What would be a better player eventually?

Who would be a better player eventually- a person forced to learn chess, locked in a room. The only way he can get food is by solving a chess puzzle or something - he isn't underfed or anything, but hates chess but is still a great player with no disability and never loses on purpose. He applies himself on anything and is not a memorizing robot.

The second person is free and loves chess and has talent and passion for the game and studies a lot too.

Who would win out? If both players have equal strong strength, who would win if they both played.

In my opinion, it wouldn't make a difference-probably a draw, passion would not matter. What do you think?

Basically, I'm wondering about the effect of passion on good chess play. 

The locked in player would only win if he was in the US Virgin Islands.

:-/

GM Nigel Short used to wear a T-shirt with "He who cares, wins." on it.

A very interesting question! Normally I would say passion and love for the game always reigns supreme, but I think that your food depending on getting good at chess will skyrocket the motivation, even if you objectively hated the game.

Sometimes I don't feel like calculating everything out in chess, and I have a lazy thought process -- but if somehow the outcome of a chess game was actually important, other than just getting some money or satisfaction from winning, I would force myself to do everything I possibly could -- I would forget about the "pain."

I think everyone has this sort of thing in them -- necessity fuels effort. Somebody who is fighting for their life will do things they never thought they were capable of, because they are forced to push themselves to the absolute limit.

I would say the first person wins out narrowly.

no, assume the ratings to be around the same.

Living in the US Virgin Islands dosen't mean you are locked up. Isolated from society, yes. But not other things.

Plus, that's not really my country or the name you see on the profile. I used to put my real name but now I just want to change it up to see how people react.  

You should put in a Vatican flag. Then people might ask if you are The Pope

If they are of equal strength than you might as well toss a coin to predict who will win. I doubt if it would be a draw unless they were both very very strong players (grandmasters often have draws but i would think among the vast majority of players draws are fairly rare).You mentioned that the enslaved player had to solve a chess problem (or something) to get food but you did not say they had to win the game to get food. If this was in fact the case I would think that player would have the edge.

If ratings are the same, and they're equal strength then this isn't even a question is it? 

Weren't you trying to ask who would be better eventually?  Then you ask who would win a game?

If they were equal players, then it would be up to their mood.  IMO nothing in your description is enough to determine their mood during a game or match against eachother.

The problem with these ridiculous hypotheticals is that... They're ridiculous hypotheticals. Before you said they have about the same rating, I would say, no one knows; but after I would say you just told us.

I assume itd be a draw.........

you know, considering theyre equally as strong

Yeah, I basically answered the question ignoring the rating part . The question may as well be "who will come out with the better rating?"

But actually it's unfair to go by ratings, because the locked up chess player probably doesn't get enough OTB experience.

I guess the guy starving would let his passionate opponent win just so he could get his food. Talk about Maslow's heirarchy of needs...

The OCD element is key.

If you hate doing something but will practice hard to do it well if pressured to do so, well that's just called life ... we have a support group for that and we meet at the bar.

However ... if you start feeling like the universe is imbalanced and life/breathing/food has no meaning if you can't put in hours to eventually find an answer to a puzzle, you're probably the better chess player, period.

Very interesting question.

There are many variables to consider. For starters, just how good was the studying the Jailed Player received? May we assusme the Free Player traveled all over his country, playing many different people from all walks of life, thus homing his strength. Was our Jailed Player getting the same level of strong and varied competition? Most of us can agree that home study, by itself, is no substitute for actual OTB competitive play. Is our Free Player also meeting more real life chess players in the flesh, thereby being exposed to more origional ideas? (Theoretically, anyway.)

But then theres more to consider.  What other interests did our Free Player have? Was he in the School Band? Did he have a job? Did he spend afternoons studying philosophy. Or did he, (heaven forbid!), have a girlfriend?  These thing may well draw his Free Player's attention away from chess, causing him to sacrifice his study time.

But like I said at the begining, very good question. I look forward to what others have to say.

Passion is everything.given the rest being equal.that extra something ,curiosity,stubborness,persistence,flair,effort over and above arises from real caring.Most chess players have this within.... 

Some championships end in a draw=That we can not change

Just assume that the "free person" is addicted to chess and has a strong passion and desire to learn more...

Maybe not the rating part though.. How about let's say that they have an equal strength?