I am wondering if the original poster is writing all this down, or is it getting too smoky, I for one could never ever reach master level, because to do so, would incompass utilizing too much of my free time, and there are so many far better things to be doing with my free time! I would have to be in a prison like atmosphere to devote that much time to a game!
Will I be able to reach Master level?
Sort:
Oct 9, 2015
0
#102
GhostNight wrote:
Lack of dedication, it seems. Well, I'm truly dedicated though. 😉
I am wondering if the original poster is writing all this down, or is it getting too smoky, I for one could never ever reach master level, because to do so, would incompass utilizing too much of my free time, and there are so many far better things to be doing with my free time! I would have to be in a prison like atmosphere to devote that much time to a game!
Oct 9, 2015
0
#104
People who play a lot of chess blame their ineptitude on reasons other than ther ineptitude.
Oct 9, 2015
0
#105
pfren wrote:
Talent is the most suitable excuse of lazy poople.
No talent is needed to reach master level, period and fullstop.
I agree to some extend. Although talent helps.
@Ziryab and @Harvey_Wallbanger very amusing discussion you have. At least I learned something new. Thank you.
Oct 9, 2015
0
#106
Harvey_Wallbanger wrote:
This word "talent" means different things to different people. Let's use another word. (I won't call it a synonym because then we would have another offshoot argument).
So, we can agree that to reach master level we need:
1. Really good training.
2. Motivation that fuels the self discipline and drive to work assiduously, day in, day out through all the hard work.
Now, some would say: "That's it." Maybe they are correct. But it seems to me that the individual also needs talent...no, that is a terrible word, strike it out...I mean: aptitude.
I maintain that unless we add "aptitude" the individual is quickly going to lose interest and motivation. And the chess instructor is going to feel akin to a music instructor teaching someone who is deaf how to play the violin (and I don't want to hear about Beethoven) or a monkey how to tap dance.
Yes, I think aptitude is a better word choice. Now, if we could identify more specifically the nature of chess aptitude.
Memory. Ability to concentrate for long periods of time. Calculation. Spatial understanding. ...
To an extent aptitude can be developed (we will inevitable revisit the old nature / nurture debates as we discuss the extent).
Both/and trumps either/or in most cases, and certainly in the one. It's a matter of degree.
Oct 9, 2015
0
#107
Regarding aptitude, I recall a young student (third and fourth grade) whom I worked with almost ten years ago. His test scores were phenomenally high. He was identified as "gifted" by his school, where I ran the chess club.
He was steered towards the chess club and was about average within his school. However, he was more highly motivated than most of his peers. Consequently, I spend a little time nearly every week working one on one with him on some of the elementary skills that I insist students learn: checkmate with queen and king vs. lone king and checkmate with rook and king vs. lone king.
It took him an extraordinarily long time to master the queen checkmate, but he got it. He never succeeded in checkmating with the rook and king in less than 40 moves, and struggled to do it in under 50.
I finally concluded that despite his high intelligence, there were certain aptitudes useful in chess that he lacked, probably something akin to what we usually call spatial ability.
Most children his age who are no where near as "intelligent", as the school understands this term, are able to learn these checkmates with far less time and effort.
I long thought i would be able to get my rating up, quite sadly i have add and cannot focus on 1 chess game i must look at fourm constantly to keep myself from drifting off ruining my chess game. i must remain quite aggresive to not get bored quite quickly...That is my weakness idenify your own and see if you can push through it. If so maybe you will make master
MorraMeister wrote:
Sitting around studying endless openings and playing with your databases and chess engines won't take you to the next level. It is artifical study and really has nothing to do with understanding chess.
Bravo. I couldn't say it better myself.
abrahampenrose wrote:
Just look at the current super-GM field. Nearly all of them were chess prodigies as a teenager. How is hard work able to keep up? Even a "regular Joe GM" who studied chess nonstop for 40 years, will still be no match for a prodigy age 13 who learned how the pieces move last year. Look up names like Wei Yi.
Being intelligent (or talented) is helpful, but won't bring you far without hard work. The real key to mastery, however, is to start at a very young age and to keep studying systematically. As you said, all those Super-GMs were already strong players when they were teenagers, meaning they all have started to play chess before the age of 7 or 8. I think it is hard for an intelligent person, who starts at the age of 4 with chess and continues to study systematically, not to become a master. (Cf. Polgar sisters). On the other hand, I doubt that Magnus Carlsen would ever become an IM, if he started at age 20. It's all about the placticity of the brain... If it were mostly about talent, where are all the talented GM's who started late?
Plastic Brains (and posting in threads) are the first steps towards making Master ??
You read it here, first.
Oct 9, 2015
0
#112
Or to excel at chess, buy good chess books and read them (all 50,000). lol
zborg wrote:
Plastic Brains (and posting in threads) are the first steps towards making Master ??
You read it here, first.
Not my fault if you are not familiar with neuroscience...
Just for you: https://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/plast.html
Well, You might make in 7-8 years because theres Alice Dong who is 17 at CM
Oct 9, 2015
0
#116
Jenium wrote:
On the other hand, I doubt that Magnus Carlsen would ever become an IM, if he started at age 20.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that one!
Oct 9, 2015
0
#117
"Will I be able to reach master level?" Possible but probably not.
"Will I be able to become a multi-millionaire?" Possible but in your case, extremely doubtful.
"Will I be able to have a one-night stand with Miss Universe?" Well, here your odds are a little more favorable.
Talent in chess is very, very real. Just because it's harder to visualize (compared to say, physical size for sports), doesn't mean it's not there.
It's definitely complicated too - someone's talent might be an incredible photographic chess memory, another's might be incredibly deep calculation/visualization, and another's might be an uncanny way to see a pattern once and then use it correctly over a variety of situations.
Knowledge and study can get you pretty far, but talent will be the main difference between a master+ player and a low-level class player who's been playing tournaments for over a few years.
Talent and knowledge in this thread is in rather short supply.
Except for IM @Phren, naturally.
And the OP was just sooooo original. Yep.
The first thing you need is ..... a heck of a lot of time.