Originally posted by exigentskythat's a crappy way of thinking if you want to get really good at anything. 🙂 -of course there are limits, but we can never know where they are. also respecting them will make them a lot harder to reach. you've basically given up right from the start, and that's no attitude to break through those hard walls which need to be broken.
Practice at anything for long enough and you will improve until you reach your natural peak. Everyone has limits defined by nature and no amount of work can change this. I can workout as much as I like and eat all the right things, yet I will never be able to look like Arnold Schwarzenegger.
also, eating, training & genetics are not nearly enough to become an arnold. 🙂
Originally posted by GorgarNeed problem solving skills. A good memory is a good thing to have as well.
Basic requirements for making it to GM:
an average IQ (between 110-120)
start young (at the latest around 15 years of age)
a lot of hard work and dedication
a little bit of natural talent for the game
If you can meet all those and stick with it for 10 to 15 years chances are you'll be a GM 🙂
Originally posted by pizzinteauhhhh, its called genetics, have you ever heard of that??? Of course some people are born with great talents, some have the great talent to play chess......its not hard to understand really
So people are genetically born with GM's in their blood your saying? Or did you read the whopping two lines of my post?
Originally posted by wormwoodThat was not my point. My purpose was not to show the healthiest attitude one could have about improving in chess; it was to explain why it is unlikely that everyone can become a GM. The questions about attitude are irrelevant. The right question to ask is whether being a GM is really out of the natural limits for most people.
that's a crappy way of thinking if you want to get really good at anything. 🙂 -of course there are limits, but we can never know where they are. also respecting them will make them a lot harder to reach. you've basically given up right from the start, and that's no attitude to break through those hard walls which need to be broken.
also, eating, training & genetics are not nearly enough to become an arnold. 🙂
Yes, most of us can't be sure where our limits are. However, if we were to play and study chess almost the whole day and stop improving after a few years, it is likely that we have reached our limit. I know many chess players who have stopped improving at about 1600-2000 and they have never stopped studying and playing chess. For them, and others like them, the most logical explanation is that their brain is physiologically not able to play chess better. It's sad, but it is the most reasonable conclusion. The same applies even to GMs. They reach their peak usually in their 20s or 30s and then decline. See Chessmetrics: http://db.chessmetrics.com/CM2/AgeLists.asp. This has nothing to do with respecting our limits because limits are inherent and not dependent on whether or not we choose to acknowledge them.
You can continue to believe that anyone can be a GM, but it appears to me that this is a naive "feel good" view not supported by common sense.
This is why chess champions were always from Russia until recently. Only people living under a chess-obsessed communist regime would have had the time, inclination and lack of pressure to study/work, that make it possible to be a chess champ. Even now, the former USSR seems dominant.
Maybe now we're all money-grabbing capitalists and chess is a "professional" game, it will be a more level playing field.
i think to get to those levels its more about instinct and knowlidge of the opening middle game and endgame. basically GM's are chess books that know pretty much everything they see or they are at least familiar with them. and the person who said they could never be like arnold well your half right. the reason he got so big was because of steroids obviously. but hes paying the price for his bypass surgeries. i think GM coaches are like steroids but without a bad side affect. you can get to a certain level on talent and the rest is up to the coaches. how many kids that were trained by GM's didn't become a grandmaster or at least reach 2200 or 2300?
Originally posted by exigentsky
That was not my point.
hence the smiley.
You can continue to believe that anyone can be a GM, but it appears to me that this is a naive "feel good" view not supported by common sense.
I don't believe anyone can be a GM. my guess would be that anyone can become 2000-2100. but I'm just guessing like everybody else.
I agree with Gorgar's last post regarding the ingredients it takes to become a GM. It is difficult/almost impossible for most of us to reach the GM level as it is a long, hard slog. I already posted what's below in the private forum, but I'll post it here.
The "secret" formula for chess success:
Play and analyze often and hard with as much expert input as possible." -Lyman
Critical mistakes are due to flawed reasoning when evaluating a position. Make a plan based on what the position dictates. The perspectives and predispositions that you carry around in your head are very important in shaping what you see and what you don't see (this is why great correspondence chess players can always beat strong engines). One improves based on the way one refines the process of evaluating the position; what is most important to becoming a strong chess player is the effort to raise one's competence through constant self-criticisms of one's shortcomings.
Additional (from an article by Lyman and medical studies):
Chess masters are not superior in tests of memory. (Yes, they have a memory for clusters of positions because the brain learns from experience, but lay out a board with the pieces on totally random squares, and they will remember the position no better than the average person.)
Chess masters may make better moves with less thought; they achieve this by looking at positions through the filter of accumulated and highly structured knowledge.
Grandmasters do not usually analyze more deeply than players a level or two below them.
Capablanca: "I see one move ahead, but it is always the best one."
The secret of chess expertise is not the sheer quantity of exposure to chess play, although that is an essential factor.
The emphasis on effort and training is HUGE even if it may understate the contributions of inborn ability or genius. Whatever the role of genius, it is small compared to acquired insight and skill. (I think the movie GATTACA highlighted this point well, but I'd only rate it between an average to good movie.)
The flashy combinational genius, Morphy, loses:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1281986
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1266586
But Weyerstrass (or any strong CC player) may beat a strong engine again...and again...and again...
Therefore, chess knowledge is essential (and refining chess technique is an arduous, tedious process!). Grandmasters have more chess knowledge than everyone else. Carlsen has talent, studies chess often, I'm sure, and he learns from grandmasters - no wonder he's so good!
Originally posted by alexstclaireHehe i guess you read the ICC newsletter too.
Magnus Carlsen performed brilliantly as the rising stars won in amsterdam, many think he is the future world champion, including me, he will be very near 2700 after the latest tournament!!!! What do you think of him? future world champ?