Ram's ARGUMENT to Cheater_1

Here is a substantial argument for you cheater_1 and any of those that considered your points accurate. I am not flaming you, as you present a great argument, but it is very misleading.

IF POSSIBLE, before you read my post, take about 20 minutes to read / scan this article, as it is the BACKBONE to my argument, supplemented by common sense.

http://projects.ict.usc.edu/itw/gel/EricssonDeliberatePracticePR93.pdf

Research done by the AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I at first thought chess was related to IQ levels; that if you had an average IQ then you could never go far. Likewise, you consider photographic memory the KEY trait, REQUIRED. This is FALSE.

All of these players that you speak of have done something that you probably have NOT done, or if you HAVE done it, you have not done it for as long a time. It is called deliberate practice.

Let's consider the boy who you spoke of, the one who reached 2500 before he reached 13 and then gave up. There is an EXPLANATION for this other than the fact that they gave up because they go, "I don't have a photographic memory, I can't do it." Cite that, and quote him. That assumption is completely misleading.

The reason he gave up, and I use this research as my proof, you need to read that article; The reason he gave up is because, as you said, he engulfed his entire young life into DELIBERATELY PRACTICING CHESS. This, according to the research, leads to BURNOUT. When you undergo burnout, it is rare to recover, you simply lose interest. Had the boy not have gone so obsessively into it he would have achieved his mark of 2700.

You see, deliberate practice is NOT easy, because it is NOT nearly as fun as playing the game. Puzzles / reading books / completing tactics / analyzing games of the master - it is WORK. Football players must workout in the gym and go to practice countless times to reach greatness. The same to all athletics. Athletes become great in this exact same manner; physical stature has NOTHING to do with it. The reason there are few 5"5 wide receivers is because they are NOT motivated, because they do not have the confidence. Motivation and Deliberate Practice for 10,000+ hours = Greatness (article).

Now, as you may question, "why do we see more teenagers go so far as compared to those who start late." Studies indicate that the later you start, after teenage years, then the more your maximal level decreases (article).

Several CONSTRAINTS - and I mean there are LOADS of constraints, NONE of which are related to PHYSICAL or MENTAL stature - several Constraints inhibit or block progress.

A) Motivational - as with the kid, burnout. Also, if you start at such a young age, you MUST have parental support. They have to fund you, give you a teacher, etc.
B) People tend to PLAY the game more than they deliberately practice it.
C) All chess masters, and I mean ALL, including those you mentioned (this article as my source), all of these chess masters who have obtained the 2700 rating: They have put in over 10,000 hours of DELIBERATE PRACTICE alone. You cannot tell me that you have done that. In your other posts, you say you spent the past decade PLAYING, not practicing.

So the main idea here is that if you have:

Dedication not only to the game but to practicing it for thousands of hours over at least 10 years of your life, then you will go the distance. This applies to the greatest football players, hockey players, etc. The reason there aren't the MILLIONS you mention is not because they don't have photographic memory; it is simply because there are very few people who have all of the ingredients to be able to practice and keep themselves motivated for 10,000 hours.


I believe that's a pretty substantive argument, my cheating friend.

I told you this would happen if you fired all your bolts in one post.

Ram has sunk you.

Re: Motivational - as with the kid, burnout.

They call it burnout but other things happen.

As the super kids get older that have to take on adult responsibilities and
chess is is not fun anymore, it gets in the way of girlfriends and pop concerts.

Seen it happen loads of time.

It is not KEY to have a high IQ or photographic memory, but rather it is an important factor. For example, Chess Child Prodigys cannot have reached the 10,000 hour mark, or anywhere near that. It must be natural talent (ie. IQ, Memory, etc.).

Originally posted by moteutsch
Chess Child Prodigys cannot have reached the 10,000 hour mark, or anywhere near that.

actually, that's an observed fact, an empirical study on those very same prodigies you speak of. mastering chess especially has been a playground/lab for the psychologists and cognitive science for ages, because of the well defined 'puzzle' of chess.

(you can't have similar situation in any science, as nobody 'plays the same game' after getting past the basics. in chess a rank beginner plays the same game as the world champion.)

It has been my experience purely as a teacher of chess and not a player,that almost all beginners up to medium rated chessplayers are simply not yet aware that recognition of winning patterns on a chessboard and the knowledge of how to achieve these, is actually in real life the tool most effectively used by the better and best of players in winning most of their games,particularily when playing chess against the less experienced players. when playing against players of greater playing strength the ability to recall key moves and strings of moves in many given given positions then plays a more important role,but memory is not the same as 'photographic memory'.Therefore therein lies a fault in the original statement of the original poster of this thread.Actual 'memory' is a different form of memory to that of 'photographic memory' and are not and cannot be used in the same way-------------😉

Anand has a great memory. He memorized a game variation before his match but, it was a typo & he lost!

