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.
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 :)
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!
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
If we just nest a couple more iterations deeper, it will turn into a cool geometric pattern.
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.
and u assume they are not the hardest workers-with the best available resources/coaching(not saying they are but that is your assumption which is not necessarily true and probably wrong imop). Peyton manning is one of the most talented players in the nfl. Wait, he had an nfl qb for a dad that could teach him the ropes and all anyone ever talks about is how hard the man works. Marshall faulk was one of the most talented rb's in the nfl who was also said to know not only where he was supposed to be on the field but also where everyone else is. The thing u all are missing is to get to the elite level (I would call that pros-maybe expert level in chess) u have to put in work. But, u don't necessarily have to have elite level talent. Ever heard of the most "talented" basketball player in the world? MJ don't even need the name. Sure we all know he didn't even make his high school bsktbll team 1st time he tried. Talent? How bout some insane drive and competitive spirit?
How bout most successful composer?
mozart? Well, if you consider a man naturally talented who didn't have his first success until over ten years of practice composing with the help of a father who helped him write his first composition (which wasn't considered great)