some people, it would seem, are born great chess players - though it still takes a lot of work to enhance on that gift they are still naturally good. my point is can anyone become a grandmaster?
i've been playing chess for just under 20 years now, for most of those years i've played every day. now, if i played the piano that much or football i would be a very good player, but at chess i'm not; i've read books on it and have played countless games but have found the main problem i have with chess is that i cant train for a game; i can only train by playing someone better than me, and then they beat me... is there a way you can improve by not 'just playing'??????
Originally posted by eatmybishopI don't agree that if you play piano that much or played football that much you would be good at them.
some people, it would seem, are born great chess players - though it still takes a lot of work to enhance on that gift they are still naturally good. my point is can anyone become a grandmaster?
i've been playing chess for just under 20 years now, for most of those years i've played every day. now, if i played the piano that much or football i would b ...[text shortened]... an me, and then they beat me... is there a way you can improve by not 'just playing'??????
I think that like many other activities somw of us are born with a gift. You could train football for 20 years still you wouldn't be as good as Ronaldinho. He was born with something and had to perfect it but never the less he was born with something. And i could point you people like Gauss, Newton, Archimedes, Feynman, Mozart, they had to work a lot but they were born with something. Sorry the bias on my names but i'm a physicist to be and i love math. 😀
But what we can all do is to enjoy ourselves. Don't let anybody, not even you, take that away from you! You love chess so just do it. Sure it would be great if besides loving chess you could be real good at it to, but if that's not the case still try to have fun.
That's are my thoughts...
basically it has to do with your love for the game...i have read hardly any books, and study minimal theory, but what i have done is played the game, day in and day out...i am good because i love to look for different ways to mate, different positions, and situations that may mislead my opponent. I have played over 10,000 correspondance games, and experience is what i go by, my advice to anyone, if you play the game as much as you love it, and can tie in the theory and instruction that goes into it, i garuantee that you can break 2000, but what you do with it is your choice...2000 rating will get you no wheres besides the fun and love of the game...if you want more, you need to push it! personally i dont want more because chess is not my passion, but if you want it to be, you need to eat, drink, sleep the game...
I think Lasker said that anyone of reasonable intelligence could become a Master. However if you look at the Soviet School of chess, by-products of that system put in a lot of hard work, just as you put in hard work for a degree or diploma.
It is unfortunate that people do not put effort into learning the "components" of a good chess player. If Fischer was taught chess by his sister, that meant that he had to study and learn the principles of chess.
Originally posted by z00tI think he said that they could if he trained them for 6 months (might have been 3 months) which is a lttle different from merely saying anyone could
I think Lasker said that anyone of reasonable intelligence could become a Master. However if you look at the Soviet School of chess, by-products of that system put in a lot of hard work, just as you put in hard work for a degree or diploma.
It is unfortunate that people do not put effort into learning the "components" of a good chess player. If Fischer was taught chess by his sister, that meant that he had to study and learn the principles of chess.
Originally posted by kmac27I thought it is generally accepted that one can reach master (2200) level with lots of hard work. One GM (can't remember who) said anyone or at least most people can reach IM level with hardwork. Few authorities even say that with the right nurturing as a child, anyone can become a GM, though I personally believe for someone with no natural talent, 2300 would probably be the limit.
analyzing your games. chess is a gift to some but all can reach at least 1800. but it takes hard work. analyze your games to see what made you lose each game or the games that were very close or tough.
Originally posted by TommyCthen again, he's an iq-crackpot with no background in cognitive science. he studied math for a couple of years, that's it. if you compare that to k.a.ericsson's credentials http://www.psy.fsu.edu/faculty/ericsson.dp.html , well the difference is just huge.
Levitt in his book on Chess Genius has a formula, which if I remember correctly is:
Elo ~ IQx100 + 1000.
'~' means with hard work and right circumstances...
well, maybe not a crackpot, as he pretty much admits himself that there's really no base for his 'theory'.
It's really pretty simple. I'm obviously no grandmaster either, but I am continually improving. In 20 years, you should have improved *a lot*. Perhaps not IM/GM level, but you should be very proficient at the least. Someone that doesn't progress in something in 20 years of effort likely plays aimlessly without any evaluation of their results.
Originally posted by chesskid001Oops. Quite so.
I really hope its IQx10 and not 100.. Otherwise the average person with 100IQ would be able to reach 11,000 ELO
I'm sure you're right Wormwood. Also, I suspect the visualisation & memory parts of an IQ score are more relevant to chess than the other parts.
Originally posted by TommyCI've been thinking the same. -there was bit about mensa in a finnish talkshow some time ago, and they showed one of the visual problems from the tests. it had four 4x4 grids with some patterns in them, and you were supposed to fill in a fifth grid. -to me it was instantly clear, and felt childlishly easy, but a couple of friends had big problems figuring it out, eventually failing. now they're just as smart as I am, so I think the difference was my tactical training and board vision. my brain has developed the tools to process that kind of visuals, but theirs haven't as they don't play chess.
Also, I suspect the visualisation & memory parts of an IQ score are more relevant to chess than the other parts.
I've also noticed my visual memory for things unrelated to chess have maybe doubled during the 1½ years I've been playing chess. I can now remember twice the number of digits in a random sequence after one quick glance, and I make less mistakes.
I think it's all about training, forcing those synaptic connections to rewire themselves and develop the necessary visual processing 'hardware'.
Originally posted by stevetoddYes but the thing is that you've gotta work hard at it. Coming to think of it it takes hard work even to be a troll :] no-one is born a GM or a troll, they have to put the effort in.
I think he said that they could if he trained them for 6 months (might have been 3 months) which is a lttle different from merely saying anyone could