Originally posted by RJHindsYes, but how many young players also started young but didn't have what it took?
I believe all the greats started young and played without a break on their
way to greatness. I believe starting at a young age makes a great
difference. Also being able to concentratate on chess only without having
to spend a great deal of time on other work, etc. and without having a
long break between competitive chess play makes a great difference.
Originally posted by HighTorqueI think you are missing the point a bit here. The Polgar sisters are a living experiment in the nature vs nurture/ training vs ability debate.
judit polgar vs kasparov
kasparov wins 12 times, loses 1 and draws 4
I wouldn't call that being on the same level.
The strongest counterpoint would be to note that both Polgar parents were PhD's and highly intelligent, so the sisters are not exactly a random sample.
Besides, one of those 12 Kasparov wins was because he ignored the touch move rule in a game with Judit and took back a move. I'd say in that game he was below her level...
Learning chess as a child makes an enormous difference. When your brain is developing chess is assimilated much more easily. A human being reach the peak of its mental capacities around 25 years old. After that, learning is getting more difficult.
Also if Kasparov hadn't play chess before he was 40, he would have to earn a living with some other job and thus could only play as an amateur.
Originally posted by Paul LeggettThe polgar sisters are no where near kasparov, or any other great player for that matter. And you are right in saying that they aren't of average intelligence.
I think you are missing the point a bit here. The Polgar sisters are a living experiment in the nature vs nurture/ training vs ability debate.
The strongest counterpoint would be to note that both Polgar parents were PhD's and highly intelligent, so the sisters are not exactly a random sample.
Besides, one of those 12 Kasparov wins was because he ...[text shortened]... rule in a game with Judit and took back a move. I'd say in that game he was below her level...
Originally posted by w0lver1neI think you are right in the fact that most grown people don't have the time to spend like a child who has no love interests, nor the need to take care of their own needs. Does this mean that a 40 year old kasparov couldn't play at the same level that he did? I think all this proves is that a person who has the ability to become a champion probably won't do it at a later age due to life rather than ability.
Learning chess as a child makes an enormous difference. When your brain is developing chess is assimilated much more easily. A human being reach the peak of its mental capacities around 25 years old. After that, learning is getting more difficult.
Also if Kasparov hadn't play chess before he was 40, he would have to earn a living with some other job and thus could only play as an amateur.
Originally posted by QuitsLet's put this notion to rest. Fluid thinking and non-verbal mental abilities are already in decline by age 40. Kasparov or any person starting at that age would be fighting an uphill battle to master the game. For the average player who aspires to be 1800 age is far less of an issue but to become a GM or even IM it just isn't going to happen.
I think you are right in the fact that most grown people don't have the time to spend like a child who has no love interests, nor the need to take care of their own needs. Does this mean that a 40 year old kasparov couldn't play at the same level that he did? I think all this proves is that a person who has the ability to become a champion probably won't do it at a later age due to life rather than ability.
Statistics bear this out, countless adult players take up tournament chess (many of whom learned the game in their youth) and the amount of FM's, IM's and GM's that come from their ranks is essentially nil.
Originally posted by nimzo5I agree.
Let's put this notion to rest. Fluid thinking and non-verbal mental abilities are already in decline by age 40. Kasparov or any person starting at that age would be fighting an uphill battle to master the game. For the average player who aspires to be 1800 age is far less of an issue but to become a GM or even IM it just isn't going to happen.
Statistics b ...[text shortened]... youth) and the amount of FM's, IM's and GM's that come from their ranks is essentially nil.
I believe that to become a world chess champion or a top grandmaster, more than just talent or ability is required. It requires tremendous mental power. Those mental capacities have to be awakened at a young age, if they were left sleeping for 40 years, it's just too late.
Originally posted by w0lver1neAyep- for the same reason you don't randomly see some 40 year old phenom in sports.
I agree.
I believe that to become a world chess champion or a top grandmaster, more than just talent or ability is required. It requires tremendous mental power. Those mental capacities have to be awakened at a young age, if they were left sleeping for 40 years, it's just too late.
1 edit
Originally posted by plopzillaI think no one doubts with his natural talent he would have been 2200-2300 player. But he would have missed his years of training with Magokonov, would not have the access to norm events that come with being a prodigy. Reaching GM is far harder than people estimate and many super talented players never get there.
so we are conclusively saying Kasparov would never of made Master even starting Chess at 40... he'd just become another average 1800 try hard patzer I guess...
I just can't believe that.
He could however hold out and win the Senior Championship and get the Gm title that way 🙂
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
Originally posted by nimzo5Moreover, he would have missed out on the decades of experience that he did have. People underestimate this factor, but it's been shown - De Groot, for one - that while the difference between a bad and a good player, or a good and a great one, is talent, application, and theoretical knowledge, the difference between a great player and a grand master is the ability to recognise tactical and strategic patterns - not analyse, but recognise from positions seen before and stored in memory.
I think no one doubts with his natural talent he would have been 2200-2300 player. But he would have missed his years of training with Magokonov, would not have the access to norm events that come with being a prodigy. Reaching GM is far harder than people estimate and many super talented players never get there.
To get this ability, one has to, obviously have seen those positions. And not only seen them, but stored them, in a way that one can recognise them when one sees them many years later. This does come easier to some than to others, but above all, it comes much, much easier to children than to adults. Learning to recognise the relevant patterns in the world around us is, after all, what childhood is for in the first place.
Laying the foundations for grandmastership as a child is possible for the same reason that learning to speak as a child is possible. Becoming a grand master as an adult is nearly impossible for the same reason that children who have never been raised with language cannot learn to speak later in life, and adults who have been exposed to only one language as a child find learning languages harder than those who learned more in their early years.
He could however hold out and win the Senior Championship and get the Gm title that way 🙂
I doubt even that. He'd have to beat all those patzers who don't have his talent, but would have those forty years' advantage.
Richard