conejiux
I'm not sure that I agree with your Beatles analogy; the 10-12 hour live sessions in Hamburg were an incredible learning experience that taught them how to work a crowd--critical knowledge for a practising musician. IMO, Bob Dylan would be accurate for your argument--he only used 3-4 chords per song, had a horrible voice and was an average harmonica player, and yet he eclipsed Elvis in popularity in the Sixties.
conejiux
I'm not sure that I agree with your Beatles analogy; the 10-12 hour live sessions in Hamburg were an incredible learning experience that taught them how to work a crowd--critical knowledge for a practising musician. IMO, Bob Dylan would be accurate for your argument--he only used 3-4 chords per song, had a horrible voice and was an average harmonica player, and yet he eclipsed Elvis in popularity in the Sixties.
The 10-12 hour live sessions in Hamburg was a hard and important practice to them, but I'm talking about their capacity to write music, great songs without technical knowledge. Play music is one thing, 10 or 12 hours, but create music needs another capacities, brain capacities or natural talent.
conejiux
That is true, playing and creating are two different animals, but that is why I tend to think of Dylan as a better example--he had no formal training, no massive practical live sessions, and I'll argue that in the sixties he was the biggest name in pop music (due to the political nature of his songs and the times.) But for longevity there is no comparison--the Beatles rule.
Back to chess, Capablanca and Morphy, to name a few, were that kind of players, not much knowledge but a lot of talent to see in a sec many possibilities, many structures, the whole map of chess.
From Judit in a Q&A:
"2800 is pure professional,training daily 10 hours and not only that but he’s mind is always ready for a good idea!Completely focusing on chess!"
Answering a question about should a person take up chess as a career at 2600 level:
"Well this is a question that everyone has to answer him/herself.I think it is very important,how talented you are,how much do you love the game?,how dedicated you are?,which country do you live in?,how social you are and open so to look for tournaments?,How much is it important to you that by playing chess you can see the worlds most beutyfull places?,what standard of living you expect to have?,are you someone who likes adventures or goes for a safe life(if you can have it these days at all?).
After all it is your life,chess for sure it is not a profession that you choose to have a good income,you do it because you love it!"
She seems to touch on a lot of factors, many of them feeding into dedication, if I'm extrapolating correctly.
So even J. Pogar's not sure :-D
Interesting insight though.
...
But the idea that any of us could fathom the difference between a 2600 and a 2800 is just laughable. Even the 2600 himself would have trouble articulating it, we'd need a 2800 to chime in to get an accurate answer, or anything approaching one.
I don't know. I can often understand reasons for things I don't understand.
...
But the idea that any of us could fathom the difference between a 2600 and a 2800 is just laughable. Even the 2600 himself would have trouble articulating it, we'd need a 2800 to chime in to get an accurate answer, or anything approaching one.
I don't know. I can often understand reasons for things I don't understand.
We must ask Kasparov, still playing GM will keep their secrets .
2800s win more (and against stronger opposition) than 2600s.
I
. . . or simply natural talent?
I know this will be a controversial assertion, but I simply don't believe in 'natural talent'. Researchers have been trying, and failing, to pin that down for decades. What the research shows in in fact the opposite: if you work hard enough and long enough you will achieve success.
The folowing book explains this much better than I can:
http://books.google.com/books/about/Talent_is_Overrated.html?id=PQrtV67iqgEC
-Ray
. . . or simply natural talent?
I know this will be a controversial assertion, but I simply don't believe in 'natural talent'. Researchers have been trying, and failing, to pin that down for decades. What the research shows in in fact the opposite: if you work hard enough and long enough you will achieve success.
I'm a painter. I have many friends that are painters too. Many of them had been working a lot, studied in the Arts Academy by 6 years, taking high level courses, etc. On the other side, another friend of mine never went to any art school, he didn''t want to work hard, but of all my painters friends, he is the best, his paintings are unique. He sell his paintings in thousands of dollars and receive many invitations from galleries around the world. The other painters has the knowledge, this friend has the talent... the knack.
I don't want to trivialize his accomplishment, but your artist friend is probably succesful because he is good at selling his artwork, his vision and himself. That in itself is a rare skill, and he should be proud of that. In my experience, success in the art world has little to do with the actual quality of the artwork. (I'm married to an artist - I know the art world pretty well.)
But the question here is: what differentiates a 2800-level player from a 2600-level player? I submit that the difference is not innate in the person. A 2800-level player was not born with an extra 200 of chess skill! Rather, he has spent the long, tedious, difficult hours needed to hone his skill to that level. That is all.
The only other difference may be each player's willingness to submit themselves to the work required to acheive that level. You must spend countless hours performing what some call 'deliberate practice'.
Deliberate practice refers to a form of training that consists of focused, gruelling, repetitive practice in which the subject continuously monitors his or her performance, and subsequently corrects, experiments, and reacts to immediate and constant feedback, with the aim of steady and consistent improvement. It is generally accepted that this form of training calls for approximately 10,000 hours of concentrated effort if one is to achieve the optimum level of expertise.
(Source: http://www.quantum3.co.za/CI%20Glossary.htm)
I don't think there is some magic factor, stronger masters just know a little bit more of everything
What can that "little bit" be? It would seem that a 2600 (elo) player must already know and understand everything pertaining to chess. I know the difference between myself and say, a 2000 player is very much knowledge and understanding, I can't see that there is some piece of nformation that a 2800 has that is denied a 2600 player.
