Why are some people slower than others at chess?

There has been (if not still) very short players in the NBA. Spudd Webb is probably the most famous but there are many. 

Also, being 7ft does not make you a great player, look at Shawn Bradley. 

Jordan is an exceptional competitor, 6ft 6in, hardest worker ever and also the best shit talker on the court. 

wrong, that'd be larry bird on both counts

Tyrone Bogues, a legend.

Most chess players have read their chess books and done plenty of chess puzzles, but after about move eight in a chess game they're pretty much on their own. Every chess game is different so puzzles and studying is useless. Maybe caution is best or a quick attack is called for, but thinking that studying some method is going to help a persons chess game is far-fetched. It might help a bit, but probably not.  

Arguably, I'll give you that. 

"... How do you Know that? ..." - UnderDog_Chess (about something or other, ~9 hours ago)

I've studied Human Potential as part of my Music PhD many years ago and i still have alot of interest in this area.

If would allow me to use my students as an example, most of my students over the years have claimed to have  worked incredibly hard,  yet some have been more successful than others.

I can absolutely tell you that even though all claim to have worked hard, the more successful ones were in the practice room earlier....they left later.....and they sacrificed more of their social lives.

 I've said it a hundred times...." The perception of hard work differs from person to person".

Well,some people may take their time.I think they follow the saying"Slow and steady wins the race.It's kind of like people who always take their time will always win the chess.com tournament.P.S:I do not think that because their is a time limit.

Well, saying that is somewhat different from appointing oneself as the one who decides (for masses of people) who deserves to be considered to be working hard.

It's  my opinion based on research and application. It's also lots of other academics opinion. 

I'm sure you are are aware you are trying to manipulate and twist

my words. For everyone else however, the message is quite simple:

Your potential in any given subject is greater than you think, In fact it's massive....Laziness, lack of discipline and the inability to push through obstacles will be the deciding factor on how successful you are.  

This is in fact good news! Right?

OK - make history then, with hard work, and become the first GM in history who was a beginner after the age of 20. 

In fact, don't be a GM - be an FM, which no one at your level and age has ever managed to become. I think that'll prove your point. Why take 10 years of hard hard work to be a GM when you can be an FM in half the time?

Again - no one's arguing that talent and hard work are necessary, and people should find out what they're naturally good at and work hard at that. 

This is actually my goal. I know its farfetched but I do believe in hard work. I'm 27 which is ancient for anyone trying to become a gm but i don't have much going on in my life and have the time to pursue this so with nothing to lose I might as well go for this.  I'm committed to seeing this through to the end, we'll see if i'm around even 6 months from now but i'm going to do everything in my power to max my chess potential. I think the benefits of being 2000+ from a mental perspective makes this goal worth striving for. But at the same time I don't want to take anything away from the bobby fischers and garry kasparovs who have recorded 190 iqs which i clearly dont and may be the reason i dont come even close to being titled. But lifes short you only get one and this is what i decided to pursue.

I also, am going for GM.

Hell yeah HIGH FIVE!

You don't know the whole story.  Maybe the third sister wasn't reinforced enough early on to gain an interest in chess, thus quit before she could become a big name in chess.   Or had other talents or interests that her sisters didn't have.  Just because 2 made it and 1 didn't doesn't mean the other isn't as smart, or doesn't have as much aptitude for chess as the others did, that's like saying Magnus Carlson's sisters are dumber than he is, or just have a lower aptitude for chess, when the reverse could be true, or they could have just as much aptitute as Magnus Carson did but they just chose a different path.  We will never know why the third sister didn't make the cut.  Best to just leave well enough alone, and not make assumptions, but rather, agree that you do not know the facts.

Your article striked me as odd because here I thought you where talking about something totally different then talk about those famous sisters and wondering why the third didn't make the cut.  I thought you where asking why people move the pieces more slowly than others.

Seeing how I have nothing better to do right now I am going to take time to give a response to that question instead, seeing how this could be more interesting than just making wild assumptions based on gut feelings.  

