They surely know that they have a lot of talent, maybe less than other GMs. The chess players with no talent at all usually stop playing chess very early or are even unable to learn the rules properly (yes, that really occurs).
That isn't because of a lack of chess talent. That is because they're mentally retarded.
Well, some people lack talent because they are mentally retarded, other may lack talent for different reasons. But they all lack talent :)
You need:
- to start with chess at a very early age
- to work hard and get systematic training
- talent surely helps, although it is relative
I'd say it is similar to mastering a language.
Nothing is achievable without talent, obviously.
You can tell that to several GM's, who have no problem to admit that they have no talent.
They surely know that they have a lot of talent, maybe less than other GMs. The chess players with no talent at all usually stop playing chess very early or are even unable to learn the rules properly (yes, that really occurs).
If you start playing chess at a very early age and you have a family rich enough to support your "hobby" the chances are that you will be GM either talented or not.
Especially today the title has become easier than ever especially in Europe.It was more difficult to become IM 30 years ago than GM today.That was also Khalifman's "complain" in a recent interview I read which I can't find though.
Well, the player in question is obviously talented enough to choose chess as a hobby, experienced enough early success to start studying hard, improved enough to see that she doesn't fall behind other kids off her age ... seems quite talented.
Let me repeat: there are people who literally are unable to learn the rules. Yes, we can agree that these people lack talent. GMs don't.
Have you evedr seen any 7 or 8 year old kid unable to learn the rules?Because I didn't.
</snip>
Yes, I have. He suffered from trisomy 21, which is likely the reason for his apparent lack of talent.
Nothing is achievable without talent, obviously.
You can tell that to several GM's, who have no problem to admit that they have no talent.
It takes tons of hard work to become world-class in chess, or most other activities.
It also absolutely requires tons of talent.
It is however, very common for those top guys with tons of talent, to not recognize their own talent. They get so used to competing with similar or stronger opponents that they look at their minus record against Carlsen or Kasparov, and conclude, "well, I can't be that talented since I've tried to be these guys for 10 years and failed. So it must ALL be my hard work that got me this good, anyone can do it if they worked like I do."
Yeah right.
This comes up in every discipline - it's particularly rampant in sports, where high school kids who run sub-5minute miles on almost no training, commonly go onto forums and say "anyone can do it if I could - just do what I did", even though they were essential born that fast.
Most of the GMs got really good, really fast, and if they had actually played tournament chess in childhood, were master or IM level as kids. Then they put in a ton of additional hard work to get even better.
Nothing is achievable without talent, obviously.
You can tell that to several GM's, who have no problem to admit that they have no talent.
They surely know that they have a lot of talent, maybe less than other GMs. The chess players with no talent at all usually stop playing chess very early or are even unable to learn the rules properly (yes, that really occurs).
If you start playing chess at a very early age and you have a family rich enough to support your "hobby" the chances are that you will be GM either talented or not.
Especially today the title has become easier than ever especially in Europe.It was more difficult to become IM 30 years ago than GM today.That was also Khalifman's "complain" in a recent interview I read which I can't find though.
Well, the player in question is obviously talented enough to choose chess as a hobby, experienced enough early success to start studying hard, improved enough to see that she doesn't fall behind other kids off her age ... seems quite talented.
Let me repeat: there are people who literally are unable to learn the rules. Yes, we can agree that these people lack talent. GMs don't.
Have you evedr seen any 7 or 8 year old kid unable to learn the rules?Because I didn't.
Do not compare grown ups internet players with kids that train in chess clubs under the guidance of a good trainer.In a good chess club even the most uneducated player can become a descent player.I have seen a plumber becoming A-class player without spending even a minute in studying chess and although he started at very late age.
And that plumber likely had prodigious chess talenet. Just because he's a plumber doesn't mean he can process chess information at a high level.
And just because you were a Harvard-education genius, Rhodes scholar, or world-famous academic professor, doesn't mean at all you'll be even meagerly talent at chess if you take it up seriously. Odds are, actually, such folks would improve at the rate of an avg tournament player, meaning they're very unlikely to make even A class.
Chess ability is pretty specific. Sure, there are skills that cross over, like the ability to study for hours and memorize games/positions quickly, but for sure, top chess players have contributed as a whole very little to science, math, and other disciplines.
Have you evedr seen any 7 or 8 year old kid unable to learn the rules?Because I didn't.
</snip>
Yes, I have. He suffered from trisomy 21, which is likely the reason for his apparent lack of talent.
So a medical condition means lack of talent.
Interesting argument.
We can also assume than a kid in coma is very untalented in chess.
