Only Chess
05 Nov 06
05 Nov 06
Originally posted by wormwoodHer father only told her that so that she would work harder. Seriously, the girl was born with special talents.
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
05 Nov 06
Originally posted by alexstclaireIt'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.
innate talent is nearly everything in my opinion
05 Nov 06
Originally posted by yelobthe 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.
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.
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.
05 Nov 06
Originally posted by mtthwwhy do you think he started training them? obviously they showed some inclination to the game or superb mental capabilities, or something
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.
05 Nov 06
Originally posted by chesskid001you 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
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.
05 Nov 06
2 edits
Originally posted by alexstclaireRead 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.
why do you think he started training them? obviously they showed some inclination to the game or superb mental capabilities, or something
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.
05 Nov 06
Originally posted by alexstclaireAlthough part of me agrees with you below is what David Tebb (whose opinion also has to be respected as does Lasker's) said:
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
"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)
05 Nov 06
Originally posted by alexstclaireI'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.
why do you think he started training them? obviously they showed some inclination to the game or superb mental capabilities, or something
05 Nov 06
Originally posted by chesskid001no 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
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.