 year old who beat Magnus carlesons coach a great chess player ? she doesn't know anything about chess ... virtually no experience at all.
what about Magnus Carlson ? He was born that way right .. he didn't work and gain experience then become a great chess player. He just destroyed everyone he played, he was a GM years before his first pimple 
its no wonder he is the highest ranked player in history, and a super lazy student who can't stop talking about retiring soon to play golf instead ^_^
If you want to be a 13 year old with 3 phD degrees from MIT ... thats not hard work, or experience, its simply being born smart.
So then how do you explain little kids who just learned to play 6 months ago, beating a GM. ?
The GM you are refering to lost on time in simul. It's not the same thing. Someone who learnt to play 6 months ago would not beat a GM in a normal game, it's not possible.
There are some very good kids around, GMs at 14, 15 etc, but they put the hours in from a young age, like Carlsen or the Polgars. Their natural talents and intelligence (memory) greatly add to their developments but they still have to put the time in as nobody is born a GM.
Again Laszlo proved that you could create a 'chess genuis' by dedicated improvement - "A genius is not born but is educated and trained….When a child is born healthy, it is a potential genius." He then went on to prove his theory and turned his three young daughters into GMs, one of them becoming the greatest female player of all time. That's cased closed in my book.
Again Laszlo proved that you could create a 'chess genuis' by dedicated improvement - "A genius is not born but is educated and trained….When a child is born healthy, it is a potential genius." He then went on to prove his theory and turned his three young daughters into GMs, one of them becoming the greatest female player of all time. That's cased closed in my book.
Sofia Polgar is an International Master and a Woman Grand Master.
She is not a Grand Master.
http://ratings.fide.com/card.phtml?event=700231
Sure, she could have been, why not? According to Susan, Sofia was the most talented.
I was just correcting the information that she was a GM, when she was not.
Again Laszlo proved that you could create a 'chess genuis' by dedicated improvement - "A genius is not born but is educated and trained….When a child is born healthy, it is a potential genius." He then went on to prove his theory and turned his three young daughters into GMs, one of them becoming the greatest female player of all time. That's cased closed in my book.
Starting at which level would you consider a chess player a genius?
"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!
Many great players have gone from ca 1700 to ca 2200 in a year, but the leap from 2231 to 2626 in year is unbelievable. I dont think anybody else have done it.
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.
I believe that Lykke is a natural talent, but I dont believe that she doesnt know openings. She has been playing in a good club for some months, and they say she is on level with good 12 year old boys. Good 12 year old boys might be between 1200 and 1800 fide. She is not rated yet.
GM Agdestein was at his peak number 16 in the world (if I remember correctly), and is still very good, number 3 in Norway.
Both Magnus and Lykke are working very smart , picking up knowledge. They both have the habit that they walk around in the playing hall during their games, spending much time looking at the other boards. With their superfast brains they pick up a lot with seemingly little effort.
Magnus is World Champion because he has both the talent and the efficient and good work.
"
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.
The idea that everyone is equal in ability and only hard work prevents someone from reaching the top in any field is part of the brainwashing being taught in schools today it seems. You seem to have a high opinion of yourself and I'm not taking away what you have achieved but people like Bobby Fischer, Kasparov, Carlsen and players like that are not just a result of hard work. Sorry Charlie.