Forums

Queen's Gambit

Sort:
NikkiLikeChikki
NikkiLikeChikki
Closed: Inactive
Nov 25, 2020
0
#41
That’s one study. One. A more recent meta-analysis of all the literature on the subject showed otherwise.

Secondly, being able to master something and the facility with which you master it are two different things

Third, much of the intelligence measured by IQ doesn’t make its way into The kinds of intelligence that chess requires. Long term memory isn’t measured by IQ tests, nor is the ability to use that to access patterns.

Fourth, mastery is one thing. Ceiling is another. You can train forever and get to a level of mastery, but that doesn’t mean your ceiling isn’t lower than somebody else. Everyone trains as hard as Magnus and lots of people train harder. Many train much harder. What’s the difference in performance due to? Please tell me, I want to know. There is absolutely no direct one-to-one link between how high you get and how much you train.

Ask any coach in a sport and ask him or her to think about the past. Ask “is there someone who had amazing talent but just didn’t work hard enough to make it?” Almost all will say yes and start naming names. Some people are better with less work. Some people work really hard but never reach elite status.

You can’t just plug in training and hard work and say those are the only variables that matter. It’s just wrong.
kartikeya_tiwari
kartikeya_tiwari
Nov 25, 2020
0
#42
NikkiLikeChikki wrote:
That’s one study. One. A more recent meta-analysis of all the literature on the subject showed otherwise.

Secondly, being able to master something and the facility with which you master it are two different things

Third, much of the intelligence measured by IQ doesn’t make its way into The kinds of intelligence that chess requires. Long term memory isn’t measured by IQ tests, nor is the ability to use that to access patterns.

Fourth, mastery is one thing. Ceiling is another. You can train forever and get to a level of mastery, but that doesn’t mean your ceiling isn’t lower than somebody else. Everyone trains as hard as Magnus and lots of people train harder. Many train much harder. What’s the difference in performance due to? Please tell me, I want to know. There is absolutely no direct one-to-one link between how high you get and how much you train.

Ask any coach in a sport and ask him or her to think about the past. Ask “is there someone who had amazing talent but just didn’t work hard enough to make it?” Almost all will say yes and start naming names. Some people are better with less work. Some people work really hard but never reach elite status.

You can’t just plug in training and hard work and say those are the only variables that matter. It’s just wrong.

Doing consistent hard work is way harder than u think.  Sure, u join a good chess club, hire kasparov as a coach and work on chess... your enthuthiasm is through the roof, that's great... but how are you after 1 week? after 1 month? after 1 year? after 5 years? can u maintain the same intensity? almost no one can do that.  I always say, people miss out on the goals because success is BORING and u have to be boring for a LONG amount of time to succeed. Almost nobody can do that.

Speaking of magnus, i am sure having a chess father + a national chess coach  who introduced him to chess at like 3 years old plus having garry kasparov as your chess coach in your teen years had nothing to do with his success... it was just raw talent and the guy didn't have to memorize thousands of games

NikkiLikeChikki
NikkiLikeChikki
Closed: Inactive
Nov 25, 2020
0
#43
Kartikeya: nobody is saying culture doesn’t matter. Of course it matters. You’re making a foolish argument. The Soviets and Russians produced more masters because they had a larger pool to choose from, trained them with rigor, and made it important. I’m not saying cultural variables aren’t important, you just need to operationalize them into things you can measure. I’m also not saying that training doesn’t matter, because that would be stupid.

And yet we have Bobby Fischer. He didn’t have all that training and support that the Russians had, and yet he became the best in the world.

Seems to deny the efficacy of your argument that it’s only training. I mean it pretty much kills it, right?
kartikeya_tiwari
kartikeya_tiwari
Nov 25, 2020
0
#44
NikkiLikeChikki wrote:
Kartikeya: nobody is saying culture doesn’t matter. Of course it matters. You’re making a foolish argument. The Soviets and Russians produced more masters because they had a larger pool to choose from, trained them with rigor, and made it important. I’m not saying cultural variables aren’t important, you just need to operationalize them into things you can measure. I’m also not saying that training doesn’t matter, because that would be stupid.

And yet we have Bobby Fischer. He didn’t have all that training and support that the Russians had, and yet he became the best in the world.

Seems to deny the efficacy of your argument that it’s only training. I mean it pretty much kills it, right?

