The Polgar Experiment does not prove hard work is enough to become successful in chess. 3 successful experiment with the same coach is not a solid evidence of hard work theory. More chess loving fathers should follow this experiment and approach.If there are 50% or even 30% in 100 case, then hard work is purely the key to success.
Why are some people slower than others at chess?
Sort:
Mar 5, 2017
0
#83
I think chess is a lot like a Rubiks' Cube. Some people can do it in 20 seconds, while others couldn't do it in two hours.
UnderDog_Chess wrote:
Cherub_Enjel wrote:
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?
... 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. ...
So, laziness has nothing to do with it?
UnderDog_Chess wrote:
... I'm sure you are are aware you are trying to manipulate and twist
my words. ...
Nonsense.
Mar 5, 2017
0
#86
pawn8888 wrote:
I think chess is a lot like a Rubiks' Cube. Some people can do it in 20 seconds, while others couldn't do it in two hours.
I'm not sure if that's an accurate comparison, since the instructions for solving a cube are available online, but I completely agree with the description.
UnderDog_Chess wrote:
... 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!
Is there a chess infrastructure comparable to what exists for music?
UnderDog_Chess wrote:
... It's also lots of other academics opinion. ...
Does chess education get lots of attention from academics?
Mar 5, 2017
0
#89
Most people simply misuse the word talent but you shouldn't assume everyone does. Talent IS a thing whether you want to accept it or not. Denying that is the same as saying that all Chess Masters who failed to become GM didn't "work hard enough" when a random kid "outta nowhere" becomes one. The only times when hardwork can make up for this deficiency are when it's misused.
Whenever I try to explain this I use climbing stairs as an analogy:
If you have no talent : All the stairs are steep
If you have some aptitude : Most of the stairs are steep, but a bunch of them that are "normal"
If you have a lot of aptitude : A mix between steep, normal and moving stairs.
If you have genius aptitude : Most of them are moving stairs.
Sure you can get far without talent but which group will get farther and with "less work"?
kindaspongey wrote:
UnderDog_Chess wrote:
Cherub_Enjel wrote:
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?
... 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. ...
So, laziness has nothing to do with it?
It means I have no interest in becoming a title chess player.....and that I have full on lifestyle.
Also, I have never said that I had the self discipline to be become a chess master.
i said it takes more self displine then what most people are comfortable with.
kindaspongey wrote:
UnderDog_Chess wrote:
... It's also lots of other academics opinion. ...
Does chess education get lots of attention from academics?
I'm sure you realise I'm referring to Academic studies into human potential!
Krownyh wrote:
Most people simply misuse the word talent but you shouldn't assume everyone does. Talent IS a thing whether you want to accept it or not. Denying that is the same as saying that all Chess Masters who failed to become GM didn't "work hard enough" when a random kid "outta nowhere" becomes one. The only times when hardwork can make up for this deficiency are when it's misused.
Whenever I try to explain this I use climbing stairs as an analogy:
If you have no talent : All the stairs are steep
If you have some aptitude : Most of the stairs are steep, but a bunch of them that are "normal"
If you have a lot of aptitude : A mix between steep, normal and moving stairs.
If you have genius aptitude : Most of them are moving stairs.
Sure you can get far without talent but which group will get farther and with "less work"?
I agree....all things equal, some people would have to work harder then others, but that is not the point i was trying put across. The empowering message I'm putting across is no matter how steep the stairs are, it's not impossible to get to the top.
if you cannot see the board you will be like myself, a rabbit seeking a hole to hide in.
the lesson of chess, from a champion whose i do not remember, it to look for the first good move and then TO LOOK FOR THE SECOND.
the point was to look at the whole board and not at the last move of the other player. each move may change the movement. see the movement.
look for a good move after the last move of your opponent, and NOT YOUR LAST MOVE, then think of your next move....and then...the move after that.
from one who is a very poor player...so let this advice be the detritus that it is.
