Secret of Studying Style of B.Fischer

Here's an interesting example...Jonathan Hawkins, now 28 years old, one of the strongest players in Britain and well on his way to earning his GM title. But throughout his teens and early twenties, he was a (relatively) average chessplayer...he was 145 BCF(1800~ FIDE) in 2001. What's more likely?...that Jonathan's innate talent was just a little slow to kick in? Or that he decided to stop f**king about and start working hard toward a goal?

http://grading.bcfservices.org.uk/getref.php?ref=174270L http://ratings.fide.com/id.phtml?event=412686

It's nice to see stories like that

---

Again, you're the one throwing about absolutist statements; most of us are sensible enough to develop a conceptual framework flexible enough to accommodate both the effects of hard work and the benefits of natural aptitude.

As a chess teacher, and a person who has been around chess tournaments for more than 15 years, I can say that talent DEFINITELY exists. One just cannot not notice it. This does not diminish the vaue of hard work in any way. I am not talented at playing chess. I know many people who worked MUCH less than I did, but achieved more. The light bulb just didn't light up for me the way it did for others. I have wored with some famous coaches, but it doesn't help that much. My goal is to eventually become a 2500 GM, and the only reason I have a chance at this is that my job gives me time to study that most people do not have. I improve slowly, but I do improe. I know a guy, he was a friend. Of mine, who worked WAY less on chess than I have (reading only a few books while I have read hundreds), hasn't played more than a dozen tournaments in the past decade (while I play often), has never had a strong coach, and yet is only 100 points lower than me. If I had his talent, I would be 2300 now.

Was there something you wanted to prove with this statistics? It looks like a normal progress rate, regardless of talent and hard work.

Andre_Harding, your statement seems a bit strong and presumptuous, don't you think?

One of the problems with talking about talent is first of all, trying to define it biologically -- are "talented chess players" just programmed differently? I remember when I was 8, 9 years old and I wanted to improve in the game. I would go through the motions, doing a couple lessons here and there. But you know what? It frankly wasn't good enough. My methods just weren't mature and disciplined enough. I stayed at about 1000-1100 level for about 5 years straight. Then all of a sudden I improve hundreds of points in a few years. But what happened? Did the talent just magically appear when I was 13? Something I did notice was the way I approached to chess study and improvement correlated quite directly with higher ratings in this case.

You can study chess diligently, but you also have to study it the right way. Finding that right way -- and sticking to it -- is a great challenge, that if not met can mean years of study time with little of the improvement.

---

 Just go to the library.

Elubas, it's true that for a long time I didn't study in the most efficient ways, and I do pick up things and integrate them into my play, but it takes me a long time to do so. Some people just pick things up much faster.

But maybe I am wrong, at least in regards to myself...

One of my past coaches, who has created 9 Grandmasters (two of them over 2650 Elo), told me that I have "great knowledges" (English is not his first language), and that I have more knowledge than some of his students 2300-2400. But they have, as he always reminded me, more confidence than I. It's a problem from childhood...

But I cannot play at a high level consistently. Two or three times a month I can play a game at an IM level (according to my coaches), and I have won dozens of internet games against IMs...but in the "real world" (tournament play) I only came close to beating an IM once, though I am close to 50% against FMs. One of the FMs I beat became an IM a few months after I defeated him. Only once did I defeat a GM in an internet game.

When do I play my best games? When I forget to think so much!! Unfortunately, this is rare :-)

That's true: #1 We have to work hard, #2 We have to work in the right way

Once we have done both, if there is still a limiting factor, it is #3 We have to have sufficient potential or talent.

No need a great talent to become a GM, but an IQ below 60 surely won't do it.

---

But, how will I know who to read without my betters telling me who is worthy?

---

 My point is that for someone who learned the game at 8 years old and was playing competitively from 11 years old, you would expect his innate talent to have manifested in some way by the age of 18.

I started playing a year ago. In another year I will be 1800+ without a shadow of a doubt. But I wouldn't call myself talented...and certainly not hard working. So if someone (and many do) can just pick up the game and go from 0 to 1800+ within 2 years, why did it take someone innately talented like Hawkins 10 years to break that barrier? And how, in the following 10 years did he go from an average 1800 to GM strength?

Here, this is what "talent" should look like:

http://ratings.fide.com/id.phtml?event=24116068

http://ratings.fide.com/id.phtml?event=5202213

Oh, okay. You didn't mention his history prior to 18. But still, I don't know his complete background to conclude anything (And I'm pretty sure that to me there will be no anomaly there).

One important factor to improve at chess is the way or method we do our hard work. At higher level, the chance to meet those who know the right way of training is bigger than when you are at lower level (Same logic for level of competition).