You made an argument which seemed to support the assertion which the other guy made that african descendants are genetically way superior in sprints... so going by your logic would you be consistent and agree that Caucasians are better at intelligence and chess right? since they dominate IQ tests and chess leaderboards.  Will you be consistent and say that, by that logic, indian people are genetically way superior in maths(specifically arithmetic?)... you see the problem? when u make one such assertion then u have to stand behind every such assertion and even one exception breaks apart your genetics theory. 

NilsIngemar
NilsIngemar
Nov 25, 2020
0
#45
kartikeya_tiwari wrote:
NikkiLikeChikki wrote:
Kartikeya: nobody is saying culture doesn’t matter. Of course it matters. You’re making a foolish argument. The Soviets and Russians produced more masters because they had a larger pool to choose from, trained them with rigor, and made it important. I’m not saying cultural variables aren’t important, you just need to operationalize them into things you can measure. I’m also not saying that training doesn’t matter, because that would be stupid.

And yet we have Bobby Fischer. He didn’t have all that training and support that the Russians had, and yet he became the best in the world.

Seems to deny the efficacy of your argument that it’s only training. I mean it pretty much kills it, right?

You made an argument which seemed to support the assertion which the other guy made that african descendants are genetically way superior in sprints... so going by your logic would you be consistent and agree that Caucasians are better at intelligence and chess right? since they dominate IQ tests and chess leaderboards.  Will you be consistent and say that, by that logic, indian people are genetically way superior in maths(specifically arithmetic?)... you see the problem? when u make one such assertion then u have to stand behind every such assertion and even one exception breaks apart your genetics theory. 

You are making false assumption based on a lack of training in statistics.

Nobody is saying every person in the US of African heritage is fast.

NikkiLikeChikki
NikkiLikeChikki
Closed: Inactive
Nov 25, 2020
0
#46
And if anyone thinks that Garry Kasparov can turn any fool into a world champion, then I can’t help you.

Did Garry just choose Magnus at random? Did he just wake up one day and think “I’m going to help out some random Norwegian kid?” Do you honestly believe that?

He chose to work with Magnus because the kid showed amazing acumen and promise—in a word, talent. He wouldn’t have wasted his time on me.
NikkiLikeChikki
NikkiLikeChikki
Closed: Inactive
Nov 25, 2020
0
#47
@kartikaya: I’ll give you one thing. You’re really good at mischaracterizing my arguments and twisting them into something they are not. One might dare to say that you have a talent for it.
kartikeya_tiwari
kartikeya_tiwari
Nov 25, 2020
0
#48
NikkiLikeChikki wrote:
And if anyone thinks that Garry Kasparov can turn any fool into a world champion, then I can’t help you.

Did Garry just choose Magnus at random? Did he just wake up one day and think “I’m going to help out some random Norwegian kid?” Do you honestly believe that?

He chose to work with Magnus because the kid showed amazing acumen and promise—in a word, talent. He wouldn’t have wasted his time on me.

"Any fool" - Again you are implying that chess has anything to do with intelligence... it does not.

Well your question is not hard to answer... why would someone choose to coach someone? think about it? give it a thought. You are about to coach someone for an year, about to share your knowledge, why would you do it?

NikkiLikeChikki
NikkiLikeChikki
Closed: Inactive
Nov 25, 2020
0
#49
Good lord. I suspect you’ve not read anything I’ve written.

The race argument wasn’t about race, it was about variability in talents. My argument from the start was that it’s silly to accept that there are physical differences between humans, but that me talk we all start out equal. That’s just preposterous.

Second, I’ve answered your intelligence argument many times and in great detail. Your assertion of no link is just false and the study you point to only superficially looks at the issue.

Third, if I were a coach and could choose anyone, it would be the one who demonstrated the most acumen and promise, not simply the one who worked the hardest.
kartikeya_tiwari
kartikeya_tiwari
Nov 25, 2020
0
#50
NikkiLikeChikki wrote:
Good lord. I suspect you’ve not read anything I’ve written.

The race argument wasn’t about race, it was about variability in talents. My argument from the start was that it’s silly to accept that there are physical differences between humans, but that me talk we all start out equal. That’s just preposterous.

Second, I’ve answered your intelligence argument many times and in great detail. Your assertion of no link is just false and the study you point to only superficially looks at the issue.

Third, if I were a coach and could choose anyone, it would be the one who demonstrated the most acumen and promise, not simply the one who worked the hardest.

