09 Nov 09
I don't think that you can be great if chess is not your main focus. I think you can be good, but not great. The more I learn about chess, the more I realize how much I DON'T know. Chess is my main outlet for my competitive nature, but if you are an aspiring writer, musician, teacher, whatever, chess just takes too much of your life to be great. (imo)
09 Nov 09
Originally posted by revan1its like any art form, a very uncompromising mistress!
I don't think that you can be great if chess is not your main focus. I think you can be good, but not great. The more I learn about chess, the more I realize how much I DON'T know. Chess is my main outlet for my competitive nature, but if you are an aspiring writer, musician, teacher, whatever, chess just takes too much of your life to be great. (imo)
09 Nov 09
Max Euwe was an amateur and the world champion; Mark Taimanov was a top-10 player and a world class pianist; Alexander Grischuk is an accomplished poker player. But these are the exceptions, not the rule; if you wish to remain in sufficient form to win the world championship today, no distractions can be allowed.
09 Nov 09
Originally posted by randolphThis made me laugh! My peak USCF OTB rating was 1848 in 1995, the year I met my wife. I was married a year later, and my rating dropped to 1600! I worked it back up to 1847 in 2005 before the birth of my second child, and now I am floating around the 1700's, but with chess, LIFE is a distraction.
... no distractions can be allowed.[/b]
Chess is the therapy we put ourselves through to deal with it!
Paul
09 Nov 09
Originally posted by revan1I agree with you Imo.
I don't think that you can be great if chess is not your main focus. I think you can be good, but not great. The more I learn about chess, the more I realize how much I DON'T know. Chess is my main outlet for my competitive nature, but if you are an aspiring writer, musician, teacher, whatever, chess just takes too much of your life to be great. (imo)
09 Nov 09
Originally posted by revan1How do you define "good" and "great" (in terms of chessic accomplishments) ?
I don't think that you can be great if chess is not your main focus. I think you can be good, but not great. The more I learn about chess, the more I realize how much I DON'T know. Chess is my main outlet for my competitive nature, but if you are an aspiring writer, musician, teacher, whatever, chess just takes too much of your life to be great. (imo)
10 Nov 09
Originally posted by revan1Hmm. I would call this level "good". "Great" is Super-GM level ( Kramnik, Carlsen, etc.).
By great essentially what I mean is grandmaster level
Master level i would call "decent". Anything below 2200 ( including myself) i would call "bad" or "woodpushing".
But, like all intuitive definitions, this is highly debatable. So i am inclined to say, that there is no objectively correct definition of the given adjectives ( in terms of chessic accomplishments).
To be Super-GM you will definitely have to stay focused exclusively on the game only, so I agree. With the levels below I am not so sure.