Just because two things interact doesn't mean they are one in the same.
this is true and i agree completely but thishas nothing at all do with any of the points i have made in this thread
Its so crazy how good magnus is even when he was i think 13 he was? when he played gary kasparov and it was a draw!
I understand where you're coming from. But to be fair, you're comparing Mozart against Mozart at that point, when we should really be looking at Mozart's feats against others. Writing a symphony at age 8 is already amazing, when kids his age are just learning to play "Mary had a little lamb" on a recorder.
I'm not disputing that he displayed early promise. Lots of kids do (still a fraction). But of all child prodigies, most never amount to anything as adults. Achievement that is memorable stems from hard work. "Talent", if such a concept is even definable, may help, but it is not the critical factor.
Yeah, and at the Sinquefield Cup Maurice Ashley during an interview mentioned something about teaching Magnus about football and Magnus responded with he could teach Maurice a thing or two about chess! That was hilarious.
He has broken 3000 at the Sinquefield cup!
USCF but not FIDE (yet).
I've always wondered if chess players would make good defensive coordinators.
What's the deal with Carlsen and Aronian having uscf ratings based on 16 games? Where did the other 10 come from?
I guess if you measure it in dog years, Mozart was an adult when he wrote his first symphony lol.
He composed as a child, but did not compose works of note until he was an adult. That's my point.
It is important because the exceptional performance that he achieved was a consequence of hard work (not only his head start). Take only the skills he displayed at the age of six without a talent for hard work, we would not know his name.
Child genius + 10,000 hours of skill building = exceptional performance (and lasting fame)
If we are talking 10,000 hrs of work I'm fine with that. That isn't very much work....
Look at the butt loads of people with some degree of talent, who put in loads of hard work, yet don't even approach his level. The answer should be obvious.
Saying Carlsen, Fischer, Kasparov etc work hard is just saying go to resto for dinner, listen to the music everyday is a very hard work to do. It's hard if you have to pay.
It's like saying it's hard work for a mathematician to solve Fermat Theorem. Yes, it's hard for us who are not in the field. But for the mathematician it's breakfast, lunch and dinner served on table. Free of charge.
It's also a hard work to play online chess 3 hours a day and to comment on forum. Don't you think?
Some even leave their families to go to chess club to play chess all day and night. So playing chess is a very hard work. Don't you think?
Sorry, just 1 more example. It's like telling Carl Lewis to run 100 m in 11 secs. That's it. thanks.
Playing online chess for 3 hours definitely is hard work, but commenting on the forums isn't. For me commenting on the forums is like your analogy of a mathemetician solving the Fermat theorem (whatever that is).
When Kasparov was coaching Carlsen, he praised the kid's work ethic. They weren't sitting in a cafe playing blitz.
Fermat's Theorem is supposed to be very difficult, even for Mathematicians !