You haven't answered "anything" in great detail at all. Show me your study from a psyhologist which proves that chess masters have higher intelligence than ordinary people.

I was the most average person ever who qualified an exam in my youth which had science as it's main focus(physics, psychology etc) along with general knowledge... Only 100 people had to be selected out of around 1.5 million in my country. The only reason i qualified it is because for 2 years i literally gave up everything and thought about nothing but science.  There was no intelligence involved. One thing which people forget is that as u get better things become a lot easier.  I was considered to be below average before that point and i was since i pretty much suck at science. However consistent hard work, correct training and tons of sacrifices got me through...  i just cannot accept that consistent hard work and total dedication + sacrifices won't let a man to his goal.  

Ok let me answer it for you. If you were as high quality coach as kasparov then u will be coaching for MONEY... he coached magnus for an year as he was likely being paid well (i think norway team was behind magnus?) I can't imagine the second best player in the history of chess to coach someone for free just because "oh so talented" ... they broke it off after 1 year on not such great terms i think. 

OldSociety
OldSociety
Nov 25, 2020
0
#51
This show really is my favorite of the year. Such an unexpected pleasure about an unexpected topic with strong drama. The characters are likeable and sympathetic from day one. Alma and Beth’s relationship in particular is such a delight.
Petike61
Petike61
Nov 25, 2020
0
#52

The best miniseries I have ever seen! It made me feel great and got me interested in chess.

Despite it is a bit "Hollywood" like the very end (no way they'd let her walk unguarded) it is very intelligently and respectfully written and directed with amazing acting even from the child actors. Look at e.g. the 1st minute of the 3rd episode. It is mind blowing how they could get that ~ 4 years old actress to express on her face so well what her character must have felt.

I've been recommending it to everyone I know and the feedback is very positive.

kartikeya_tiwari
kartikeya_tiwari
Nov 25, 2020
0
#53

It's directed very well but i just wish the story telling was a bit more realistic

zone_chess
zone_chess
Nov 25, 2020
0
#54
kartikeya_tiwari wrote:
brianchesscake wrote:

From an outsider perspective it may seem like many successful people had an easy path to the top, such as a nice childhood with supportive family, good mentors and coaches, and a disciplined hardworking mentality, but in reality everyone had to struggle in one way or another to have any worthwhile achievements in life. Depicting challenges and how a character overcomes them to triumph and reach an amazing goal is the foundation of solid drama. In Carlsen's case, a movie about him would have to be approached starting from how Norway, a country with zero chess culture, was able to grow a talented prodigy who went on to captivate the world with his genius.

The point is that u have to fix your mental issues like depression and mental turmoil FIRST before u can become successful. You can't carry mental baggage as a badge of honor and use it to get success. Read up maslow's hierarchy of needs.  Most drama makers go straight to the 4th level without even satisfying the 2nd level(or sometimes even the first level)

 

Uhm. Heard of Michael Jackson? Amy Winehouse? Jimi Hendrix? Mick Jagger? Define success.
You are relating to theory but that's not reality.

zone_chess
zone_chess
Nov 25, 2020
0
#55
kartikeya_tiwari wrote:

Saying that becoming a GM is harder than becoming a doctor is a flawed comparison. A better comparison would be that "becoming a GM is harder than becoming a top notch, famous doctor"  ...  and no matter what u think, becoming a great doctor is way, way harder than becoming a GM.

I simply do not believe that anyone who devotes their life to chess, gets special and correct training and works hard cannot become a GM. Do you have real life examples?

 

Several GMs mention that it requires playing from an early age onward to become a GM in later life. The brain processes things differently, it adds emotional valence. The brain becomes chess. Whereas learning to play chess later in life entails different motivations, which are not enough for the brain to achieve GM level. Play against a few 2600+ bots and you learn the difference in thinking between human and GM/superGM level chess - it's entirely a different, alien, world. And yes talent helps. It's just about the way the brain can be wired for it to become a chess computer.

And by the way Morphy was brilliant, a fact backed by any GM who you will ask. His top rating was 2743 elo according to chess metrics.

Are there any blunders he made you could point out?

zone_chess
zone_chess
Nov 25, 2020
0
#56
kartikeya_tiwari wrote:
NikkiLikeChikki wrote:
You know, you say you study psychology, but you make so many research design mistakes. First, there is a relationship between IQ and chess playing ability. It has been shown many times in studies.

