I'll post this and beat mateulose to it:
Nothing makes me a good chess player,I suck no matter how hard I try (whine, whine, moan, moan).
Seriously though, I think the real greats are marked by excellent memory, amazing concentration, no small amount of natural talent (same as all great guitarists, footballers, writers, whatever are just born to be good at what they do, chess players are no different) and a hell of a lot of hard work.
I think only hard work is matter. The talant would be nessesary only if you will play for word championship. The average grandmaster spent 18 years to become a grandmaster through hard work. I spoke with 2 of them: Maurice Ashley (spent 18 years) and Ildar Ibragimov(spent 17 years)
I have some speculations on this topic, which I'd like to share with u.
First, I will begin with what Botvinnik thought are 4 qualities that give grandmaster a chance to become a world champion one day.
These are : chess talent, good health, sportive character and special analytic work.
Last three qualities are those that make difference between grandmasters - and the one who combines all of them will be (MAYBE) champion.
But what with us - simple mortals?
The difference between us and grandmasters is that same chess talent (lets call it CT)
What is it like?
I think that it could have some relation to IQ - but it hasn't. Cause CT is some particular kind of mental dimension that has its own nature. And if playing chess well would in some way impact the human's well-being - then scientists should have include specific CT tests into IQ test - cause neither logics, nor calculative abilities are directly related to this ability [chess talent].
In my opinion, CT nature is similar to FOREIGN LANGUAGE UNDERSTANDING.
Imagine someone who speaks foreign language well.
This person:
1) speaks fluently and fast
2) feels how to write the words grammatically right even if he hears them for the first time
3) doesn't think abt specific words to say, but thinks abt the mind he wants to express - and right words come themselves ( sometimes he can do mistakes, but everybody knows that these mistakes are for sure done by the man who knows the language well )
Now the same abt the chess player who has CT:
1) he is able to play fast - may be not with the same quality but at least at the same rating level
2) the combinations we arrive to after long calculations he SEES like we see where the knight can go in next move
3) if u good in mathematics - then given an exercise u yet don't know the answer but u exactly know HOW to solve it; the same abt CT'd player: given the position he knows the plan and then he just thinks a little abt moves to do
Last thing: I am sure that all CT'd players know to some extent playing blind games
I don't know if I am any good - I used to think so, but I have discovered that everybody I played against was naff. Turns out that I am an enthusiastic amateur.
However, for somone who is better than most folks I know in real life (unlike over the web, where you are all better than me!) I think the traditional idea of a what makes a good player is well out. I have discalculia, a form of dyslexia which effects numbers, and abilty to tell directions. I am (as you can guess from the above) absolutely horrendously bad at maths.
On the other hand I got a degree from Oxford, in English, have had fiction published, speak several languages.
According to public prejudice I should be a computer geek, probably male, a bit of a loner, physically weak.
I am into karate, weight training, am a mum, and need to bawl at me husband to fix the computer when anything goes wrong. The only really geeky thing about me is my glasses.
Clichés are a bummer. People are good at chess like folks have said, because they love it, and they practise (ie, play) every chance they get.
I will never be really good, partly because I don't have talent, and partly because I don't have time. But I can be good in as much as it gives me great pleasure, and me son enjoys it.
I don't quite agree. Chess is a very spatial game. I don't believe Chess, and being good at languages exactly correlate. I think that sometimes you'll hear of some people who are very good at languages (Bobby Fischer) and also good at Chess. Different people have other different strengths (I'm sure there's many grandmasters with not so great lingual ability), but however are awesome at Chess.
Originally posted by ChessMachine2004for once i agree with n00bo here, ChessMachine2004 is a great player but sucks at any language other than that of the n00bs.
I don't quite agree. Chess is a very spatial game. I don't believe Chess, and being good at languages exactly correlate. I think that sometimes you'll hear of some people who are very good at languages (Bobby Fischer) and also good at Chess. Different people have other different strengths (I'm sure there's many grandmasters with not so great lingual ability), but however are awesome at Chess.