Originally posted by RahimKif you work on school with the same enthusiasm and dicipline as on chess (in order to become strong), it's pretty hard not to do well. -still, through chess I've come to understand how superficial my knowledge has been on my field. sure I do well as far as grades go, but now I understand my level on physics, math and information theory is still more like reading through bunch of chess books. I mean, I know about things, but I don't really know them. not in a way that they would come as a second nature, without thinking. like the difference between knowing tactical motifs when you first learn them, and knowing them after tens of thousands of repetitions. and I think this 'depth of know-how' -thing affects pretty much every field in life.
Anyone know of good chess players who are bad at school?
I think it's very rare. I heard of good chess players being good at school mostly stuff like physics, math etc...
but rarely do I heard of good chess players who are bad at school in general.
Originally posted by buddy2I'm talking bad in school generally, not just on one specific subject.
I was bad at school, especially in math. I'm rated 1800's here, if that means anything.
Like lots of people could be bad at english or social since it's one subject but i'm talking about getting like f's and d's and being great at chess.
Originally posted by wormwoodBut you enjoy chess so you work harder. As for Univ, school some course you don't like. Plus in chess there are no finals, you're not forced to do it etc....
if you work on school with the same enthusiasm and dicipline as on chess (in order to become strong), it's pretty hard not to do well. -still, through chess I've come to understand how superficial my knowledge has been on my field. sure I do well as far as grades go, but now I understand my level on physics, math and information theory is still more like re ...[text shortened]... tions. and I think this 'depth of know-how' -thing affects pretty much every field in life.
Originally posted by wormwoodI always had the same feeling in school - I got good grades without even working for it, but I always had the feeling that I was bluffing and didn't have any "true understanding" of the matter. There are different levels of understanding, and I think most schools work mostly on the superficial level. Some very gifted students will get deeper on their own, while most students probably don't even notice that their knowledge is superficial. Noticing how superficial your knowledge is may be painful and frustrating, but I think it's actually a sign of intelligence.
if you work on school with the same enthusiasm and dicipline as on chess (in order to become strong), it's pretty hard not to do well. -still, through chess I've come to understand how superficial my knowledge has been on my field. sure I do well as far as grades go, but now I understand my level on physics, math and information theory is still more like re ...[text shortened]... tions. and I think this 'depth of know-how' -thing affects pretty much every field in life.
Scio nescio.
Originally posted by DrumboThat's because they're studying the wrong thing. 🙂 If they took 10 years with the Lev Alburt course and played competitive chess constantly, anyone can reach 1800 with the first three volumes. Anyone. You're talking about the guys who study opening manuals for 30 years and never break 1500. Here's a newscast: opening manuals will never improve chess strength. Knowledge of opening theory will never improve one's strength. Tactics, strategy and endgame will improve your chess strength. De la maza has proved it, Drumbo. And, if you want to get right down to it, I've proven I can improve by 200 points - from 1400 - to 1609 with the Lev Alburt course. That's two hundred points in chess strength. That's huge! It doesn't sound like it, but it's huge in chess ability.
I agree, power, 1800 is an accomplishment to be proud of, and one most people can't reach, regardless of intelligence or amount of study. I've seen a lot of keen chess players who ate, slept, and lived chess for 30 years, but couldn't break 1500.
Originally posted by RahimKWasn't Bobby Fischer terrible at school? He dropped out completely, right?
Anyone know of good chess players who are bad at school?
I think it's very rare. I heard of good chess players being good at school mostly stuff like physics, math etc...
but rarely do I heard of good chess players who are bad at school in general.
1 edit
I was bad in school because I played chess instead of doing homework (high school), and because partying and politics took precedence over studies (college), but did okay in graduate school. 😵😀😛
Edit: I'm not very good at chess either. At least 400 others are above me in the RHP rankings (and no one here is any good).
Originally posted by WulebgrI think I break even now with chess studying compared to Univ studying, but I think maybe i spend more time on chess, maybe....Well I guess Univ classes count towards studying so ya, break even 🙂
I was bad in school because I played chess instead of doing homework (high school), and because partying and politics took precedence over studies (college), but did okay in graduate school. 😵😀😛
Edit: I'm not very good at chess either. At least 400 others are above me in the RHP rankings (and no one here is any good).
Originally posted by scrumpymanjackTo go into law you need some sort of a high school degree etc... meaning you need good marks meaning your good at school.
Agree with this wholeheartedly. And also, why would wanting to go into law mean that you were smart? Come to that, why would going into law (rather than just wanting to) make you smart?
1 edit
Originally posted by RahimKI earned a high school diploma, a college degree, and acceptance to graduate school before producing evidence that I was good at school. 😛
To go into law you need some sort of a high school degree etc... meaning you need good marks meaning your good at school.
Edit: I also thought about law school, but didn't think I could make an honest living as a lawyer (I wanted to do civil liberties work/criminal defense). The OJ trial put those ethical objections to rest, but by then I had my Ph.D. If the Fourth Amendment were respected by the police, there would have been no bloody glove, no Mark Furman, and OJ would be in prison. Folks, the rules against illegal searches protect the police as much as the criminals, perhaps more. Tainted evidence is not evidence.
Originally posted by WulebgrAt least a GED, huh? LOL
I earned a high school diploma, a college degree, and acceptance to graduate school before producing evidence that I was good at school. 😛
Edit: I also thought about law school, but didn't think I could make an honest living as a lawyer (I wanted to do civil liberties work/criminal defense). The OJ trial put those ethical objections to rest, but by the ...[text shortened]... ect the police as much as the criminals, perhaps more. Tainted evidence is [b]not evidence.[/b]