What does it take to get to a 2000-2200 rated player? Really.

@elubas : about time vs. work - I don't consider playing games without analysis as work. Many players (especially youngsters) develop by playing games and picking patterns along the way.

Some pick those patterns much more efficiently than others, and I also count it as a 'natural aptitude' for chess, wherever it comes from.

+1

I see them as two sides of a coin.  Kid B is almost certainly not going to love chess enough to put in the huge amount of time he would require to overcome his weaknesses.  Kid A might.

If, however, the reverse happens, and Kid A doesn't really bother, while Kid B becomes obsessively motivated and keeps playing 50 hours a week of chess, Kid B will be the one with a chance for 2200, not Kid A, right?

Waitzin didnt even need to try at chess, he was just naturally good at it. Most people who are above 2000+ ratings dont even need to try as hard as others when they began chess because it was just easy for them. 

"I would simply observe that for many strong players, this is sheer pleasure and enjoyment. They can do that for hours without feeling bored. So it doesn't exactly fit in with the common definition of work, and that's why..."

The strange thing is that I don't think enjoying the work makes it not work. If you happen to enjoy learning about chess and challenging what you don't understand, well, that doesn't make it any less productive (if anything it makes it more productive). It's certainly very convenient to enjoy work! I would say I do myself. My brain gets tired, but at the same time it feels satisfying. Most of the time anyway. There is something about work that can make you feel like you have gained something long term, whereas recreation is just enjoyment in the short term.

That doesn't mean I disagree that your observation is a sign of a natural aptitude. It probably is. There is something about them that makes them appreciate new/challenging ideas others would find tedious.

Yes, the problem here hicetnunc is that what you say only applies for the very short term.

Now, if Kid A and Kid B both deliberately practiced, Kid A would do better. The problem is, Kid A may not have the ability to do that. For example, he may just be the kind of person to give up once things finally get hard for him. That attribute could be considered a natural weakness rather than a strength. Maybe Kid B can persevere better. One could suggest the possibility that Kid A's features give him a short term advantage, while Kid B's give him a long term advantage.

You just lost 28 rating points over the last hour.

lol

In theory yes. But my experience with children learning chess is that there is a kind of natural selection at work : their motivation comes from early successes, especially against their peers, so the less talented ones give up after a year or two (unless their parents are obsessed themselves, but that's another story).

However, there are some exceptions. For example, there is a young man in my club (~24) who suffered a terrible setback at his first youth championship (when he was 11). The poor lad scored 0 out of 9 ! Most kids would just have cried their way back home and thrown the chessboard out of the window, but Pierre Agrech showed extraordinary resilience. He said : "next year, I'll score 50%", came back the next year and did it. His current rating is ~2150. Yet, he doesn't spend inordinate amounts of time on chess, but this character trait helps him well grinding out numerous wins in his games (does it ring a Norwegian bell )

Probably curiosity is one of the best attributes for a chess player. The problem is, curiosity does not entail a super quick mind necessarily. You may not see such an attribute early on in a child because curiosity will not necessarily result in lots of wins in the short term. But his meticulousness may help him to get through learning ideas others would just give up on, even if in the short term he lagged behind a bit.

Another point is that people do change quite a bit. As a small child I was the type that would solve things really fast and then say "look how fast I did it!" or I would memorize a lot of stuff. But whenever I couldn't solve something it was boring and I couldn't deal with it. Now I don't really care so much about solving the rubik's cube in a minute, or memorizing pi to the 5000th digit; I just care about problem solving; in fact I embrace difficulties because that's how you expand your understanding. I don't need instant gratification like I did as a child. I am totally changed in this regard.

I started doing three tactics every time I was tempted to post in this thread - improvement!

Double bye.

"But my experience with children learning chess is that there is a kind of natural selection at work : their motivation comes from early successes, especially against their peers, so the less talented ones give up after a year or two (unless their parents are obsessed themselves, but that's another story)."

Yes, a positive feedback loop. No doubt this is a potential (large) factor, but it needn't be the only way of becoming good.

Just as an example, a simple love of the game may be an alternative :) And you can love the game even when starting off with a low rating.

Ah, that's clever! Punishing yourself. I should probably try that. Usually I reward myself for doing something good, but maybe I should punish myself for doing something bad :)

No! Don't send me to the dreaded 1900s again! I'll be good!

The second part doesn't work as the dog whisperer could tell you.

Practice, Practice, Practice

http://enjoychesslearning.wordpress.com/

It's funny, I prefer writing and reading about chess more than chess itself.

I "could" be playing chess and improving right now, except I just dont want to.

People are different, man.

But, I will never make 2200. Maybe 2000 if I ever decide to play more consistently.

It was mentioned in this thread that "talent" is perhaps just the ability to learn, and the passion (or curiosity) to do so. Or at least to a great extent. Thankfully, I have that ability. Another thing about this ability -- it can be taught. Naturally, some people will learn it better or more quickly than others.

Despite having the ability to learn well and understanding my own learning process, my brain doesn't seem to be "wired" well for chess. I have great difficulty with calculation, which is really just holding visual patterns in your mind. I wonder how far I could get before I became limited by my brain's physical abilities. Or if I could somehow break through that physical limit. Perhaps it's just a matter of "learning" how to do it -- perhaps not... truth is, nobody knows for certain. The science of learning and understanding physical limits is hardly past infancy. It is quite possible there are no limits -- the only real limit being our current understanding. Of course, it is also possible there are very real limits. In any case, there are certainly natural and nurtured inclinations that may be very difficult to overcome.

Maybe. But it's difficult to say.

Most kids who keep up playing competitively are those showing earlier aptitudes and getting the satisfaction to win. I've tried to keep some less talented kids 'in the loop' by gently pushing them, but you can't expect a young teenager to put in massive amounts of work in a discipline where he feels he is at a disadvantage in the first place...

This is the same for adults. Very few will put in deliberate practice hours if they don't see any results after a reasonable amount of time... So you could say that hard work is the way to break a tie between equally-talented people rather than overcome a lack of talent in the first place

"It's funny, I prefer writing and reading about chess more than chess itself."

That is pretty funny :) For me there is something addicting about it. I don't think that means I enjoy it more than chess itself, just that I can get sucked into it inadvertently like a drug.

Hi Ricky,

Talented players already get to that point, a few weeks after learning how to play the game.

But if you are a "regular" player you should get there with practice and correcting your mistakes, 2000-2200 is still within amateur level

Hope that helps

http://enjoychesslearning.wordpress.com/