And , generally speaking ,being in coma means you are totally untalented in everything.
Talent is usually not considered a temporary condition, while coma at least may be. But that's not even the point.
If you don't think the person suffering from trisomy 21 lacks talent, I have to assume that you think that he's talented, though he is permanently unable to learn the rules. That's what I'd call an interesting argument.
Have you evedr seen any 7 or 8 year old kid unable to learn the rules?Because I didn't.
</snip>
Yes, I have. He suffered from trisomy 21, which is likely the reason for his apparent lack of talent.
So a medical condition means lack of talent.
Interesting argument.
We can also assume than a kid in coma is very untalented in chess.
And , generally speaking ,being in coma means you are totally untalented in everything.
Talent is usually not considered a temporary condition, while coma at least may be. But that's not even the point.
If you don't think the person suffering from trisomy 21 lacks talent, I have to assume that you think that he's talented, though he is permanently unable to learn the rules. That's what I'd call an interesting argument.
Medical conditions have nothing to do with talent.
If you don't accept that then you accept that "a person in permanent coma is untalented in everything".
I find that claim ridiculous and hilarious (at least).
But maybe it's just me.
If you find that ridiculous, you obviously (by elementary logic) accept that a person with trisomy 21 (let's stay with the simpler example) who is unable to learn the chess rules, is nevertheless talented at chess.
You choose what's ridiculous.
There are varying opinions among the comments, but I think it's nonsense when "super-GMs" say they have no talent. I agree that when everyone has equal talent in your circle then it doesn't matter anymore since that's the baseline. After that whoever puts in more work is the one who leads. But still it's just a matter of perspective, they're still much better than an average person.
On another note I wonder if there is some sort of a rule that can be tested for that will determine a maximum elo a specific person will be able to achieve. Like for example myself, I try to study with a comp and read some books here and there but nevertheless I just feel there is a limit on the depth at which I can see clearly, which is something around 6ply (3 moves) in midgame. I can try to push for 4, but on 5th move I lose track of which pieces are where. As far as I can tell that is something that cannot be improved. I just literally cannot keep that much info in working memory at the same time. I know lots of theory, I memorized a few dozen rather long lines, I know how to mate with bishop and knight etc. but I have never been able to drastically increase my score as I simply cannot plan the game beyond 3-4 moves. So therefore I must have reached my max right? So there must be some direct correlation there somewhere.
There are varying opinions among the comments, but I think it's nonsense when "super-GMs" say they have no talent. I agree that when everyone has equal talent in your circle then it doesn't matter anymore since that's the baseline. After that whoever puts in more work is the one who leads. But still it's just a matter of perspective, they're still much better than an average person.
On another note I wonder if there is some sort of a rule that can be tested for that will determine a maximum elo a specific person will be able to achieve. Like for example myself, I try to study with a comp and read some books here and there but nevertheless I just feel there is a limit on the depth at which I can see clearly, which is something around 6ply (3 moves) in midgame. I can try to push for 4, but on 5th move I lose track of which pieces are where. As far as I can tell that is something that cannot be improved. I just literally cannot keep that much info in working memory at the same time. I know lots of theory, I memorized a few dozen rather long lines, I know how to mate with bishop and knight etc. but I have never been able to drastically increase my score as I simply cannot plan the game beyond 3-4 moves. So therefore I must have reached my max right? So there must be some direct correlation there somewhere.
There's no test/formula to tell what is your chess potential. Few people would do what's necessary to reach it anyway.
However, if you're interested, in this old Levitt book, there are a couple of tests which have been tried by club players and GMs (mainly visualization - not tactics or pattern-related tests) The author gives the results, so you can compare with yours and see where you stand as far as 'raw ability' goes. I don't think it will give you any definite answer, but maybe an idea.
And visualization can be improved, but some people start with greater ability than others, that's true.
There isn't a 'rule', but for sure, if you just plot out people's tournament results, and look at the declining rate of improvement, as long as they've played enough games, you can usually find the asymptote, or the upper ceiling of which the curve will never surpass because the rate of improvement just keeps dropping right before they get there.
No you dont need Talent, you just need many hours of hard work and dedication. The problem isn't not having talent, but not having time in this world.
No, talent is absolutely required for GM level.
If you're talking becoming B or A class, sure, hard work will get most people there.
No talent = No GM.
"Outliers" by Malcolm Gladwell convincingly challenges the idea that "geniuses", in all walks of life, are somehow intrinsically special individuals. Hard work and practice, a supportive environment, education, birth date etc all have greater explanatory power than the vague concept of "natural talent"