Pros and Cons of reading chess books

I am not any sort of a dictionary fan or worshipper that you call me a dictionary guy.The first time I included the word dictionary in my comments was when I corrected your given definitions of genius and talent.

And you replied"c'mon, a dictionary"

This not about dictionaries and all but simply about some words.Why did you say "cmon a dictionary?".Why not a dictionary. You gave some definitions that were wrong.That's it.i corrected it.Why not a dictionary,may I ask?

At last Peace my friend.

Why say "Oh c'mon, a dictionary?"

Firstly because these are not rare words, people already know the definitions. 

But mostly because people who resort to quoting dictionaries are usually subverting the thread of the conversation by drawing attention to the denotations of a word when the poster was using words in a colloquial sense and not as if they were writing a scientific paper.

In short, the value of words is the ideas they can express, not the carefully measured definitions found in some book.

Thank you!

Even now, trying to put facts in discussion about Chess, still, STILL, I'm the outlaw who dares to defy an dictionary, and now this is a thread about Semantics. 

For me, this is an example why people who use to memoryze opening books (just for example) still loose at chess (because we are talking here about chess, right?), and then they wonder how comes. The same syndrome. I'm done.

And if I can add something: any of you have read the links I provided? Or is enough the 50 words of the prestigious Cambridge Dictionary? Why tight your comprenhension of the world in two sentences when two hundred thousand proves otherwise?

 That's the problem. We were talking about concepts, not about words.

That's what I said... but seems I was too wordy in saying it.

 Now this is funny. I guess my english is biting my a**. I dont know who's fighting back my point anymore.

Not that deep :)

My point is the dictionary has a fixed and mistaken meaning in what we are talking about, because posterior investigations (and the same living people who are accepted as talents and genius) say that there is no such thing as chess talent and/or genius. And a thing I havent said is my definition (and the philosophy I use to work as chess coach) is taken from other sources, but proven with investigations and facts. There is no such thing as genetic talent (in chess or not) , only the work makes your day. I guess no one is going to read the links I have posted.

I think maybe the tone of what I said about the dictionary was the fire to start this deviated thread. I apologyze if it was offensive, it was not sarcasm, it was just amazement, but I have the gift to be missunderstood. Another language just makes it worst.

Anyway, my ideas still are there. The mea culpa didnt change anything. 

You're saying there's no such thing as talent and all skill comes from hard work?  I don't think so.  It may not be genetics but it's something.  Some people don't have to work as hard to understand things.

Is just your opinion, and it comes from the culture and general beliefs (and meaningful dicts ), not from facts. Of course, you can think anything you want, but if someone (just one!) read the links I will be a happy man. At least for today. And I have to leave, work call. See you my friends.

Yeah, some people don't have to work as hard as others - and if they do work as hard, they will be better.  If this were not true, I wouldn't have made varsity on the chess team as a freshman in high school having previously played just a few times with my dad. 

Certainly some people are better at memorizing things, pattern recognition, even time management.  These things can translate into a better chess game. 

Personally, I would guess that if you took all chess players as a whole, the biggest predictor for achievement in chess is the amount of work you put into the game.

That doesn't mean there's no such thing as talent.  Even between the three Polgar sisters who had the same genetics so to speak and the same training from an early age, you see Sofia never made GM and Judit made GM 5+ years before Susan.  If they were all forced to practice chess, why did one make GM so much earlier and one not make GM at all?

In the sister's own words, for Judit, chess came easier for her, she didn't have to work as hard... this is what her sisters said about her.

Besides, if it were only hard work it wouldn't make sense to have people like Karajakin who at 12 became a GM.  Even if he studied 8 hours a day five days a week from age 5 to 12 that's 20,000 hours.  You're telling me Sofia who studied from age 5 and played for 20 years studied less than Karajakin did before he was 12?  On average less than 3 hours a day for her?  I don't think so.

