27 Aug 07
Originally posted by chessisvanityStrongly disagree scientifically. Whilst environmental factors such as upbringing, training, mentoring and a million other influences can significantly affect someones potential, the genetic element is accepted to be huge in instances of genius. This applies especially to mathematical, creative and muscial genius.
exactly......susan polgar would crush Alekhine and Fischer....(Kasparov no...)
but the point being anyone can learn to be great given the right conditions.....
No not everyone can become Fischer or Kasparov by training. Some people will always have greater potential at birth. There is a wealth of research to support this. The 'greats' are a creation of the right genes coupled with the right environmental factors.
And as an aside, I am far from convinced that Fischer would be crushed by all 3 Polgar sisters working together, but this is just opinion.
27 Aug 07
Originally posted by tonytiger41Nope, Oppenheimer sucked at chess. Besides the game against Einstein, which his poor play is evident in, over 20 years earlier, when Oppenheimer was a teenager (15 I think) he played against Guyla Breyer , who was giving a simultaneous exhibition, so he was obviously interested in chess at a young age. This game is also on the net if you want to search it.
you're making up facts here.
It's guestimated that he may have been a "C" player at best.
28 Aug 07
Originally posted by chessisvanityhere's a quick litmus test chessvanity: Can you visualize the board and play a game blindfolded? If so, you have what it takes to be a master. If not, you don't. Almost any master can play a game without site of the board, or at least get well into one before peeking.
See's what sam the sham said.......and wonders...........