Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 09 Nov '09 01:59
    I don't think that you can be great if chess is not your main focus. I think you can be good, but not great. The more I learn about chess, the more I realize how much I DON'T know. Chess is my main outlet for my competitive nature, but if you are an aspiring writer, musician, teacher, whatever, chess just takes too much of your life to be great. (imo)
  2. 09 Nov '09 02:01
    Originally posted by revan1
    I don't think that you can be great if chess is not your main focus. I think you can be good, but not great. The more I learn about chess, the more I realize how much I DON'T know. Chess is my main outlet for my competitive nature, but if you are an aspiring writer, musician, teacher, whatever, chess just takes too much of your life to be great. (imo)
    its like any art form, a very uncompromising mistress!
  3. Standard member randolph
    the walrus
    09 Nov '09 02:24
    Max Euwe was an amateur and the world champion; Mark Taimanov was a top-10 player and a world class pianist; Alexander Grischuk is an accomplished poker player. But these are the exceptions, not the rule; if you wish to remain in sufficient form to win the world championship today, no distractions can be allowed.
  4. Subscriber Paul Leggett
    Chess Librarian
    09 Nov '09 02:36
    Originally posted by randolph
    ... no distractions can be allowed.[/b]
    This made me laugh! My peak USCF OTB rating was 1848 in 1995, the year I met my wife. I was married a year later, and my rating dropped to 1600! I worked it back up to 1847 in 2005 before the birth of my second child, and now I am floating around the 1700's, but with chess, LIFE is a distraction.

    Chess is the therapy we put ourselves through to deal with it!

    Paul
  5. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Gonzalo de Córdoba
    09 Nov '09 02:37
    Lasker was a brilliant mathematician who helped establish modern algebra.
  6. 09 Nov '09 03:39
    Originally posted by revan1
    I don't think that you can be great if chess is not your main focus. I think you can be good, but not great. The more I learn about chess, the more I realize how much I DON'T know. Chess is my main outlet for my competitive nature, but if you are an aspiring writer, musician, teacher, whatever, chess just takes too much of your life to be great. (imo)
    I agree with you Imo.
  7. Standard member PatzerLars
    pawn grabber
    09 Nov '09 09:18
    Originally posted by revan1
    I don't think that you can be great if chess is not your main focus. I think you can be good, but not great. The more I learn about chess, the more I realize how much I DON'T know. Chess is my main outlet for my competitive nature, but if you are an aspiring writer, musician, teacher, whatever, chess just takes too much of your life to be great. (imo)
    How do you define "good" and "great" (in terms of chessic accomplishments) ?
  8. 09 Nov '09 14:36
    Botvinnik was an award winning engineer.So was another well-known GM of the same era whose name escapes me at the moment.
  9. 09 Nov '09 22:22
    Originally posted by PatzerLars
    How do you define "good" and "great" (in terms of chessic accomplishments) ?
    By great essentially what I mean is grandmaster level
  10. 09 Nov '09 22:49
    What percentage of people reach that level? Even if it is their primary goal and are willing to put for the effort that could lead to being a grand master?

    There is such a thing as talent. To reach the top in any area you must have both talent and work.
  11. Standard member PatzerLars
    pawn grabber
    10 Nov '09 08:59
    Originally posted by revan1
    By great essentially what I mean is grandmaster level
    Hmm. I would call this level "good". "Great" is Super-GM level ( Kramnik, Carlsen, etc.).
    Master level i would call "decent". Anything below 2200 ( including myself) i would call "bad" or "woodpushing".

    But, like all intuitive definitions, this is highly debatable. So i am inclined to say, that there is no objectively correct definition of the given adjectives ( in terms of chessic accomplishments).
    To be Super-GM you will definitely have to stay focused exclusively on the game only, so I agree. With the levels below I am not so sure.
  12. Standard member wormwood
    If Theres Hell Below
    10 Nov '09 17:19
    Originally posted by revan1
    By great essentially what I mean is grandmaster level
    then the answer is no. you can't get there without living, breathing, eating and obsessing about chess for 15 years straight.
  13. 10 Nov '09 17:40
    Originally posted by wormwood
    then the answer is no. you can't get there without living, breathing, eating and obsessing about chess for 15 years straight.
    How do you explain the 14 year old grandmasters
  14. Standard member wormwood
    If Theres Hell Below
    10 Nov '09 17:44
    Originally posted by heinzkat
    How do you explain the 14 year old grandmasters
    they started studying at 4 years old. kasparov started at 5 as I remember, and that applies roughly to all teenage GMs.
  15. 10 Nov '09 18:02 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by wormwood
    kasparov started at 5 as I remember
    That makes him GM at 20