It's not a bias from my culture, it's so obvious that it's not even worth arguing :)

You guys are ruthless. Cut the kid some slack.

Just in case, I didnt mean your culture, I meant the culture in general, the kind of everyone believes, word of mouth, stories, music, history, religions, beliefs, ok? The culture that it comes even if you are not conceived yet. Not offense was intended.

In the case of polgars, is a know pattern: the training method was perfectioned, and Judith took (absorbed) the experience from the sisters and the better from the parents and gms whose assisted them. You can see it, the older was the less favoured, the middle did it better, and the last one, the little one, got everyone's knowledge (remember polgars sisters were an experiment since the conception; so, what are the chances to create a genius in a family predisposed to it?).

And the same as karjakin and all the little ones that are getting stronger early, that can be explained with the theory which postulates chess is a language. The technology, the internet, the easy way to get experience from them helps a lot to those dedicate time to play and develop. Just ask yourself, what have changed since the last century that it helps chess? huh?

I took no offense, I see what you mean now :)

The youngest of the Polgar's is the strongest, you're right.  I believe Judit was more talented (her sisters said the lessons were easier for her to solve ) but I also think as the youngest she worked harder.  Oldest children set their own pace in a way.  The younger ones look at how far behind they are and they don't think about the age difference, they just get motivated to improve.  So I also think Judit legitimately worked harder and had more motivation than her sisters.

Yes, there are younger GMs today than there were in the past.  I don't care so much that they're younger, today than 100 years ago, what I care about is some children today have the same access to knowledge and the same training but don't improve as far and don't improve as much as others.  I do think chess is a languge, and when some are better than other it seems like some are able to learn this language faster and better than others.

Ok, a 50 percent agreed, that's something! :)

what it happens with the language as we know it, it's not competitive as chess is. And about the first language: you are totally surrounded by it, and you get help, pasive or active, but constant help. That does not happen in chess, depends what you read, whom you play, who are guiding you. The biggest concentration of good chessplayers ever was in the old soviet union, and in that enviroment where almost anyone could speak chess, don't you think that environment is more able to produce goood chessplayers ("talents"). It doesnt ring a bell? All those people were the most talented on earth? (more than the hungarian who was trolling over here before?) Just a joke, magyar friend, hurra for Portisch!

So the conlusion is that there is no such thing as talent or genius.Einstein and Newton were lucky.

I am gonna dedicate all the time in the world to chess and soon defeat anand.

If that's the case with Karjakin why he isn't equal to Kasparov.What's the difference between Kasparov and the rest?

Amount of work?I don't think so.

Talent/Genius?There is no such thing in the world.

and brazil somehow creates all the most "naturally talented" (who are playing at a very young age, many in bare feet, ALL the time)players in the world. They are immersed in it.

The phillipinos create many of the greatest pool players in the world. I have been told that a b player over there plays like a semi pro in the states (equivalent of expert in chess probably). And probably to a large part for the same reason of the polgars

I think someone sort of alluded to it. But, not sure if this was exactly what they meant. But, the oldest polgar sister not only didn't have anyone else to learn from. But, she didn't have anyone else to push her. That is what makes great athletes great. The bulls pistons made jordan into a superstar instead of just a great scorer/player. Dirk taking over makes him a superstar while we are all questioning whether lebron can be THE guy. But, I think this series helped lebron. We will have to see. Ali frazier was what really made ali into a sperstar. At the high level in anything u have to have strong opposition to constantly push u to the next level. u have 2 options playing that hi level comp-get better or keep losing/start losing when everyone else gets better

A strong sport culture (be it football or chess) doesn't create talent, but allows people who do have talent to put in the work needed to be great.

Listen to yourselves, if there were no such thing as talent then all the ball players in Brazil would be equally good.  But of course that's not true.  Only the best get to play on the national team.

It takes both talent and hard work.

This thread would be much more readable if people would delete all those nested quotes when they reply. Just the last comment is sufficient.