Secret of Studying Style of B.Fischer - Chess Forums - Page 3

theoreticalboy

Oct 11, 2011

0

#41

bigpoison wrote:

Man! that was funny!

You're tired of lies, yet you assert talent is a myth.

Yes, david seems to be missing the point that his scientific absolutism is as ludicrous as any absolutism that says talent is all there is.

This "magic number" of study is clearly hokum. Had Mozart put in that much study when he was touring Europe at 6 years old?

Saying someone is better suited to learning certain skills is not the same as saying they have some magical distribution of talent, and I have no idea why anyone would distort the argument in such a way.

Michael355

Oct 11, 2011

0

#42

Reb wrote:

I suggest you try teaching chess to kids and get back to us . Try explaining opposition , weak squares , holes etc in chess to say a group of kids and see how quickly they will grasp these concepts at the same depth of understanding in the same amount of instruction. If it makes you feel better you can choose only kids from the same geographical area if you like, same age, same sex ..... whatever... just do it. I hate to inform you but your God ( science ) can't answer all questions. What then ?

You mean then your god (the tooth fairy upstairs) by default is the answer to your dillema...and to all the other unanswered questions we might have in the future? very logical indeed.

bigpoison

Oct 11, 2011

0

#43

Holy rollers and God haters...is there a difference?

yusuf_prasojo

Oct 11, 2011

0

#44

raul72 wrote:

Yusuf I have a question for you---what is talent and how do you show you have talent? Maybe it is just hard work and love of chess that gets you to the top.

Forget about talent. To do simple thing such as moving, you need effort (such as work). To do complex thing such as playing the piano beside effort you need potential (such as IQ, or whatever people like to put here doesn't matter). When the thing to be accomplished required too much effort, you need motivation (such as love).

Be sincere to yourself and find answer that closely solve the following simplified equation (or propose your own):

GM Result = a % Effort + b % Motivation + c % Potential.

A) a=95, b=4.9 c=0.1

B) a=90, b=9.999 c=0.001

C) a=85, b=14.9999999999, c=0.0000000001

D) a=85, b=15, c=0

raul72 wrote:Yusuf how did Fischer show you he had talent at 6 or 7 or 8 0r 9 or 10 or 11 ? Describe how you knew he had talent. Please be sincere---nobody likes a smart a## !

Talented people (or change that into people who has special ability) can be seen. You can see it clearly when you talk to somebody 40 IQ points lower than yourself. IQ is not talent, but it represents one's potential to achieve things.

Psychologically talented people are also different. If you play a player 300 rating point lower than yourself, you will have confident. If you have to play a player 300 rating point higher, you will show inferiority complex.

If Fischer was not talented, he would have not shown confidence, he would give up easily. Just give yourself a target that you think/know you cannot achieve, how will you behave? This is why we have psychologists in our Human Resources departments.

theoreticalboy

Oct 11, 2011

0

#45

Back in the 80s, music journalists used to ask the members of Sonic Youth where they studied guitar; they confessed to making up stuff to satisfy the criteria of the interviews, when it actuality they learned to play as they went along. I wonder how many hours of study it would take me to learn to write something as daring and fresh as Teen Age Riot?

cabrego

Oct 11, 2011

0

#46

OMG!@

Arctor

Oct 11, 2011

0

#47

theoreticalboy wrote:

bigpoison wrote:

Man! that was funny!

You're tired of lies, yet you assert talent is a myth.

This "magic number" of study is clearly hokum. Had Mozart put in that much study when he was touring Europe at 6 years old?

Mozart's father was a composer who was obsessive about teaching his children music from a very young age. So what do you reckon, do you think Mozart had put in more study by age 6 than his "untalented" peers?

As for Sonic Youth...one mans gold is another mans garbage

AndTheLittleOneSaid

Oct 11, 2011

0

#48

theoreticalboy wrote:

bigpoison wrote:

Man! that was funny!

You're tired of lies, yet you assert talent is a myth.

Yes, david seems to be missing the point that his scientific absolutism is as ludicrous as any absolutism that says talent is all there is.

This "magic number" of study is clearly hokum. Had Mozart put in that much study when he was touring Europe at 6 years old?

Saying someone is better suited to learning certain skills is not the same as saying they have some magical distribution of talent, and I have no idea why anyone would distort the argument in such a way.

