Forums

What did it take for you to get your title?

Sort:
Niven42
Niven42
Sep 24, 2010
0
#41

 The moment you start believing something is when reason goes out the window.  Too much of this thread is "I believe this" and "I believe that", when a lot of it is what I like to call "established dogma".  We are taught to believe that because of one study done on a subject, the results aren't possible.  While the math involved would tend to back-up the viewpoint of a statistical impossibility, if you stick to pure reason, you can accomplish anything within that reasoning.

Natalia_Pogonina
WGM Natalia_Pogonina Show your flair!
Sep 24, 2010
0
#42
hicetnunc wrote:
chessroboto wrote:

This discussion about "talent" has made the word into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

If you're a Master now, you must have talent.
If you want to become a Master, you will need talent.
If you do not become a Master, you do not have talent at all or your talent is not enough.

I still have to meet an IM, whom people describe as "moderately talented but a very hard worker". But maybe there are some 

 Talent is relative. I've often heard people refer to some 2700-level players as "he's hard-working, but doesn't have the talent". Laughing

VLaurenT
VLaurenT
Show your flair!
Sep 25, 2010
0
#43

Honestly, for those who have doubts about chess talent, just take a seat in an open blitz championship or go there and observe top players. Or have a look at Nakamura's play on ICC...

But I agree everything is relative : I'm talking from the average club player's perspective, not the chess pro.

Bugnotaur
Bugnotaur
Show your flair!
Sep 25, 2010
0
#44
Observing nakamuras blitz games is definitely enlightening. Seeing 63+ moves each in a minute game is riddiculously enlightening. Watching in real time is sick.
trysts
trysts
Closed: Inactive
Sep 25, 2010
0
#45
hicetnunc wrote:
chessroboto wrote:
hicetnunc wrote:

...but I still can detect talent for chess in a child, and many other trainers can do that too 

In your perspective as a trainer, can you tell us the difference between chess talent in a child vs talent in a novice adult or even a young person?

Basically a child is talented in chess when :

he grasps things quicker than the others, and is able to use immediately what he learns (I've seen the case very often with 5-7 yo. you show them a mating pattern in a classroom setting and then you give them a bunch of exercises with the same pattern and they're able to solve everything, even moderately difficult examples, while some of their friends struggle to reproduce the basic pattern) he has a greater ability to focus when he plays

I think the same would apply with a young adult, but it's more difficult to see what an adult understands or not, if only because adults are more reluctant to tell you they don't get your explanations

nice post

chessroboto
chessroboto
Sep 25, 2010
0
#46
hicetnunc wrote:

Basically a child is talented in chess when:

he grasps things quicker than the others, and is able to use immediately what he learns; he has a greater ability to focus when he plays

I think the same would apply with a young adult, but it's more difficult to see what an adult understands or not, if only because adults are more reluctant to tell you they don't get your explanations

Basically children and young adults could possibly understand the same chess ideas /concept immediately, but the difference is the difficulty in getting feedback due to honesty?

However you did not mention how the young adults were able to reproduce the checkmating patterns that some of the children were easily able to and revealed their natural aptitude for chess. Those types of tests could show whether they got it or not even without asking them for explanations.

VLaurenT
VLaurenT
Show your flair!
Sep 25, 2010
0
#47
chessroboto wrote:
hicetnunc wrote:

Basically a child is talented in chess when:

he grasps things quicker than the others, and is able to use immediately what he learns; he has a greater ability to focus when he plays

I think the same would apply with a young adult, but it's more difficult to see what an adult understands or not, if only because adults are more reluctant to tell you they don't get your explanations

Basically children and young adults could possibly understand the same chess ideas /concept immediately, but the difference is the difficulty in getting feedback due to honesty?

However you did not mention how the young adults were able to reproduce the checkmating patterns that some of the children were easily able to and revealed their natural aptitude for chess. Those types of tests could show whether they got it or not even without asking them for explanations.

True, but I don't work the same way with young adults for various reasons : they usually are already regular players, so don't need to be taught the basics like the children, I work with them individually rather than with classes, so I don't have the same sample size, and I usually don't test them like I test young children (ie. I give exercises, but we don't solve them together).

However, I can still observe a similar pattern : some are able to grasp things quicker than others and use their acquired knowledge easily.

There are also some talent tests available, tools for measuring pattern recognition, such as Knight mazes for example. Jonathan Levitt wrote a book on that subject a long time ago.

VLaurenT
VLaurenT
Show your flair!
Sep 25, 2010
0
#48

For people curious about it, here is one of Levitt's talent tests :

"Put a white Knight on b1 and a black queen on d4 - you're moving the white Knight, while the black queen doesn't move. You must visit all the squares which are NOT controlled by the black queen in that order : c1, e1, f1, h1, a2, c2, e2, etc. till g8. You are not allowed to take the black queen, nor to put your Knight en prise at any stage."

Time yourself, than repeat the test once after a short pause and time yourself again.

