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

Only Chess Forum

  1. Standard member wormwood
    If Theres Hell Below
    05 Nov '06 01:29
    a nice article about the polgar sisters, their dad and psychology.


    "My father believes that innate talent is nothing, that [success] is 99 percent hard work," Susan says. "I agree with him."


    http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/index.php?term=pto-20050614-000002&print=1
  2. 05 Nov '06 03:59
    innate talent is nearly everything in my opinion
  3. Standard member Arrakis
    D_U_N_E
    05 Nov '06 05:18
    Originally posted by wormwood
    a nice article about the polgar sisters, their dad and psychology.


    "My father believes that innate talent is nothing, that [success] is 99 percent hard work," Susan says. "I agree with him."


    http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/index.php?term=pto-20050614-000002&print=1
    Her father only told her that so that she would work harder. Seriously, the girl was born with special talents.
  4. Standard member wormwood
    If Theres Hell Below
    05 Nov '06 10:37
    Originally posted by arrakis
    Her father only told her that so that she would work harder. Seriously, the girl was born with special talents.
    all three of them?
  5. 05 Nov '06 11:18
    Everyone has to work hard even Kasparov but there's a big difference in a talented person working hard and a wood pusher.

    I think Euwe said there were no natural chessplayers except Capablanca who he credited with a mystical positional insight.
  6. 05 Nov '06 12:41
    Originally posted by alexstclaire
    innate talent is nearly everything in my opinion
    It's difficult to disagree with someone so successful at training top players. He says "I can train my daughters to be top chess players", then he goes and does it. Pretty effective demonstration.
  7. Standard member mipmcpt
    manchester clan
    05 Nov '06 14:40
    With regard to susan poltgar, has anyone brought any of her training dvds abd what do you think of them?
  8. Standard member wormwood
    If Theres Hell Below
    05 Nov '06 14:50
    Originally posted by yelob
    Everyone has to work hard even Kasparov but there's a big difference in a talented person working hard and a wood pusher.

    I think Euwe said there were no natural chessplayers except Capablanca who he credited with a mystical positional insight.
    the thing that's sticked with me, reading about kasparov, was that he's a workaholic. also that every time a weakness in his play appears, he focuses his efforts on it, and a couple of months later it's gone.

    which reminds me of:

    His interviews with 78 German pianists and violinists revealed that by age 20, the best had spent an estimated 10,000 hours practicing, on average 5,000 hours more than a less accomplished group. Unless you're dealing with a cosmic anomaly like Mozart, he argues, an enormous amount of hard work is what makes a prodigy's performance look so effortless.

    kasparov started chess at 5-6 I think? that means he had played & trained 10 years when he was 15 years old. and 20 years at 25. that's an awfully lot of work.

    I very much doubt even mozart or capablanca got where they were without training. those are nice stories, and flattering. and I understand why people like when others think they got effortlessly where they are. but nobody would believe such a ridiculous claim about say, a 100m runner who's reached the very top. sure, some people are born pretty fast, but it still takes a LOT of work to get even near the top.

    with the polgar sisters, they all agreed that sophia is the most talented, but judit works most at it. and look who got strongest of them all.

    if there's a differentiating talent, I think it's the 'talent' of working hard and long. stubborness and a ridiculously big ego also helps when you're pushing your limits.
  9. 05 Nov '06 15:16
    Everyone who is a Grand Master has at least some natural talent. Anyone who seriously works very hard could probably get to master at best.
  10. 05 Nov '06 16:04
    Originally posted by mtthw
    It's difficult to disagree with someone so successful at training top players. He says "I can train my daughters to be top chess players", then he goes and does it. Pretty effective demonstration.
    why do you think he started training them? obviously they showed some inclination to the game or superb mental capabilities, or something
  11. 05 Nov '06 16:05
    Originally posted by chesskid001
    Everyone who is a Grand Master has at least some natural talent. Anyone who seriously works very hard could probably get to master at best.
    you people think that anyone can be master.....NO YOU CANT, even with tons of training from top people, more than likely you cant, just come to that realization please
  12. 05 Nov '06 16:41 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by alexstclaire
    why do you think he started training them? obviously they showed some inclination to the game or superb mental capabilities, or something
    Read the article. He was a psychologist and he had a theory he wanted to prove, about how you could coach any child to success in a specialised field. He decided on using chess to prove it with. This was before they were even born.

    I'm sure there are parts of the theory that are controversial but, like I said, it's difficult to argue with the results.

    I suspect that lots of training at a very young age is critical though - at this stage the brain is still developing, and so can be influenced. So you couldn't take an adult or older child and guarantee the same results. It's probably similar to the way very young children find learning a language very easy, whereas not all older people do.
  13. 05 Nov '06 17:11
    Originally posted by alexstclaire
    you people think that anyone can be master.....NO YOU CANT, even with tons of training from top people, more than likely you cant, just come to that realization please
    Although part of me agrees with you below is what David Tebb (whose opinion also has to be respected as does Lasker's) said:

    "I believe Emanuel Lasker actually said that he could take a person of average intelligence and turn them into a chess master by the end of six months. That sounds right. If an ordinary player in any sport or game is coached for 6 months by a World Champion, then it would be surprising if they didn't become very good at it."

    Of course Lasker would have been extremely intelligent and maybe just didn't know how limited someone of average intelligence can be (I reckon a lot of world champions just cannot appreciate the extent of their talent and possibly under estimate it). It's an interesting theory, I think the BBC should make a programme about it with Kasparov training me for 6 months (although I would like to think that I have above average intelligence lol)
  14. Subscriber sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    05 Nov '06 17:31
    Originally posted by alexstclaire
    why do you think he started training them? obviously they showed some inclination to the game or superb mental capabilities, or something
    I'd bet money on it. Take a thousand kids at random at age 5, put them in situations where they realize it's to their advantage to work at it, have the best coaches and stick with it for 20 years, you are going to find most of them at IM level and I bet half go on to be GM.
  15. 05 Nov '06 17:43
    Originally posted by chesskid001
    Everyone who is a Grand Master has at least some natural talent. Anyone who seriously works very hard could probably get to master at best.
    no not anyone, I think you are totally under estimating the talent needed to become a master, in my post above I have mentioned what Lasker said, but being trained for 6 months by a world champion is in a differnt ball park to mere working hard