Mar 5, 2017
0
#94
UnderDog_Chess wrote:
I agree....all things equal, some people would have to work harder then others, but that is not the point i was trying put across. The empowering message I'm putting across is no matter how steep the stairs are, it's not impossible to get to the top.
And my point is that it's not accurate. I'm assuming by top, in this situation, you mean GM level? Then my argument still stands. You're overlooking all the Masters who failed to become GM's.
If it's still not clear I'll use a gaming analogy. Assuming we all "level up" at the same pace and gain 10 Skill Points to distribute per level. For the one who lacks the aptitude, it would take 30 skill points to improve the "Skill Level". For the one with a lot of aptitude it would take 5.
Now... It's not like I dislike the thought that you can do anything through hardwork. I actually love it. Whenever I see/read this kind of things in fictions it gets me pumping. But this is this, and that is that. IRL just because you had the motivation and worked hard, it doesn't mean that you'll achieve what you once hoped to.
UnderDog_Chess wrote:
... 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. ...
Cherub_Enjel wrote:
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?
UnderDog_Chess wrote:
... 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. ...
kindaspongey wrote:
... So, laziness has nothing to do with it?
UnderDog_Chess wrote:
... It means I have no interest in becoming a title chess player.....and that I have full on lifestyle.
Also, I have never said that I had the self discipline to be become a chess master. ...
So, if a person's chess activity is consistent with the person's interests, goals, and lifestyle choice, is there any reason to bring up "laziness", "lack of discipline", etc.?
UnderDog_Chess wrote:
... It's also lots of other academics opinion. ...
kindaspongey wrote:
... Does chess education get lots of attention from academics?
UnderDog_Chess wrote:
... I'm sure you realise I'm referring to Academic studies into human potential!
I certainly would not be sure that I know what you are referring to. Just so we have some idea, do you feel that you have a specific human-potential-academic-study quote that would justify reference to "laziness", "lack of discipline", etc. in connection with chess study?
UnderDog_Chess wrote (~11 hours ago):
... no matter how steep the stairs are, it's not impossible to get to the top.
"... How do you Know that? ..." - UnderDog_Chess (about something or other, ~1 day ago)
I feel your comments are coming across more as personal attacks rather than healthy debate.....it is possible to to have different point of views and still respect people, as i respect your point of view.
I would like to clarify that my thesis was not on chess training, but on human potential within the broader range and musical development. therefore when i mention other academic studies, they are not specific chess development.i have read through all of my threads and i am satisfied that i was clear on that.
kindaspongey said, " So if a person's chess activity is consistent with the person's interests, goals, and lifestyle choice, is there any reason to bring up "laziness", "lack of discipline", etc.?" My thoughts on personal motivation and how it can affect your development seems to have put a bee in your bonnet. I am afraid that our motivation are valid factors and have to be taken into consideration. I also have never said that my reference to laziness and lack of discipline was an academic quote.....it's a personal view.....i would most definitely word it differently in an academic paper.
kindaspongey said "... How do you Know that? ..." - UnderDog_Chess (about something or other, ~1 day ago) How do you know they can't? In order to achieve something you have to believe you can achieve it.
Whether you think you can or think you can't.......you're right
Henry Ford
Mar 6, 2017
0
#99
Cherub_Enjel wrote:
pawn8888 wrote:
I think chess is a lot like a Rubiks' Cube. Some people can do it in 20 seconds, while others couldn't do it in two hours.
I'm not sure if that's an accurate comparison, since the instructions for solving a cube are available online, but I completely agree with the description.
Funny but no not accurate. There is nothing that equates to chess, really. That's why we play the game.
Mar 6, 2017
0
#100
I think it's accurate in the sense that some people can solve the Cube as soon as they pick it up, most others can't. Whereas in chess some people can become GM's at 17 0r 18 after just being taught the game, while others have to study and practice it to get better. 99% of the population falls into the second category.
i am a steph curry like player, if threes are worth more than twos, i'd have a shot against prime mj