I was wondering if anyone knows of any grandmasters who were not prodigies. What I mean is, I would like to one day reach a master level rating, ( and am willing to put the time in to study ), but it is a little disheartening to read that almost all masters and grandmasters were born as prodigies. Just how far can study and research take you?
Originally posted by BittermusingsJohn Donaldson is an IM, but has earned two of the three required GM norms. Although he achieved the IM rank relatively young, he earned both GM norms a couple years ago in his mid 40s. I expect that he will become a GM.
I was wondering if anyone knows of any grandmasters who were not prodigies. What I mean is, I would like to one day reach a master level rating, ( and am willing to put the time in to study ), but it is a little disheartening to read that almost all masters and grandmasters were born as prodigies. Just how far can study and research take you?
Originally posted by BittermusingsYour asking if there have been any late bloomers, correct? I have often wondered this myself.
I was wondering if anyone knows of any grandmasters who were not prodigies. What I mean is, I would like to one day reach a master level rating, ( and am willing to put the time in to study ), but it is a little disheartening to read that almost all masters and grandmasters were born as prodigies. Just how far can study and research take you?
Any late blooming writers who suddenly decide they want to write a novel? Any late-blooming pianists who become virtuosos? Chess at high level takes enormous amounts of accumulated knowledge, skills, as well as imagination, memory, perserverence, courage, and no doubt physical stamina. When Tal started to go downhill physically, so did his chess. It's a wonder people like me (just above 60) can set up the pieces, never mind play a full game. Korchnoi appears to be the exception, a tough old Frankenstein terrifying the kids.
Originally posted by BittermusingsI have often wondered this too, but the amount of time it take for even a "prodigy" to become a gm is substantial. For one of us mere mortals to become a gm I would fear it would take around 25 hours of studying per day.
I was wondering if anyone knows of any grandmasters who were not prodigies. What I mean is, I would like to one day reach a master level rating, ( and am willing to put the time in to study ), but it is a little disheartening to read that almost all masters and grandmasters were born as prodigies. Just how far can study and research take you?
I'm 25, and while I've had a casual interest in chess most of my younger years I pretty well accept that I could never be a GM; however, that doesn't mean goals are futile, right? What about NM status? What about just simply trying to reach 1800-2000 rated?
For me, seeing and understanding the beauty of the game, combinations, the strategies, etc. is enough reward for me. I might not be able to pull them off in competition myself, but just because I'm not a concert pianist doesn't mean I can't play with the same degree of interest and appreciation.
Originally posted by ChesswickYeah, but chicks dig that GM title.
I'm 25, and while I've had a casual interest in chess most of my younger years I pretty well accept that I could never be a GM; however, that doesn't mean goals are futile, right? What about NM status? What about just simply trying to reach 1800-2000 rated?
For me, seeing and understanding the beauty of the game, combinations, the strategies, etc ...[text shortened]... a concert pianist doesn't mean I can't play with the same degree of interest and appreciation.
Originally posted by rbmorrisIf chicks digged titles more aptly applied to a constituent of geekdom then I'd be doing a lot better with the ladies 🙂
Yeah, but chicks dig that GM title.
I know avid chess players that still don't know the difference between NM, IM, GM, etc.
Originally posted by BittermusingsLeonid Stein didn't achieve master status until he was 24, and didn't become an elite player until his late twenties. That said, he was considered a natural talent.
I was wondering if anyone knows of any grandmasters who were not prodigies. What I mean is, I would like to one day reach a master level rating, ( and am willing to put the time in to study ), but it is a little disheartening to read that almost all masters and grandmasters were born as prodigies. Just how far can study and research take you?
No No No. Grandmaster? Well, all I can say is it's impossible for the average mortal to achieve a grandmaster rating of 2600, 2700, etc... When I think grandmaster, I do not think Donaldson. I think about the likes of: Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov, Adams, Morphy, Steinitz, Blackburne, Pillsbury, Alekhine, etc... All it takes to answer your question of difference is to carefully analyze the games of Paul Morphy. Can anyone learn to establish such a beautiful aura over the chess board? After lots of determination and practice, can anyone match Bobby Fischer's Game of the Century? After lots of practice and study!? The intense imaginative brilliancies of these true grandmasters are beyond the mere mortal's talent of achievement. Grandmasters are born. However, mere masters have learned the game with great determination and study. If a man knows every concept in The Ideas Behind the Openings by Grandmaster Reuben Fine and can apply them in play, then he will reach a Master norm. However, I sat down to examine the book after buying it and found that it took me a whole hour just to analyze the first opening of the Guioco Piano. But, remember, you must learn all of that and actually apply it to the board. I find it most unlikely that someone will play through all the lines - each one - and actually apply them in play. You absolutely must know these principles and lines to confront grandmasters or they will eat your lunch. Consquently, even after knowing these lines and the latest theories, one must dazzle like Fischer, Morphy, Kasparov, Steinitz and Tal. Good luck! Go for it!
To suggest that GMs are born is, to me, a bit extreme; of course, we're no longer talking about chess at this point and we're talking more about what really constitutes "raw talent." How can it even be possible to be a natural at chess? What's natural about it? It's about as natural as music in the sense that a child might display a natural propensity for a discipline, but nevertheless it requires years upon years of parental encouragement, resources, and practice. Where would Mozart's undeniable genius be without his father Leopold? There's also a wide misconception that Mozart would compose effortlessly, but if you read any of his writings you'll realize that he studied likely more than any of his contemporaries.
Perhaps an example more related to chess would be the Polgar sisters. I actually read an article in a recent issue of Psychology magazine that discussed how their father thought genius could be created; well, by all accounts his method is successful.
🙂
To suggest that GMs are born is, to me, a bit extreme; of course, we're no longer talking about chess at this point and we're talking more about what really constitutes "raw talent." How can it even be possible to be a natural at chess? What's natural about it? It's about as natural as music in the sense that a child might display a natural propensity for a discipline, but nevertheless it requires years upon years of parental encouragement, resources, and practice.I believe the natural talent is firmly based in logic. The three area's that prodigies are usually found in are Chess, Music and Math. All three are firmly structured and logical. While Tal could create brilliantly at the board, it is still a very logical game. And Music is highly logical, having quite a bit in common with Math. Of course it does take years of practice to develope the raw talent, but not everyone is born with the amount of talent needed to create a Mozart, Kasparov, or Einstein.
I just wanted to say that I am a rare dancing prodigy. By the age of four I could do a mean hustle! 🙂