Secondly, IQ and intelligence aren’t the same thing. It’s a proxy for intelligence that is more or less appropriate in a given situation. It has been shown many times that chess masters have better memories (not measured by IQ), and much better pattern recognition skills than average people. Prodigies show these skills at a very young age. As noted previously, prodigies visualize positions almost spontaneously without training while very young. This is not trained. Playing blindfolded is an extreme example of this that’s extremely difficult to learn, but some just see the board in their head like it’s second nature.

Jeez. All these arguments are just ridiculously bad and fly in the face of the science.

Adriaan de Groot, the Dutch chess master and psychologist, performed experiments on related topics in the 1940s through the 1960s. He discovered that amateurs and masters both evaluated chess positions to a similar degree of depth.

William Chase and Herbert Simon further expanded upon de Groot’s work and discovered that masters were no better than amateurs at remembering “scrambled” chess positions, but excelled at recalling “real” ones.

These studies and others indicate that, despite popular belief to the contrary, chess expertise requires chess-specific pattern recognition rather than the kind of rote memory many lay people assume chess masters possess.

"Although it is widely acknowledged that chess is the best example of an intellectual activity among games, evidence showing the association between any kind of intellectual ability and chess skill has been remarkably sparse. One of the reasons is that most of the studies investigated only one factor (e.g., intelligence), neglecting other factors relevant for the acquisition of chess skill (e.g., amount of practice, years of experience). The present study investigated the chess skill of 57 young chess players using measures of intelligence (WISC III), practice, and experience. Although practice had the most influence on chess skill, intelligence explained some variance even after the inclusion of practice. When an elite subsample of 23 children was tested, it turned out that intelligence was not a significant factor in chess skill, and that, if anything, it tended to correlate negatively with chess skill."

You can check the research paper here  (PDF) Does chess need intelligence? — A study with young chess players (researchgate.net)

As i said, chess is nothing but a skill. Being good at chess has NOTHING to do with being intelligent or having good memory. As mentioned above, random people were able to recollect "scrambled" (completely random placement of pieces in random boards) just as well as chess masters

 

Yes because scrambled positions don't mean anything. It would be rather dumb for the brain to be able to remember them isn't it?

You are mistaking generic intelligence for applied intelligence. What you call 'skill'. Of course chess is about intelligence man, it's about chess intelligence. The ability to anticipate, plan, generate alternatives, and make the strongest decision. That's intelligence.

And chess requires the ability to concentrate for long periods of time. That's another aspect of it that's just not for everyone. That's probably what defines 'talent' for a large part - the ability and willingness to concentrate for a prolonged period on a single problem set.

On topic I liked the Queen's Gambit but thought it could have gone a bit deeper chess-wise. The character Beth and her relationships were a bit drawn out too long, signature of any Netflix series, but it did portray the chess world (and probably the 60s) well.

kartikeya_tiwari
kartikeya_tiwari
Nov 26, 2020
0
#57
zone_chess wrote:
kartikeya_tiwari wrote:

Saying that becoming a GM is harder than becoming a doctor is a flawed comparison. A better comparison would be that "becoming a GM is harder than becoming a top notch, famous doctor"  ...  and no matter what u think, becoming a great doctor is way, way harder than becoming a GM.

I simply do not believe that anyone who devotes their life to chess, gets special and correct training and works hard cannot become a GM. Do you have real life examples?

 

Several GMs mention that it requires playing from an early age onward to become a GM in later life. The brain processes things differently, it adds emotional valence. The brain becomes chess. Whereas learning to play chess later in life entails different motivations, which are not enough for the brain to achieve GM level. Play against a few 2600+ bots and you learn the difference in thinking between human and GM/superGM level chess - it's entirely a different, alien, world. And yes talent helps. It's just about the way the brain can be wired for it to become a chess computer.

And by the way Morphy was brilliant, a fact backed by any GM who you will ask. His top rating was 2743 elo according to chess metrics.

Are there any blunders he made you could point out?

I don't care what a GM says since they would obviously highly oversell how tough something is... also we must remember that chess does not even have 1% of as tough a competition as a field like medical science.

