Twobit wrote:
But would Waitzkin do?
Sarwer had more talent than Waitzkin.
What happened to Josh Waitzkin?
Sort:
So it is a shame he did not pursue this. I also feel sorry for his family mess, the years of being a refugee and runaway, the foster home threat...
Twobit wrote:
So it is a shame he did not pursue this. I also feel sorry for his family mess, the years of being a refugee and runaway, the foster home threat...
I wonder how good he would have gotten if he had had Josh Ws. Opportunities.
Put it this way: Sure, the man was given a lot to work with, but he has worked it well. As for the Bobby Fischer comparisons, I say put it this way: Take Bobby Fischer in absolute top form and get them in a ring for some chessboxing. Unless Mr. Fischer can checkmate our man within five or six moves, I say Waitzkin takes both, easy. You try spotting a discovered check with a dislocated elbow.
woodshover wrote:
forrie wrote:
you cant blame Josh for what his father whanted him to be, and what he now is.
I respect him for following his real passions and not someone's elses.
Remember in the US kids have much more free will (whether thats a good or bad thing) and there is many things that can distract them.
Thats the one side, on the other side.....
In the old soviet you were forced into whatever career the suited the government. Becoming a world class sportsman was your ticket out of poverty.
My opinion on the Polgars is that they become world class as kids (unlike josh) and that made a huge difference - so it was easier for them to continue with chess. Remember that they probably also had better coaches - even a road worker in eastern europe knows more about chess than Pandolfinfin. Judit and Susan sticked to chess while their sister become more interested in art....nothing wrong with that...and i believe they also follwoed their own passions. Judit could by no means reached what she did if it wasnt a passion.
(I remember when in the searching for bobby fischer movie Josh reached a rating of 1500 when aged 10 or something. hahaha. in eastern europe a roadworker's child is already a master by then)
In all fairness, he was rated higher than that. At the age of eight his rating was 1595. At eleven his rating was around 2000. He got to the master level at 13. IM at 16.
I withdraw some comments I made above.
Josh WAS world class as a teenager, although not in the same league as Judit and Fischer.
Pandolfini IS a great coach - although I dont know how many GM he trained.
...and not all raod workers and their children in eastern europe are masters...although they are close
I also have the "searching for b fischer" book. It is a very fascinating book. Especially how his father described their trip to Moscow, how they were followed by police, and how they met the Jewish GM, was very interesting. The Jewish GM and his wife had a hard time in Russia and were not even allowed to play in some tournaments. The movie had a great impact on me as kid, but when I read the book later, it was even better.
Twobit wrote:
Ok, so here is GM Leko. He had enough, he is sick of chess, so he pulls out and "takes a break". Then he comes back and promptly loses to Shankland (not to belittle Sam here). It appears that when you get tired of chess, well, you had enough of it for life.
Losing to someone rated 200 points below you isn't as chocking or rare as you make it sound.
Twobit wrote:
So here you have the question of natural talent and/or nurturing. The Polgar sisters are excellent example, because their father made a point to raise geniuses with home schooling. Waitzkin was left to daddy to manage and Pandolfini to train. Could he achieve more if his daddy was Papa Polgar? Or, do we all get to a level eventually that matches our maximum capabilities (independently from the coaching) and then...move on to other things?
I think that the top people in any field have a combinatiion of natural talent, hardwork and training. Most of the top athletes and the top ballet dancers, the top musicians have talent and have worked very hard and been trained well. Our doctors had excellent grades throughout grade school, high school and college. They excelled in the sciences and were then chosen for medical school. This combination of talent, training, and hard work applies to all fields.
eddiewsox wrote:
Twobit wrote:
So here you have the question of natural talent and/or nurturing. The Polgar sisters are excellent example, because their father made a point to raise geniuses with home schooling. Waitzkin was left to daddy to manage and Pandolfini to train. Could he achieve more if his daddy was Papa Polgar? Or, do we all get to a level eventually that matches our maximum capabilities (independently from the coaching) and then...move on to other things?
I think that the top people in any field have a combinatiion of natural talent, hardwork and training. Most of the top athletes and the top ballet dancers, the top musicians have talent and have worked very hard and been trained well. Our doctors had excellent grades throughout grade school, high school and college. They excelled in the sciences and were then chosen for medical school. This combination of talent, training, and hard work applies to all fields.
Well said.
Thanks Twobit.
Leko was only 1/2 point away from being the World Chess Champion and losing to a 200 point lower rated opponent playing with black perhaps will not make it to his scrapbook. Again, by no means was I trying to decrease Sam's achievement, but it was an upset for sure. When Polgar lost to Yifan (the difference was around 100), it was "Da News".
Twobit wrote:
Leko was only 1/2 point away from being the World Chess Champion and losing to a 200 point lower rated opponent playing with black perhaps will not make it to his scrapbook. Again, by no means was I trying to decrease Sam's achievement, but it was an upset for sure. When Polgar lost to Yifan (the difference was around 100), it was "Da News".
It wasn't "Da News" because of the rating difference
alot of opinions out there and most of them pretty good but heres how i see this.
when we get older our priorities change drastically. we begin to realize there are comfort zones in life and we begin to settle in on one or two of them and become contented.
i think josh reached this point and realized that to go to the next level of the chess world meant that he would have to give up his present comfort zones and he just decided he didnt want to do that.
we should make rational decisions like this one.....
i will always admire a man who speaks the truth to himself..
good luck josh. well done and thanks..............dennis
Josh Waitskin...maybe he became one with Fischer.
Have you watched this interview ? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTZS3SqpT-o
He is so honest about himself. Especially when he talks about that draw oportunity that might have brought the gold for USA, that he turned down, only to foolishly lose the game after that, and USA lost the gold medal.
Not every man has to be a world chess champion. But every chess player should be a man first of all.
Ups, it was the U18 world championship. (Not the U18 chess olimpics as I thought.) He was offered a draw a could have shared the gold medal.
Good point ! :)
I think he realized if he was going to be stronger he would have to play a different kind of chess than he enjoyed.
Waitzkin hated being teached all the time to think like Karpov. I think Waitzkin would much rather be like Tal.
bobbyDK wrote:
I think he realized if he was going to be stronger he would have to play a different kind of chess than he enjoyed.
Waitzkin hated being teached all the time to think like Karpov. I think Waitzkin would much rather be like Tal.
If he hated it so much, why didn't he just get a new coach who didn't teach him to play like Karpov.
Ok, so here is GM Leko. He had enough, he is sick of chess, so he pulls out and "takes a break". Then he comes back and promptly loses to Shankland (not to belittle Sam here). It appears that when you get tired of chess, well, you had enough of it for life.