At 1800 you might seek for help from a GM. At 1400 you might think that a 1900 is more than enough, but that is wrong. You don't need a coach that can teach you mere opening guidelines, you need a coach that can show you the right track to progress effectively and quickly (and this is rarely known by lower level coach).

I don't believe you can achieve 1800+ within a year starting from 0. Usually people tend to say that they start to study seriously a year ago. But that also is too subjective or fuzzy.

 

Beside the "way of training" reason mentioned previously, there is another possibility...

Chess contains very huge knowledge and skill aspects, especially when we are talking about GM level. At GM level, all of these aspects are mandatory. You cannot for example, very good at positional play but so lousy at tactics. And vise versa.

Note that, being very good at principles, strategy and positional chess, will bring you nowhere at sub 1800 level if your tactics is lousy. But the opposite is untrue. You can be a strong player at sub 1800 just by tactics alone (even if your positional knowledge is so poor). The question is will you become a GM with such imbalance in skill and knowledge? Of course not. So, what does this tell us?

There might be 2 shapes of progress chart to arrive at a GM rating.

1) The first section is so lean (because you study things that do not improve your OTB performance) but then after you complete your skill and knowledge, the last section of the graphic will rise steeply.

2) The first section is so steep (because you study skills that directly improve your OTB performance) but then you need longer time to complete all the other skill and knowledge.

{Note that I believe that there should be a better, an optimum way between those two above}.

Those 2 types of progressing is actually not something new. When you look at the way people understand things, you may see that one type take a long time to understand things, but then when they can connect things together, they suddenly understand much better than those who can understand faster at the beginning.

The first type is usually those who tend to focus on details, while the second type is usually those who tend to focus on the global view. Both have merit.

---

First, I don't think anyone here has presented themselves that way. And, as someone who does teach (non-chess subjects) quite a bit, I'll confess to not knowing a single instructor in any field who thinks of themselves that way. Indeed, the opposite is true in my experience. The vast majority of instructors I know spend a great deal of time and effort trying to figure out how to be better at what they do.

No one I know teaches for the ego boost. They teach because they sincerely want to impart knowledge and ability to others in areas that interest themselves. They get a kick out of successfully sharing their own joys and passions with their students.

Now, certainly there are some bad teachers out there. There are plenty of people who shouldn't be teaching plenty of subjects. And in that group you will find the occassional egotist who insists that everything they do is good and right and perfect. But those people aren't posting in this thread. Or if they have, they aren't presenting themselves according to your uncharitable mischaracterization.

Second, there is scientific study of pedagogical techniques and educational systems. And you know what -- there is known variability amongst students for their capacity and rate of informational intake. In otherwords, their talent for a subject.

One big area of research currently is the effect of culture on some abilities related to the educational environment. For example, there is a known disparity in standardized test scores based on race, ethnicity and socioeconomic factors. There is signficant evidence to suggest that some cultural backgrounds produce kids who are simply poor test takers and other cultural backgrounds produce better test takers. In other words, by the time they get to school, they've developed a talent for test taking.

Which, btw, says nothing about anything other than the ability to take a standardized test -- which is as much about esoteric skills like time management and answer-guessing as it is about knowlege.

And that is something that is scientifically measurable.

---

 Fischers talent was love for chess and 10 years of playing and studying chess daily for 10 hrs a day---that was his talent.

Bobby once told a friend that even when he is not conciously thinking about chess---he believes his subconcious is thinking chess. So---he may have been involved with chess 24 hrs a day! 

I agree to truly axcell at this game you must invest time in it, and as fisher said it "best by test" to know which move is best it must be studied over and over.  I began studing the french about 4 months ago and have practiced this opennib now for around 1000 games.  Yesterday in an across the board I used it and destroyed my opponent - this did not happen because I have some brain others don't it happended because of the time I invested in my study.  I will not be content until I can contest experts with it.  Good article, helps me to realize I am on the right track.

The good of Fischer's chess study:    Natural talent yes,  worked VERY hard yes.   Both admirable

The bad of Fischer's study :   Making chess a higher priority than a balanced life even when he had achieved true chess greatness, and his general life skills were obviously poor, but did not have to be insurmountable. 

"Bobby Fischer did not have private chess coaches"

Yes he did Jack Collins coached him and Bill Lombardy.

The secret is to enjoy chess.

 

Just as most people enjoyed socialising, so he enjoyed chess.

Fisher knew the value of gaining any kind of edge, holding it and then using your advantage to tear apart your oponents structure like knowone else. Ideas like maintaining the tention, force moves do to overwhelming complications these things lead to many victories. These things lead to the destuction of your enemy, but to understand them you most study until they become second nature.  We all know that if you can exploit any advantage even just one the chances of your oponent beating you deminish greatly.

Just to blur things a little further, there is a talent for hard work.  Some people can naturally dedicate themselves to a goal and are able to concentrate harder than others.