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

Only Chess Forum

  1. 06 Dec '09 11:18
    Svidler:
    "I have an opinion that a monkey could be taught to play chess and it could become a candidate master. "

    this is probably because he did it at a very early age, but for us, oldies, it does not apply ....
    What do you think ?
  2. 06 Dec '09 11:28
    Originally posted by vipiu
    Svidler:
    "I have an opinion that a monkey could be taught to play chess and it could become a candidate master. "

    this is probably because he did it at a very early age, but for us, oldies, it does not apply ....
    What do you think ?
    Depends,how old is the monkey?
  3. Standard member wormwood
    If Theres Hell Below
    06 Dec '09 16:26
    well monkeys are pretty damn good everything. making world class abstract art and picking stocks better than human experts. pound for pound they're also roughly 5x stronger physically than humans.
  4. Standard member randolph
    the walrus
    06 Dec '09 17:04
    Originally posted by vipiu
    Svidler:
    "I have an opinion that a monkey could be taught to play chess and it could become a candidate master. "

    this is probably because he did it at a very early age, but for us, oldies, it does not apply ....
    What do you think ?
    Svidler acts like an ass because he's never had to experience the work that it takes to go from ~1000 to master, because he made it on talent alone. For the rest of us "monkeys", it takes a lifetime of work, and a considerable amount of talent besides.
  5. 06 Dec '09 17:18
    How many chessplayers are there on RHP? How many of them are beyond the level of "candidate master"?
  6. 06 Dec '09 17:32
    Originally posted by randolph
    Svidler acts like an ass because he's never had to experience the work that it takes to go from ~1000 to master
    Maybe, or maybe it's because he thinks that FIDE is devaluing chess titles by lowering the standards. Nigel Short has also expressed how he thinks the GM title no longer has the prestige it once had. I agree. I think the CM title is a joke and maybe Svidler was making a joke of it too.

    It's interesting to note how the thread title referred to "candidate master" and then you talk in terms of "master" without the "candidate" part. This commonly happens. Suddenly those who are "candidates" become regarded as "masters", whereas in my mind, a "candidate master" is not yet a master and may never be.
  7. Standard member wormwood
    If Theres Hell Below
    06 Dec '09 17:56
    2200 with proper training and motivation seems like a reasonable lower limit for anyone without severe cognitive problems. svidler is probably right. the only problem is that most of us are lazy bastards who reach for any excuses instead of putting in the work.

    he didn't say that it wouldn't require hard work or take time.
  8. 06 Dec '09 18:58 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by randolph
    Svidler acts like an ass because he's never had to experience the work that it takes to go from ~1000 to master, because he made it on talent alone. For the rest of us "monkeys", it takes a lifetime of work, and a considerable amount of talent besides.Mo
    Agreed! Most GM's are like that.
    Yes they put in a lot of work, but their natural talent gets them to 1800 or higher...that helps a lot with motivation and understanding the game better.
    This reminds me of Josh Waitzkin.
    He had natural talent and was winning constantly as he rose through the ratings.
    Then when he gets to the level with the "other" natural talents he quits because now he would have to work to win.

    I always wanted to be a strong player but if it came naturally and I didn't have to work for it I wouldn't play chess.
  9. Standard member irontigran
    Rob Scheider is..
    06 Dec '09 19:16
    the reason the kids can learn faster is that pattern recognition is so easier to grasp at that age. Id say learning master level strategy is doable... its just first you need to find a way to counteract your lesser pattern recognition and improve tactically. de la mazas book does help with this.
  10. Standard member wormwood
    If Theres Hell Below
    06 Dec '09 19:26
    Originally posted by AlexanderAlekhine
    Agreed! Most GM's are like that.
    Yes they put in a lot of work, but their natural talent gets them to 1800 or higher...that helps a lot with motivation and understanding the game better.
    This reminds me of Josh Waitzkin.
    He had natural talent and was winning constantly as he rose through the ratings.
    Then when he gets to the level with the "oth ...[text shortened]... ong player but if it came naturally and I didn't have to work for it I wouldn't play chess.
    not true. none of these 'born prodigy stories are'. waitzkin played and trained very hard from early age, and got huge support from his parents early on. he began at the age of six, got instantly coached by the park hustler blitz players, and was trained by bruce pandolfini already a year later. then it was hard work after that, which I believe is the message he's fond of repeating even today.

    all masters have a similar background. hard study since early age and supportive parents.
  11. 06 Dec '09 20:12 / 3 edits
    Take a group of kids all aged 6.
    One makes it to master but they all had the same training.
    Talent says a lot.
    Nobody ever talks about the 1000's of kids who don't have what it takes and quit.

    Can you name one Master who was stuck at 1200 for a few years then struggled to pass 1400...and years later finally broke the 1800 barrier and then reached master after 20 years? Not likely. Most strong players get to that rating level quickly.

    But what you can do is take 1000 kids and say those 3 made it because of hard work? They all had the same training! TALENT has a lot to do with where you end up in chess.

    I've seen people start playing chess and already be at the 1600 level...I also have seen people start playing chess and be at the 1100 level.

    I said it once I'll say it again...If you have enough kids in a group studying chess you will find the ones with natural talent for the game.
    None of them will ever admit it was easier for them.
  12. 06 Dec '09 21:59
    Originally posted by AlexanderAlekhine
    I always wanted to be a strong player but if it came naturally and I didn't have to work for it I wouldn't play chess.
    and i have an extra testicle called suzi.
  13. 06 Dec '09 22:07
    Originally posted by AlexanderAlekhine
    Take a group of kids all aged 6
    99.9% of them won't give a rat's ass about chess
  14. Standard member wormwood
    If Theres Hell Below
    06 Dec '09 22:44 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by AlexanderAlekhine
    Take a group of kids all aged 6.
    One makes it to master but they all had the same training.
    Talent says a lot.
    Nobody ever talks about the 1000's of kids who don't have what it takes and quit.

    Can you name one Master who was stuck at 1200 for a few years then struggled to pass 1400...and years later finally broke the 1800 barrier and then rea ones with natural talent for the game.
    None of them will ever admit it was easier for them.
    take three children. don't select them from 'talented ones', but instead take the three you happen to have yourself. decide to make them genius. at what? doesn't matter. but when one of them finds a chess board, you decide that chess is as good as any other discipline.

    you're not a good player yourself, but it doesn't matter. start training your daughters at chess, and surround them with chess culture as much as you can. at the age of 5 the oldest of them beats you at chess. man, you're really not very good at it! but it doesn't matter, as you do understand training.

    watch all three of your daughters quickly grown into devastating chess machines. 2 GMs and one IM. chuckle at the fact that the IM one is actually the most talented of the three, yet she never made GM.


    talent is nothing, hard work is everything.
  15. Standard member orion25
    Art is hard
    06 Dec '09 22:44
    Originally posted by heinzkat
    99.9% of them won't give a rat's ass about chess
    very true, also 80% doesn't have the discipline and the morale to keep on working. Truth is, not every child works as hard as the others do. Of course I agree talent has something to do with it, talented people learn faster, but still they need to put hard work in and that also doesnt mean a less talented kid can't reach the same level. Talent is about learning, not ability.