Yes,many players find it particularily easy to recall hundreds of entire games,but this alone is not enough to determine who is capable and who is not capable of becoming a truly great world class player. There are a large number of variable influences on all chessplayers playing abilities,and whilst 'memory' be it photographic or not is a very useful playing tool,in order to be fully effective it must also of course be combined with many other essential qualities and knowledges. Entirely on its own,in reality it would not prove to be enough to compete with the best of players.---------------😉

Reading these posts has caused me to reflect on why I, a woman, have never been more than an average chessplayer or pianist. First of all, there has to be a certain aptitude, perhaps some genetic material in the brain. Possessing all the qualitites necessary to succeed you have to add discipline, compulsion, and obsession to the mix. I play the piano for enjoyment and make my living teaching it. I play chess for the pleasure it gives me. Period. My obsession with PLAYING the game will never equip me beyond a certain degree of achievement. Too many concert pianists are neurotic. You see the same things with ballet artists or many other top-achievers. I really do not care to enter the ranks of the neurotic!

The human condition is 'competition' .We compete for husbands wives money jobs positions excellence in our chosen field etc,it is merely that we compete for different things of interest to us and in different ways,but we compete nevertheless,aware of it or not we cannot avoid it,being 'the nature of the beast'😀

Originally posted by RECUVIC
The human condition is 'competition' .We compete for husbands wives money jobs positions excellence in our chosen field etc,it is merely that we compete for different things of interest to us and in different ways,but we compete nevertheless,aware of it or not we cannot avoid it,being 'the nature of the beast'😀

Competition does explain it more accurately. It takes a certain drive which I simply do not have! Not that I do not try hard to win. I think that some of my accomplishments in life HAVE come from a certain degree of competition with my three older sisters, come to think of it. They were close in age and I was never in on their activities or confidences. My parents did not pay much attention to me either. I enjoy impressing them with the fact that I am meeting people from all over the world in chess matches on 5 sites. And, of course, whatever I can accomplish with musical activities. Add to that, the male need for dominance....then I can understand why men are so engrossed with studying chess books and discussing all these intricate moves!

Originally posted by ale1552
Reading these posts has caused me to reflect on why I, a woman, have never been more than an average chessplayer or pianist. First of all, there has to be a certain aptitude, perhaps some genetic material in the brain. Possessing all the qualitites necessary to succeed you have to add discipline, compulsion, and obsession to the mix. I play the piano for enj ...[text shortened]... t artists or many other top-achievers. I really do not care to enter the ranks of the neurotic!

not reading these post, has explained why i, a man will never be any good at chess.

Originally posted by ale1552
Reading these posts has caused me to reflect on why I, a woman, have never been more than an average chessplayer or pianist. First of all, there has to be a certain aptitude, perhaps some genetic material in the brain. Possessing all the qualitites necessary to succeed you have to add discipline, compulsion, and obsession to the mix. I play the piano for enj ...[text shortened]... t artists or many other top-achievers. I really do not care to enter the ranks of the neurotic!

According to Malcolm Gladwell in his book "Outliers" the difference between a concert pianist and a teacher is simply down to the hours of practice and possibly some right time right place luck.

He expounds this concept for all great achievers from Mozart to Bill Gates and talks of the number of hours required as being 10,000. I find his theories of interest but I'm not wholly convinced by his arguments.

I saw a documentary with Susan Polgar where they looked into the exposure or practice theory. They did a memory test by having a van with a chess position drive past the cafe she was in - OK this is TV and they're struggling for visuals - so she got to see the position for about 5 seconds.

T point this illustrated was how she had an exceptional memory for realistic chess positions but with unrealistic or impossible chess positions she was average/ish.

Mozart was composing at 3. That is natural talent, not thousands of hours.

Game over.

Originally posted by tamuzi
Mozart was composing at 3. That is natural talent, not thousands of hours.

Game over.

Mozart start composing at age 5. His father was a famous violin player. His dad did drills with him and made him...oh what is it called....PRACTICE!!

Originally posted by tamuzi
Mozart was composing at 3. That is natural talent, not thousands of hours.

Game over.

Yes, but if you would read any work on him, you would quickly realize that it was only at a later age (17?) that is his compositions were better then "average". Just because a toddler can create "art" does not mean it is any good. If you have kids you would know what I'm talking about.