I've been playing chess for over 15 years at Starbucks with a bunch of friends.  Our numbers have dwindled, but 5 of us still play from time to time.  One thing I noticed over the years is that some people make moves rather slowly, and others, move the pieces very quickly.  To put it another way some people play fast and others just naturally take a long time to think.  I, am one of the "slow thinkers" in the group (there are only two of us who think slowly, used to be 4 of us but 2 don't come anymore).  I wouldn't say I am less smart than any of them, or have less chess aptitude then them, neither would I say that for the others.  I can't explain it.  Some people just think slower.  It doesn't mean they are stupid.  It just means they take more time to think, or whatever.  It is possible for us slow thinkers to learn how to think more faster.  Like for example, over the past 15 years I learned to play 3 minute blitz fairly well against my frequent opponents, who are fast thinkers.  I think for the most part, it's not about us being less smart, but because we have different thinking algorithms that we just simply choose to always adhere to, regardless of what time control we are playing.  Let me explain that.  I noticed a lot of people that play bullet, who are 2000 rated or so, arn't really good chess players, but just play the clock, making silly moves at the most opportune time to gain time, or playing what I call a "gimmick" opening.   Us slow chess thinkers, for the most part, usually don't check the king just because it's there, but rather think, "Will I gain something if I check the king?"  That's most of it, but I think another component is genetics, we just simply take longer to think, perhaps this makes us dumber than our fast thinking counter parts, but I beg to differ.  We just require a little extra time.  We can make good choices just as our fast thinking counterparts, however, we just need a little extra time for things we aren't already trained to do.  (As I said, it's possible for us to learn how to think faster in certain areas of we just focus on improving our times in those intellectual activities, so in the end, all the difference there is is that we just have to do a little more work than our fast thinking counter parts)

So, for those of you who are slow at making chess moves.  Just know there is a light at the end of the tunnel, and no you shouldn't start playing nothing but bullet, but rather keep playing a mixture of slow and fast games, slow games to improve your over all chess strength as well as later improve your blitz rating in the long run (Dan Heisman writes, a good blitz or bullet player got good by playing a lot of long games), and fast games to practice more openings.  (You just simply play more games if you play a good number of quick games in succession, thus increasing the amount of opening training making you a more well rounded player)

That's all I have to say on that subject.  Perhaps, the third sister, as a "slow thinker...????"  Not being able to move as fast as her sisters could have discouraged her from pursuing chess, as her other siblings where so much faster than her.  Again, this is just speculation, the truth could be far different, which is why I end by saying unless someone know the sisters, your not going to get a good answer, and chances are, no one that knows something like that about those sisters, will not bother to even read this thread.  

I'm pretty slow in terms of speed of thought on the chess board. Hence I'm fairly useless at blitz. In classical time controls, however, my results are very much better. I have pretty good tactical vision but need time to go through the continuations and calculations accurately. Probably something to do with old age. My real strength is strategy and for that you do need time to think ideas through properly. Like urk, for example, I'm no fan of blitz and bullet as means of self-improvement, though I do play blitz sometimes with the sole purpose of getting to know quite quickly types of position and tactical motifs that come out of particular openings I want to learn more about. Have been trying this a bit in recent months with the French and the Meran as black. I tend to switch off a bit, I have to admit, during blitz once I've played the opening, as I don't find I learn much from it during most middle or end games; certainly not as much as I learn from slower games where I can take time to think through plans and ideas.

I'm not knocking blitz. If others like it and get a buzz from it (like Nakamura), that's fine. It's not, however, what I enjoy or, to be honest, take very seriously. If you need any convincing that slow is best, have a look at McDonald's "The giants of chess strategy," which I think is a fine advertisement for slower varieties of chess. Very few of the masterpieces in that excellent collection, I would argue, could ever have been played under blitz conditions, even by the players of those games themselves.

I know i don't have the time to accept your experiment. I'm 42 years old with a wife and two kids to support who spends 3 months of the year on the road.

However all those years ago, i remember walking into the Royal Academy of Music in London and being told by my horn professor that i shouldn't expect to make a career as a professional horn player,I also remember being teased and harassed by another horn student for my aparrant lack of ability. 

He now works in the admin department in the Royal festival hall in london, I make a point of trying to bump into him every time a perform there!

When I said slower I meant how fast someone picks up chess and becomes good. Is that just as simple as iq? Or is there something deeper going on that cant be explained. It does seem the sister who didn't become a GM did not become one because of personal choice which basically proves anyone can be a GM and their father was correct on his hypothesis.  I made this thread because I felt like I was one of the slower players to pick up the game. And wondered why that was the case because i have an above average iq at the very least and yet I don't feel like chess is something I'm naturally good at. And was looking for theories etc people had as to why some people become chess prodigies others never become any Good.

So the debate began on natural ability vs hard work. I tend to be in the hard work camp and I think the polgar sisters prove it. No matter how naturally good you are at something (and no we aren't talking about basketball which is at least 90% physical where as chess is 100% mental then) you won't reach the top level with talent alone all the greats have all put in more hours than you or me have. In a game like chess you could have a 200 iq but if the amount of work I put in the game leads to me being a better player than you then I'm better regardless of your natural ability. I don't think the same can be said about basketball because I'll never be able to beat michael jordan in his prime even if michael just picked the game up at 25 and we played one on one he would kill me and anyone else on this forum. Chess is different though.