Saying that being one of the world's elite surgeons is easier than becoming a GM is laughable

NilsIngemar
NilsIngemar
Nov 26, 2020
0
#58

Is it easy for me to bench press 275 pounds? Yes

Is it easy for me to run 2 miles in under 14 minutes? No

 

Is it easy for me to make a top score on a math test? Yes

 

Is it easy for me to score well on an English test? No

kartikeya_tiwari
kartikeya_tiwari
Nov 26, 2020
0
#59
zone_chess wrote:
kartikeya_tiwari wrote:
NikkiLikeChikki wrote:
You know, you say you study psychology, but you make so many research design mistakes. First, there is a relationship between IQ and chess playing ability. It has been shown many times in studies.

Secondly, IQ and intelligence aren’t the same thing. It’s a proxy for intelligence that is more or less appropriate in a given situation. It has been shown many times that chess masters have better memories (not measured by IQ), and much better pattern recognition skills than average people. Prodigies show these skills at a very young age. As noted previously, prodigies visualize positions almost spontaneously without training while very young. This is not trained. Playing blindfolded is an extreme example of this that’s extremely difficult to learn, but some just see the board in their head like it’s second nature.

Jeez. All these arguments are just ridiculously bad and fly in the face of the science.

Adriaan de Groot, the Dutch chess master and psychologist, performed experiments on related topics in the 1940s through the 1960s. He discovered that amateurs and masters both evaluated chess positions to a similar degree of depth.

William Chase and Herbert Simon further expanded upon de Groot’s work and discovered that masters were no better than amateurs at remembering “scrambled” chess positions, but excelled at recalling “real” ones.

These studies and others indicate that, despite popular belief to the contrary, chess expertise requires chess-specific pattern recognition rather than the kind of rote memory many lay people assume chess masters possess.

"Although it is widely acknowledged that chess is the best example of an intellectual activity among games, evidence showing the association between any kind of intellectual ability and chess skill has been remarkably sparse. One of the reasons is that most of the studies investigated only one factor (e.g., intelligence), neglecting other factors relevant for the acquisition of chess skill (e.g., amount of practice, years of experience). The present study investigated the chess skill of 57 young chess players using measures of intelligence (WISC III), practice, and experience. Although practice had the most influence on chess skill, intelligence explained some variance even after the inclusion of practice. When an elite subsample of 23 children was tested, it turned out that intelligence was not a significant factor in chess skill, and that, if anything, it tended to correlate negatively with chess skill."

You can check the research paper here  (PDF) Does chess need intelligence? — A study with young chess players (researchgate.net)

As i said, chess is nothing but a skill. Being good at chess has NOTHING to do with being intelligent or having good memory. As mentioned above, random people were able to recollect "scrambled" (completely random placement of pieces in random boards) just as well as chess masters

 

Yes because scrambled positions don't mean anything. It would be rather dumb for the brain to be able to remember them isn't it?

You are mistaking generic intelligence for applied intelligence. What you call 'skill'. Of course chess is about intelligence man, it's about chess intelligence. The ability to anticipate, plan, generate alternatives, and make the strongest decision. That's intelligence.

And chess requires the ability to concentrate for long periods of time. That's another aspect of it that's just not for everyone. That's probably what defines 'talent' for a large part - the ability and willingness to concentrate for a prolonged period on a single problem set.

On topic I liked the Queen's Gambit but thought it could have gone a bit deeper chess-wise. The character Beth and her relationships were a bit drawn out too long, signature of any Netflix series, but it did portray the chess world (and probably the 60s) well.

eh... the dude said that chess players have better memory which is proven false by the above test since chess players were not any better in memorizing nonsense positions than the average guy... ofcourse they would memorize possible, theoretical positions better but that's not because of memory, that's because of experience.

For example i can say that doctors have better memories than everyone else and i get them to memorize scrambled letter sequence to prove it... that will be a real test.... if i give the name of a medicine in that "scrambled letters" test (words are just scrambled letters after all) then ofcourse doctors would do better since they already know it. That will be a flawed test.

Also, Anders Ericsson studied chess "prodigies" and found that they were not any more intelligent than your average kid.


kartikeya_tiwari
kartikeya_tiwari
Nov 26, 2020
0
#60
NikkiLikeChikki wrote:
A blindfold simul.

One more thing i forgot to mention, Anders Ericsson, a swedish psychologist, studied chess "prodigies" and found that they aren't any more intelligent than your average kid... infact some of the recognized local prodigies scored LOWER in intelligence tests...   most of their chess skill came not from intelligence but from an irregular amount of time put into chess and hence embedding patters in their brains in short.