Is it not?

NM TheOldReb

Oct 12, 2011

0

#49

Uhhhmm...... strange things happen when debating certain subjects. I have not mentioned anything about where " talent " comes from and yet people bring God into the mix . I have not brought up race or said anything even slightly sexist and yet people seem to be attacking me in both these areas as well. It seems to me that there are several people here who need to work on their reading comprehension as well as their manners. Just because you disagree with someone is no reason to insult and get personal and jump to conclusions about people you have never even met and may never meet. Its a real pain when arguing with the " politically correct " people because they definitely do NOT practice what they preach. We are NOT all equal in every area of life , if you think we are I can only feel sorry for you.

PeterHyatt

Oct 12, 2011

0

#50

I taught my two little ones chess. Both are excellent students with her grades higher than his.

Boy: Loves sports, math. Reading can be a chore.

Girl: 2 years old, loves school, creative writing and reading books all day long. Math is a struggle.

After a summer of playing and recording their games, the younger boy (loves math) was untouchable by his sister. Mates in 2, for example, were easy for him.

His older sister stares at the same puzzles...

One appears to me to be more talented than the other.

I used to play chess against my best friend before moving. We played each other regularly, several games per week, year after year. Very even.

He did not own a chess book.

I studied hard, and when I brought, for example, a 'new' aspect learned, like finding a good outpost for the knight, I would beat him a few times, he would pick up the new aspect, apply it, and then even the score with me. This went on for years.

He appeared to have chess talent and new things came easy for him when he saw them, but for me, it meant more struggle.

I think he has chess talent and I don't. He loves math and I hate it. I love poetry and literature, and he shruggs his shoulders and says, "I don't get it."

Do these two samples highlight natural talent?

Michael355

Oct 12, 2011

0

#51

Reb, This is ONLY SOME of your quotes:

"Others arent so secure..."

"whats your problem ? Are you in Atlanta or Milan ? "

"I hate to inform you but your God ( science ) can't answer all questions."

"You obviously have little life experience."

...and then "strange things seem to happen and people attacking me for no reason."....right :) excuse us if we wrongfully replied to you back.

intrepidattack

Oct 12, 2011

0

#52

Reb wrote:

Uhhhmm...... strange things happen when debating certain subjects. I have not mentioned anything about where " talent " comes from and yet people bring God into the mix . I have not brought up race or said anything even slightly sexist and yet people seem to be attacking me in both these areas as well. It seems to me that there are several people here who need to work on their reading comprehension as well as their manners. Just because you disagree with someone is no reason to insult and get personal and jump to conclusions about people you have never even met and may never meet. Its a real pain when arguing with the " politically correct " people because they definitely do NOT practice what they preach. We are NOT all equal in every area of life , if you think we are I can only feel sorry for you.

You nailed it earlier, when dealing with Chess IQ is a dominant factor (and if we're trying to be specific one's mathematical ability and spatial visualization abilities).

No matter how hard I work at the game I'll never reach that 2500+ level since my brain isn't wired that way (not that I'm working very hard now though); likewise my literal genius is both intrapersonal & linguistic.

There are distinct types of intelligence, guess which ones the elite players are strongest and weakest in?

Linguistic and verbal intelligence: good with words
Logical intelligence: good with math and logic
Spatial intelligence: good with pictures
Body/movement intelligence: good with activities
Musical intelligence: good with rhythm
Interpersonal intelligence: good with communication
Intrapersonal intelligence: good with analyzing things
Naturalist intelligence: good with understanding natural world

Some of the posters here are totally ignoring how high Fischer's IQ was expected to be, what do you think were his strong points? Seriously...

I'm curious if personality type matters as well as I'd expect INTJs to perform on average at a higher level than any other personality types.

Harvard University's Howard Gardner "Theory of Multiple Intelligences" goes into great detail about this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences

intrepidattack

Oct 12, 2011

0

#53

davidegpc wrote:

theoreticalboy wrote:

bigpoison wrote:

Man! that was funny!

You're tired of lies, yet you assert talent is a myth.

Yes, david seems to be missing the point that his scientific absolutism is as ludicrous as any absolutism that says talent is all there is.

This "magic number" of study is clearly hokum. Had Mozart put in that much study when he was touring Europe at 6 years old?

