Is being a chess master (over 2000) a matter of gift or a matter of work/training ?
The more you train the stronger you are , is that true ?
Otherwise no matter how hard you train you will never get over 2000 elo because being good at chess is a matter of gift ,true or not ?
What do you think ? (jokes apart)
Originally posted by WulebgrSame. I try to prepare before each game. Whether I know my pairing/colors or not, I still prepare.
I have no gift for the game. My skill is 100% the result of hard work and dedication. I get trounced by "naturals" that never study at every tournament I play in.
If it's the second or future round, I try to estimate who I could potentially face and prepare to face them.
I believe hard work wins talent every time. nobody ever got good without an incredible amount of work. no matter how talented. -I've already seen many strongish players give the impression that they don't do much studying, or that they started playing just 2-3 years ago. then they slip somewhere down the line that they've actually played thousands of games before the claimed starting point.
seirawan's "winning chess openings" has some hilarious anecdotes about his own struggle as a starting player. it's clear that he was just as bad as anybody when starting, and now he's one of the world's top GM's.
it would be really interesting to see a fully documented career of a grandmaster, complete with an extensive training diary of everything he ever did. there must be such documentation, as I keep a record myself, and know many others who do as well. I know pretty much exactly how many games I've ever played, how many tactics I've done and even have most of the games stored. it'll be great to look back in 10-20 years and see how it all went.
Capablanca played Marshall when the Cuban was 20. He won the match +8,-1,=14. At the time Marshall was one of the top ten in the world. Capablanca wrote, "The most surprising feature of all was the fact that I played without having ever opened a book to study the openings..." I'll bet there are very few over the board players out there who don't study their openings before entering a local tournament and still have mediocre results. The interrelationship between study and talent is an intriguing one in any field. One could argue that the same skills involved in mathematics can be used in chess. Maybe the study of math could help your chess game. There are many great players, like Lasker, who were mathematicians. But then Oppenheimer was a lousy player. Also, of interest is the relationship of music/math/chess. Philidor, for example, was a musical prodigy, as well as a great chess player. I guess the brain is like a computer. You need software (study) and hardware (talent) to be any good.
Originally posted by General PutzerI don't believe that. Getting over 1200 is so simple especially now days. If you study you would easily get over that.
There have been some geniuses that love chess and study it for all their lives, but never get better than 1200 strength, so I'd have to say there's a gift involved.