I agree with FK. And I'm afraid, batgirl, that you're (most likely) very much mistaken in believing that 2600s know everything there is to know about chess. And clearly, if any of us could say what that "little bit" might be...we would all be 2800s too.
. . . or simply natural talent?
I know this will be a controversial assertion, but I simply don't believe in 'natural talent'. Researchers have been trying, and failing, to pin that down for decades. What the research shows in in fact the opposite: if you work hard enough and long enough you will achieve success.
I'm a painter. I have many friends that are painters too. Many of them had been working a lot, studied in the Arts Academy by 6 years, taking high level courses, etc. On the other side, another friend of mine never went to any art school, he didn''t want to work hard, but of all my painters friends, he is the best, his paintings are unique. He sell his paintings in thousands of dollars and receive many invitations from galleries around the world. The other painters has the knowledge, this friend has the talent... the knack.
Most likely the failings of these researchers come from the fact that they themselves don't have talent. It is much easier to see the results obtainable from hard work than from some innate grasp...so they lend themselves much less readily to this sort of study.
As far as painting goes...well, knowledge of that sort very often squelches one's ability to do good work. Take such things too seriously and you often become nothing more than a clerk.
That's very interesting ( to me, anyway) to speculate upon. I wonder, how a game would play out if two players were set up to play a match where there was a 200 - 250 point difference in their ratings, but neither player was told who the other was. Neither would also be told anything about the rating of the other player. Behind the scenes, one is a 2200, the other a 2400. One player makes their move, exits the room, then the other is allowed to come in, be comfortable at the board, think for a similar amount of time as the other player. Make it like an experiment, you know. I would enjoy hearing of such experiments, because the first thing I do when I get matched up in a team match game, is look at my opponent's rating, then play.
That's seems like a fascination experiment. How much does perception, pre-conception and self-expectation play into competiton... I like the way you think.
There is something similar carried out here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evZmpsl3jI0
The guy who does the experiment is not a scientist, but in the end he reveals how he does it. His own personal rating doesn't affect the outcome, that is, I don't think any of the GM's were affected who they were playing against. The stronger chess players are able to beat the lower rated ones.
So even if you didn't know who you were playing against, you will soon meet the horizon of your own knowledge; and the better player, standing on higher ground, will be able to see further, and win.
obviously...
There can also be differences in chess education. The players from countries of strong chess culture (such as Russia, Ukraine etc.) typically receive strict formal training from early age which may not be case for GM's from other countries.
That sounds convincing. But does Norway have such a strong chess culture? Armenia might since they produced two Petrosians and an Aronian, but I'm not sure. The U.S. surely doesn't, but we produced Fischer.
Can't claim to know very well how individual players have been schooled but I'll try to answer anyway.
Many Armenian players have this lazy genius image. I'm not sure how accurate it is but Armenia is certainly a country with strong chess traditions and many strong players. At the very least I'd imagine Armenian kids can observe at close how strong players aproach the game and always have someone strong around to ask for advice.
While one can't compare Norway to Russia or even Armenia they still have some chess traditions - certainly more than Finland anyway. If we are speaking about Carlsen in particular, I know he has had famous Norwegian GM Simen Adgenstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simen_Agdestein) as a coach from very early age. Also, I seem to recall that as he became famous very early on there was sponsor money around to obtain coaching from other famous coaches. All in all, maybe you can't compare his education to the likes of, say, Kasparov, Kramnik or Karjakin but I'd still imagine it's quite extensive.
Anyway, education is only one factor and as FancyKnight and AndyClifton, I really think the large differences are eventually made by combining several small differences. Many of the 2600 players have received same type of coaching as Kasparov but on the other hand not all wc calibre players have. For example I doubt that Anand didn't have such chances in India which makes him one of the most remarkable "natural" talents of all time.
To a mind that is still the entire universe surrenders. -Lao Tzu
That is from the one who knew the way. And it does seem to have to have some insight into our thinking process.
When we watch GM's play we think that all there is to play well is to find good moves. And maybe that is where it ends, but perhaps with super GMs, like the 2800s, they are also well aware of their own thought processes. That is they not only know what constitutes a good move but they know how their mind works. And they are therefore able to avert any blunders that is based on cognitive biases.
Kasparov called it finding the 'chess truth'. Or he said lies cannot live on the chess board. I think he meant that you cannot play the game and win simply based on what you think is the right move. It has be objectively correct, and the more detached you are, the more you can be objective, not only about why you are choosig the move, but also how your mind is working.
I have been studying chess, on and off, for a long time although I admit my actual rating does not seem to reflect this. But the more I study and the more I think about it, I come to the conclusion that the less you do, the better off you are. You do need to follow all the principles of chess as put forth by the great grand masters past and present, but you are better off making natural, simple moves rather than developing elaborate schemes. This is true in life also. The rich man who lives in a mansion and eats expensive foods and lies in bed until noon and parties and drinks and travels around in his private jet and so forth is more likely to die young than the poor man who lives a natural, simple life, eats fresh food, works hard and avoids excesses.
bean_Fischer, I think what was being expressed was that a GM, a player of extraordinary strength, talent, knowledge and ability, can recognize that even he can't grasp, or couldn't invest himself so deeply to grasp, what a super-GM already has. Maybe the difference is so inexplicable, yet so real, that one is just aware of it without understanding why?
Yes, batgirl, absolutely.
Of course, with all respects, we can differentiate a GM from a super GM. We also can differentiate professors from Nobel Prize winners.