What makes a chess player 'good'?

Originally posted by basso
What about:
middlegame mastery
mastery of strategy
natural talent
spacial perception
calculating/planning/reasoning ability
aggression
will to conquer
patience
basic intelligence

And how 'bout rating the different elements in order of importance?

Some of what you listed aren't elements of good chess playing, but rather skills that lead to them. Natural talent, and intelligence are examples; they lead to the other things you mentioned.

Others are stylistic and don't necessarily lead to good chess. Aggression, Will to conquer, and patience aren't always good things, and effects one's style rather than one's strength.

crazy like bobby fisher. is a way too but i do not suggest it.🙂

Originally posted by crashfreze77
Hi all. First post here.

This is kind of a strange question. But what do you consider the elements that make up a chess player?

For example if you were breaking down a basketball player the following would be Michael Jordan (in his prime) on a scale of 1-10.

Shooting Range: 7
Shooting Accuracy: 9
Jumping: 9
Defense: 10
Ball Handling: 8
Lea andling Pressure:

Anything you would add or take away from this list?

thanks,

crash.

At what rating is a player considered "good?" I think the only good players are those players who make a career out of chess.

Bobby Fischer
Kasparov
Karpov
Alekhine
Capablanca...

And, I know for a fact, I'm just a woodpusher when compared to the truly great players. No one truly understands the game until they can understand exactly how great these phenoms were, and how deeply intricate and beautiful their creative geniuses. I have only superficially examined and understood some of their most beautiful combinations... many of which still leave me stunned and awestruck. I can understand them, but how did they bring them about? These positions do not just occur. Most games do not end with such beautiful fireworks. But, it seems to me that the only good players (the grandmasters) somehow find fireworks in more games than I do or any average master. I've seen 2200 games. They often have great positional understanding that I would love to obtain. However, they still lack the fireworks of Fischer and Morphy... Once in awhile a Master gets a good rocket into the air. But, oh, Morphy and Alekhine... how they are the masters of the carnival and the only "good" players in my mind.

Good players? 1800 is a great recreational rating to have. But, to the average master, an 1800 player is just a woodpusher. In the world of chess, you aren't even to be taken seriously until you become a strong chess master. Even then, where is the mansion in Beverly Hills? Where's the house built like a rook? Where is the chess computers endorsed by you? No where to be found, and you have a 2400 rating??? All that work for what??? You just play a decent game of chess! That's all! Where's the reward? Teach? Heck, most people can't afford a Wendy's combo much less pay a chess teacher $40+ an hour for two hours a week just because he has a 2400 rating. I think the only reward would be the experiencing of beautiful art. In that sense, I can see someone's drive through their appreciation of chess as art. What is good? When the money starts rolling in, then I say you're good!

But, to answer your question correctly:

Tactics are 99% of chess! Then endgame! Master those two, and you'll go very far, perhaps even into Expert from class player. But, applying the tactical motifs you learn to your own games is the key. That's what Lev Alburt says, and that's what many other great chess teachers tell us. As for myself, I had a 1400 RHP rating when I first started going hard on the tactics... I've jumped nearly 200 points in rating since studying tactics puzzles. I've slacked off lately, so my rating has dropped back from 1621 down to high 1500s. I know how to get farther in strength, but I've just been rather busy with life lately. But, one day, I hope to be an 1800 RHP player. 🙂

Duchamp was actually quite good at chess (Master-level).

Originally posted by jgvaccaro
Duchamp was actually quite good at chess (Master-level).

Yeah, but his rating was a bit higher than an average master. He also had a little extra something. But, did he have any chess products endorsed in his name? Will he be remembered five hundred years from now? Will you find his name in an anthology on chess in the year 3250? You may find Fischer, Morphy, Alekhine... Won't find Duchamp unless it was one of the latter busting him open... or he got lucky and one a game from a phenom.

You need to be able to lure your opponent into a situation where you can take advantage of him.

Which requires most of the skills mentioned here.

Originally posted by jgvaccaro
Duchamp was actually quite good at chess (Master-level).

Duchamp was a very strong master though and a great player. If I remember correctly (being the English literature grad I am), Ezra Pound was often caught congregating in the same social circles as Duchamp. Ironically, this month's CHESS LIFE features an article on him also - not just him, but his association with chess art. 🙂

I stand corrected about Duchamp. I guess "good" and "mediocre" are relative terms. According to chessgames.com Duchamp was a near master who came close to winning the French championship way back when. By the talent of 'being careful" i meant the ability to sense danger and avoid it. I recall reading somewhere that Andersson was frustrated by Morphy's ability to brush aside the German's "little traps" during their match. Good players are like that. We've all had the experience of playing a superior player over the board who sees instantly through anything we can come up with, tiptoes through the minefield we've planted and achieves final victory. It all seems so inevitable. Sort of like when Marshall (a great player) saved his Attack to spring on Capablanca (the greatest) and lost anyway. It is vain to fight the gods.
By the way, whatever happened to those chess wallets made from leather with little slits in them for the pieces. I'd like to buy one. I've seen pictures of one that Duchamp designed,but it's considered an objet d'art and is worth thousands. I can't stand these little magnetic monsters,where those little circular pieces get trapped in all sorts of odd places. And all the peg sets i've seen are too big to carry around in one's pocket.