hmm..not sure what you are saying.
What would be a better player eventually?
Sort:
I think that the strength of the player would depend on his motivation to study--if 2 clones of the same person study the exact same amount, they will have the same strength, regardless of why they are studying.
I just don't think that they would have the same motivation. Someone who loves chess, but isn't going to study instead of . . . say going to school, or going on a date, or shooting hoops, isn't going to study as much as someone who depends on chess study for his life. But even someone who depends on chess for his life would not study as much as someone who is obsessed. The obsessed person would study instead of eating, as opposed to studying in order to eat. The obsessed person would dream about chess; it would take all the time from his social, work, and free time.
Even the forced person would have to take breaks--otherwise he would go insane. To the obsessed person, he takes a break to play more chess. He is already insane.
Haha, nice post. And I also believe obsessiveness is a good way to get good at chess, but at the expense of everything else.
I already said that none of them are insane, one has a passion (never-ending craving for practice and loves the sport and devotes all time to it), and one is the person who loathes chess yet is locked in a room with food only given for practicing. Who would end up as a better player? Assume that they both spend 24/7 on chess (with very little sleep to survive). The only "variable" is the passion of the game- one is obsessed with the game and another is obsessed with getting his basic needs, like solving a puzzle to go to the bathroom or something.
I don't even think 24/7 chess is ideal, even if all you want to do is to improve at chess. You still need some rest or you're just going to forget everything you did. Worse yet, you'll die without it.
i'd say, who cares?
The people discussing it in this thread...maybe.
LOL it's just a fantasy question.
Sheesh you guys are introducing SO many variables, Just assume that they SLEEP and get the same amount of sleep.
The second player wins out because Chess is his or her calling a real player is comparable to an artist who gets up at 6:00 am every morning and can't wait to go to the beach or mountain top at sunrise with his or her canvas and box of paint brushes and make beautiful art to show his friends or colleauges.
A love for doing it is in your soul and your drawn to it or it isn't there's no in between.
I don't think passion improves talent. That is what we are really getting at, right? Whether a passionate player will improve over a not passionate player if they have all the same variables? I think they will both be the same. Passion is just an incentive to devote more time and energy to a subject. If both players devote the same amount of time and energy into chess--regardless of why--I think they will have the same ability.
Right. Passion is one way an incentive is created; necessity is another!
Perhaps we assume that both players are really just 2 clones of the same person? That certainly makes questions of natural talent and rating irrelevant. Perhaps one player was forced to study chess, the other was introduced to the game by a benevolent grandfather, nurturing a love for the game. The question would then be: Who would achieve a higher rating.
In my opinon, it would be the player forced to play. All motivation and passion really does is cause one to spend more time on a particular subject. I don't think passion is quite enough, and I believe that the player forced to play would be better. HOWEVER, what happens if we escalate "passion" to "obsession"?
Bobby Fischer had an obsession for chess. Gata Kamsky had a father who imposed a mentality that chess is the meaning of life. Which one is more famous? We could argue that perhaps Fischer's obsession stemmed from his talent, but let's not go there. We have no truly accurate way of determining who had more talent. Perhaps, on that level, what we call talent is really just obession?