Check out Josh's website.
http://www.joshwaitzkin.com/book-art.html
He is a busy young man.
"Only the Sith deal in absolutes".
What happened to Josh Waitzkin?
Sort:
I wouldn't say "lucky". If you read his book "The Art of Learning" you will discover that his success is based on a lot of hard work and discipline. As for chess, he simply reached a point in his life where the game no longer interested him enough to continue it's pursuit.
Not interested enough in the game my left foot! He's pulling a Bobby Fischer except he himself hasn't really won anything like Fischer did. They should make a movie titled "Searching for Josh Waitzkin" where a really old Pandolfini finds a kid in Washington Square Park and Morpheus and crew is like, "Wow! Young Waitzkin!" =/
I'm just saying, if the guy's so good, why don't we see him in any big tournaments?
CzarWithinMoons wrote:
Nobody knows for sure where he is. They are making a movie about a young chess prodigy who often speculates on Mr. Waitzkin's whereabouts, called "Searching for Josh Waitzkin".
very very very funny :)
That and, his chess progress stalled and he wasn't able to make GM. I think he's awesome--an IM, the Chessmaster mascot, a world champion at pushing hands, and an entertaining and effective motivational speaker. He is lucky... but you also have to work darn hard (and wisely and with discipline) to accomplish so much. :)
Gonnosuke wrote:
Creg wrote:
I wouldn't say "lucky". If you read his book "The Art of Learning" you will discover that his success is based on a lot of hard work and discipline. As for chess, he simply reached a point in his life where the game no longer interested him enough to continue it's pursuit.
I didn't mean to infer that his accomplishments were the result of luck. Instead I was implying that he's lucky to have been born with the gifts that allow him to excel at anything he put's his mind to.
As much as I'd like to believe that hard work and dedication was a guaranteed path to excellence, experience tells me otherwise. I realize that it's almost un-American to speak such a heresy but innate ability (i.e. good genetics) matters.
as a friend of mine always says "There's no substitute for ability." Except Rybbka I suppose.
I have the Art of Learning Chessmaster computer program. AkA Chessmaster Grandmaster Edition. I have a feeling he is has left competitive chess to pursue the more lucrative form of teaching chess, so he can concentrate on his martial Arts pursuits.
You guys say anything about him....But i am really impress with his speeches...very inspirable.....person with very good humor...positive attitude....if he would have played after 97 he would be successfully chess master ever been....but i think he decided to spend his life for his social life and other hobbies......i will always admire his knowledge of chess...great person.
I didn't know that clot was married.
I didn't know he was a clot.
Learn something new every day.
Hey, what is a clot anyway? A blood clot?
I think "clot" means fool or stupid (@Lawdoginator: azaz, hulye ember), but it is clearly an insult. I read his book on attacking chess and it was great (you can not be a clot if you draw a simultaneous with Kasparov anyway).
He does not really explain it why he quit. More of a burnout and realizing that although he was a prodigy, natural talent can only carry you so far, the rest is "just" tremendous work and dedication.
;)
He's written somewhere that he had a coach (not Pandolfini) who insisted that he change his style from tactical to positional and the effect on his game and his enjoyment of chess was disastrous.
Yeah, he hated the Karpov style he was "forced" to study and emulate.
He should have stuck with Alekhine, Tal, and Kasparov instead.
Eternal_Patzer wrote:
He's written somewhere that he had a coach (not Pandolfini) who insisted that he change his style from tactical to positional and the effect on his game and his enjoyment of chess was disastrous.
The coach was the famous chess teacher Dvoretsky. I think Dvoretsky correctly identified Waitzkin's weakness in positional play and tried to improve it, but perhaps his approach was wrong. While Dvoretsky produced quite a number of fine GMs, his methods may not fit everybody. Judging from his writing, I think Dvoretsky is a big fans of Karpov.
However, if Waitzkin whose strength is in tactical play managed to bring his positional understanding to the next level, he could be the Carlsen-before-Carlsen. Carlsen was a positional player. He seeked out instructions from Kasparov who is one of the greatest attacking players ever. As a result, Carlsen brought his games to the next level and he is literally unbeatable now.
Count_Rugen wrote:
He is a self-righteous twerp who has managed to make a career from his father's pimping of his youth coupled with his own self-aggrandizement camouflaged under the rubric of "learning".
And you blame Josh? It's a losing battle against a father who wants to turn you into a "project."
Twobit wrote:
I think "clot" means fool or stupid (@Lawdoginator: azaz, hulye ember), but it is clearly an insult. I read his book on attacking chess and it was great (you can not be a clot if you draw a simultaneous with Kasparov anyway).
He does not really explain it why he quit. More of a burnout and realizing that although he was a prodigy, natural talent can only carry you so far, the rest is "just" tremendous work and dedication.
I just said the clot thing to see if it would bring the fires of damnation down from all of the Josh worshippers on this site. He quit because all though he did indeed work, and study hard for nine years after becomming an IM. He couldn't get to GM. If you're a true chess genius you wouldn't take that long to get to GM from IM. He finally had to admit to himself that he had reached his peak, and wasn't getting anywhere so it was time to try something new.
Where is he now?