Originally posted by HFRorbisI work very hard and systematically at chess. I get results. that's all I can say, really. we'll see if I ever get over 2000. if I do, someone will no doubt claim it was because I was gifted. Which I would take as an insult, regarding the amount of work I've done even up till now.
How do you tknow hat hard work wins talent every time ?
I don't know if this is relevant but i have a very low iq (documented) and i'm over 1800 on this site. I think being careful is 90% of chess. You know, in science class years ago they had a chart of the intelligence of animals. At the very top of the chart was a picture of a man. At the bottom was a worm (or something i can't remember). Fish were somewhere in the middle. And i thought, how did they test the intelligence of a fish? Of course a man was on top of the chart, since a man made the chart. If a fish made the chart it would put man somewhere in the middle because, after all, they can't swim well or catch a fly in mid-flight. Chessplaying is considered "highbrow" and people who measure intelligence give a lot of credit to playing chess for some reason. They don't think too much of bowling so no credit there. You hear of a chess genius (like Bobby Fischer) but you never hear of a bowling genius or a football genius, tho im sure the same amount of intelligence is involved. Am i making sense. Please disregard if i'm not.
Originally posted by BedlamThank you for the url. I don't know why you want to discredit the source as you give it to us? But the site has some good information.
Might be of intrest to you, although personally I think he has his head stuck where the sun dont shine.
http://www.jlevitt.dircon.co.uk/iq.htm
Originally posted by KnightloreDoesn't matter what Botvinnik was told to say. He worked for the Soviet school of chess and that government agency wanted Botvinnik to be the world champion. That's why they forced his superior chess opponents out of the competition.
Can't be bothered to look up the exact quote but Botvinnik once said of Reshevsky that he was the most talented player in the world but didn't work hard, Botvinnik did and therefore was world champ.
Look it up. Sorry I don't have a url to give you.
I believe in the 80's. Tho not retarded, it's not quite "normal." It was measured in high school. I also took a test to find out which profession i was suited for. This test required the taker to push pins through the proper choices, as i recall. It turned out to be growing fruit. (im serious). I said to my teacher i had no interest in growing fruit or farming of any kind, just eating it. Later in life, i started a vegetable garden in my backyard and quite enjoyed it, so maybe the test wasn't too far off.
Buddy, I'm very interested in chess learning/progressing and would like to know at what age have you started (learn to move), at what age you've started studying (books, tactics, play over games, etc), how many hours a week of study, etc. It will be helpful if you share your learning/progress experience. I'm sorry if I got out of the thread.
Originally posted by HFRorbisI know the answer. Anyone can reach A-class player status with the right training and discipline. But, you have to really want it. As far as over 2000, let's just talk about maintaining a 2000 chess rating. Most players who reach a 2000 chess strength do not maintain that rating after they stop playing opponents at that level. Some of them take off a year or six months, and their rating drops down to like 1900, 1800, 1700 even... To maintain a 2000 rating is a true accomplishment, and to keep it is even more difficult and time consuming. 1800 - 2000 is the most difficult 200 points to cross in the strength game. It takes more time to get from 1800 to 2000 than it takes to get from 0 to 1800 it would seem. No, anyone can become a 2200 master with hard work, discipline and the right course materials. To say someone can't become a chess master is like saying someone can't learn to play the piano at a level where he is capable of playing the Warsaw Concerto. By the way, my Father can play the Warsaw Concerto and most any musical piece, and he is no genius! He just had the right teacher and had a real ear for music.
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)
What is impossible: Becoming a grandmaster if you are not gifted. Grandmasters are born. Masters are made! Experts are trained. A-class players studied up a bit and kept plugging at it. That's the truth.
Originally posted by Sicilian SmaugTell that to Capablanca. I saw a game he played at the age of 5. It looked like 1700 playing to me... and that was only three days after he watched his Dad play some chess with a friend. Now, what is that? I think Capablanca was a sort of Chess Messiah. LOL
I think some Masters were born naturals, they needed just a little study to get where they got. Next group had alot of talent for chess and put a hell of a lot of studying in to get their master title. Next group, intelligent and good at chess, they can do a very large amount of studying and maybe get to strong club level or maybe expert or FM, then t ...[text shortened]... t up to it. Maybe not because they are thick, just their brain power isnt of the 'chess type'.
Originally posted by JusuhMy point is that Americans are just as good at chess as any other nationality on average. Your comment was very anti-American, and I don't agree with you at all. God Bless the USA!
well if they are 2100+ players then they will definitely beat me. but I guess they would also beat you and 95% of other RHP players...
Originally posted by powershakerI think that you could study all the lines that were ever documented and it would make no difference in the master level.
What is impossible: Becoming a grandmaster if you are not gifted. Grandmasters are born. Masters are made! Experts are trained. A-class players studied up a bit and kept plugging at it. That's the truth.[/b]
So, I agree with you...
Real chess skill comes from a knowledge of position, tactics and piece cooperation... Anyone can master these skills if they try hard enough... but to become a grand master I think that you need to have a certain way of thinking in order to master those skills and the game... you need to know that no matter what is written, it is the knowledge inherit in the power of our minds that is the key to chess grand-mastery.
But hey, I'm no grand master...
Originally posted by HFRorbisI was talking abotu 1200 since someone mentioned it before me. I don't believe someone who is "okay" cannot reach 1200 after studying chess.
Some players can truly study the game and train for years everyday, and yet they won't reach 2000 elo.
Why ?
Of course 1200 elo is that low that anybody can reach it and overcome owing to a a good training.
my question is,
is anybody (anyone who is mentally normal) able to reach 2000 elo without this gift that some seem to have but with a lot of hard work/training ?
Is there a elo limit for us non gifted players ?
But lets talk about 2000. I don't think you can reach it without some chess talent. You can study all you want but your not guartanteed to cross the 2000 mark.