People interested can try this for themselves (don't expect to do it in 3 minutes though : it may take some time Smile). I'll post Levitt's benchmarks in a couple of days.

Conflagration_Planet
Conflagration_Planet
Sep 25, 2010
0
#49

How about the knight tour?

TongLen
TongLen
Sep 25, 2010
0
#50

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrH-tcDTU48

alekhine was on the "talent" side of the discussion :)

just stumpled upon this historic interview and i thought it kinda fits into this discussion.

chessroboto
chessroboto
Sep 25, 2010
0
#51
TongLen wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrH-tcDTU48

alekhine was on the "talent" side of the discussion :)

just stumpled upon this historic interview and i thought it kinda fits into this discussion.

Does anyone else notice the smugness in Alekhine's voice?

orangehonda
orangehonda
Sep 25, 2010
0
#52
TheExplorer wrote:
orangehonda wrote:

An interesting question, but I wonder if most answers will be not too thrilling.

e.g. "I've read 50+ chess books cover to cover, I've spent 10,000+ hours training, and I play regularly in (real) tournaments."

What is your fide rating?

?  What does my rating have to do with me speculating that titled players have put in a lot of work Tongue out

VLaurenT
VLaurenT
Show your flair!
Sep 25, 2010
0
#53
woodshover wrote:

How about the knight tour?

Knight tour is another of these 'talent tests'

VLaurenT
VLaurenT
Show your flair!
Sep 25, 2010
0
#54
orangehonda wrote:
TheExplorer wrote:
orangehonda wrote:

An interesting question, but I wonder if most answers will be not too thrilling.

e.g. "I've read 50+ chess books cover to cover, I've spent 10,000+ hours training, and I play regularly in (real) tournaments."

What is your fide rating?

?  What does my rating have to do with me speculating that titled players have put in a lot of work

I suspect the titled players have spent 1000' of hours working, even more playing, but haven't read many books Tongue out

orangehonda
orangehonda
Sep 25, 2010
0
#55
tonydal wrote:

I'm not much for this "talent tests" business. Reminds me of soccer juggling vis a vis actually being able to play the game. Probably there is a correlation between knight's-tour proficiency and actual play, but it's more a side effect than anything crucial. And after all, non-titled players here have assured me that they have thoroughly mastered the B + N mate (which I always thought was a mark of distinction), so I imagine with diligent study you could learn to ace the knight's tour or what have you...and still be far from excellence at the game itself.

Out of curiosity, how do you feel about blindfold play?  I want to start practicing a bit and then challenge this guy I know to an unsighted game... but I'm wary of wasting my time.  Do you think it adds much to actual playing ability?

Conflagration_Planet
Conflagration_Planet
Sep 26, 2010
0
#56
orangehonda wrote:
TheExplorer wrote:
orangehonda wrote:

An interesting question, but I wonder if most answers will be not too thrilling.

e.g. "I've read 50+ chess books cover to cover, I've spent 10,000+ hours training, and I play regularly in (real) tournaments."

What is your fide rating?

?  What does my rating have to do with me speculating that titled players have put in a lot of work

 He just wants to know everybodys FIDE rating. He's searching for those over 2000. He even asked me what mine was! I'd never even heard of FIDE before I joined this site.

TheOldReb
NM TheOldReb
Show your flair!
Sep 26, 2010
0
#57

A " chessplayer " that never even heard of FIDE would be like a football player ( USA ) that never heard of the NFL...... Wink

Conflagration_Planet
Conflagration_Planet
Sep 26, 2010
0
#58
Reb wrote:

A " chessplayer " that never even heard of FIDE would be like a football ( USA ) that never heard of the NFL......

 I've stated before that I knew nothing about chess before I joined this site! Not even how the pieces move. So I obviously wasn't a "Chess player." Never even knew any "chess players."  Never heard of the USCF either. That's not against the law, is it?

TheOldReb
NM TheOldReb
Show your flair!
Sep 26, 2010
0
#59
woodshover wrote:
Reb wrote:

A " chessplayer " that never even heard of FIDE would be like a football ( USA ) that never heard of the NFL......

 I've stated before that I knew nothing about chess before I joined this site! Not even how the pieces move. So I obviously wasn't a "Chess player." Never even knew any "chess players."  Never heard of the USCF either. That's not against the law, is it?

 No, not against the law but doesnt make my statement less true in any way.

Conflagration_Planet
Conflagration_Planet
Sep 26, 2010
0
#60
Reb wrote:
woodshover wrote:
Reb wrote:

A " chessplayer " that never even heard of FIDE would be like a football ( USA ) that never heard of the NFL......

 I've stated before that I knew nothing about chess before I joined this site! Not even how the pieces move. So I obviously wasn't a "Chess player." Never even knew any "chess players."  Never heard of the USCF either. That's not against the law, is it?

 No, not against the law but doesnt make my statement less true in any way.

 So what's your point? You don't have to be aware of chess orginizations to learn the game. Not everybody wants to play in tournaments.