Saying someone is better suited to learning certain skills is not the same as saying they have some magical distribution of talent, and I have no idea why anyone would distort the argument in such a way.

Again distorted anecdotal reference to feel right, instead of examining FACTS!

Did Mozart come from a family of musicians or a family of peasants? They were musicians, so what do you think they were doing during the day?

Let me help you: Music!

At night? Music. So Mozart absorbed music from his parents, relatives, brothers.

There is no talent in it, if you are exposed to something as a kid you will learn it, that is proven by science. In fact why do you think they takes kids to teach them violin, piano, or chess? Why they don't take an adult?

We also know the answer to that. Not thanks to the mythical talent, but to the fact that the young brain can wire itself to learn that topic in a way an adult would not be able to.

If talent would exist, then hey get a group of 50 years old, train them for 10 years, and see how many can become GMs, while we also know the numbers for children doing that. Again, like in another thread on chess and talent, many variables have been explained to the believers of the pink unicorn, but they never give up! They just change thread and spread the same old stuff over and over.

You need to study the heritability of giftedness...

Michael355

Oct 12, 2011

0

#54

davidegpc wrote:

theoreticalboy wrote:

bigpoison wrote:

Man! that was funny!

You're tired of lies, yet you assert talent is a myth.

Yes, david seems to be missing the point that his scientific absolutism is as ludicrous as any absolutism that says talent is all there is.

This "magic number" of study is clearly hokum. Had Mozart put in that much study when he was touring Europe at 6 years old?

Saying someone is better suited to learning certain skills is not the same as saying they have some magical distribution of talent, and I have no idea why anyone would distort the argument in such a way.

Again distorted anecdotal reference to feel right, instead of examining FACTS!

Did Mozart come from a family of musicians or a family of peasants? They were musicians, so what do you think they were doing during the day?

Let me help you: Music!

At night? Music. So Mozart absorbed music from his parents, relatives, brothers.

There is no talent in it, if you are exposed to something as a kid you will learn it, that is proven by science. In fact why do you think they takes kids to teach them violin, piano, or chess? Why they don't take an adult?

We also know the answer to that. Not thanks to the mythical talent, but to the fact that the young brain can wire itself to learn that topic in a way an adult would not be able to.

If talent would exist, then hey get a group of 50 years old, train them for 10 years, and see how many can become GMs, while we also know the numbers for children doing that. Again, like in another thread on chess and talent, many variables have been explained to the believers of the pink unicorn, but they never give up! They just change thread and spread the same old stuff over and over.

+1

bigpoison

Oct 12, 2011

0

#55

Do you realize how incredibly rude it is to tell someone they "need to go to University?"

It's pompous and condescending, too.

I've been to Uni. and I've been outdoors. P'raps, you should try the latter.

trysts

Oct 12, 2011

0

#56

davidegpc wrote:

Girls learn to talk before boys. Is it talent? No, science discovered, thanks to experiments, that is the level of hormones in the womb. Does it mean that 100% of girls learn to talk before boys??? NO! Again learn statistics, and you will discover there is nothing working 100% of the time, we make reasonable predictions, and do have outliers.

You should probably learn the difference between "association", and "cause".

Michael355

Oct 12, 2011

0

#57

trysts: Get a life, and no you're not intelligent and neither funny.

IpswichMatt

Oct 12, 2011

0

#58

davidegpc wrote:

I advised Reb, just go to the nearest library, and the librarian will help you to grow out of those beliefs.

Hey Reb - the librarian should be easy to find, he'll be the guy throwing away all the books on chess strategy.

NM TheOldReb

Oct 12, 2011

0

#59

IpswichMatt wrote:

davidegpc wrote:

I advised Reb, just go to the nearest library, and the librarian will help you to grow out of those beliefs.

Hey Reb - the librarian should be easy to find, he'll be the guy throwing away all the books on chess strategy.

gabrielconroy

Oct 12, 2011

0

#60

This argument seems extremely facetious to me.

If people are arguing that 'talent' is too vague and nebulous a concept to be useful without further qualification, then I'd agree. But if people are trying to assert that there is no such thing as one person having a greater natural aptitude for a given task than another, and that all there is to it is hard work, then I'd say that is clearly false.

Which is it?