EPTOn December 23 2009 08:59 Boblion wrote:
Maybe he smurfed you and is a grandmaster ?
Maybe he smurfed you and is a grandmaster ?
Well, time to wipe sticky liquid (soda) off my keyboard again.
Chess and Natural Talent - Page 2
| Blogs > Athos |
|
Jyvblamo
Canada13788 Posts
Well, time to wipe sticky liquid (soda) off my keyboard again. | ||
Spazer
Canada8036 Posts
On December 23 2009 08:48 jalstar wrote: there are chess computers now that no human can beat or will ever beat. This is not true. There are strategies you can use that are very good against computers. It's basically a matter of making noncommittal moves such that the computer can't see far enough into its search tree to figure out that you'll end up with a long term advantage. | ||
|
shindigs
United States4795 Posts
| ||
|
Cloud
Sexico5880 Posts
| ||
|
win8282
Korea (South)454 Posts
On December 23 2009 08:39 Khenra wrote: The thing is that there will always be talented people that also work hard, and they will surpass you no matter how hard you work. Talent is a bitch. Obviously you haven't read Gladwell's Outliers...though his ideas may be controversial, his theory is that successful people are made from a lot of preparation(i.e. discipline), some luck(i.e. bill gates would never have become who he is now had he been born 10 years after the computer boom) and finally some intelligence/talent(according to research, IQ and success stop correlating with each other after IQ of 115). He uses Christopher Langan as one of his examples to prove his point (Langan is a 200+ IQ guy, reputed to be the smartest man currently alive, but overall is far from a "successful" person; he is a farmer/rancher) My point being, don't be put discouraged by talent. Effort and a dose of luck is more important IMO, though having talent is always a plus... | ||
|
loupouk
France105 Posts
On December 23 2009 09:36 Cloud wrote: It's very easy to be impressed by a result when you don't know the steps that led to it, regardless of how stupidly simple they were. Natural talent is just an excuse to fill those gaps for your own mind. I was about to post the same thing, but could not write it better. | ||
|
ThePhan2m
Norway2751 Posts
On December 23 2009 08:45 Jayme wrote: Uh what? Just because you're good at something does not mean you actually enjoy playing it. Why the hell would you force yourself to do something you find boring if it's a hobby? I never said his friend should keep going. I just find it sad that people find things that can be challenging boring when they have a talent. They should embrace it in other ways or challeninge it in new ways. He might find it boring because he doesnt find it challnging propably because he hasnt tried it on a higher level. It just seemed to me like his friend had this attitude where he surfs trough life and doesn care because nothing is really a challenge (cause of his talent). With his advatage he should by all means use it to something good!! and in this case, he doesnt seem to. I dont like it. But please, tell me more so I can change my mind, I hope I have the wrong picture of him. | ||
|
JohnColtrane
Australia4813 Posts
| ||
|
29 fps
United States5725 Posts
| ||
|
jfazz
Australia672 Posts
Kasparov was coached by Botvinnik, Bronstein, Spassky and Petrosian. However talented he was as a child, the imapact having such great teachers is significantly greater. When I started playing chess, I wasn't one of the talented ones. Im 21, and only rated about 2250FIDE (2370USCF). With some luck, ill be a Master within 6 months. When Carlsen came third in the U18 World Championship tournament, he was beaten by two other prodigies, both of whom are not GMs. Infact, they have more or less dissapeared from high level chess. Why? No work ethic. You have to work crazy hard to be good at chess. Your friend, in all honesty, probably sucks. If you keep working, you will draw level with him, and then youll crush him. I had the same experience with many of the talented smart asses when I started back at 8. The ones that worked are still stronger than me, but not all of them, and even then its close. Most of them though are like 1800-2000 rated guys that I can smash without trying. Its only been a few months mate, it takes years. If you can add 100rating a year, you are doing fantastically. PM me if you want any help or assistance. I will even analyse some games for you if you like. James | ||
|
ShaperofDreams
Canada2492 Posts
| ||
|
unknown.sam
Philippines2701 Posts
but anyway i've known 2 guys who are really smart. basically a level above the rest. both guys are like your friend. don't study and don't have notes and yet they're always basically top in the class, particularly in math and problem solving. BUT...however much natural talent they have, these guys are the ones that had coaching at a very young age and have been joining math olympiads. they definitely wouldn't be as good as they are now if they didn't have the coaching. likewise i would have lessened the gap if i had gone through the same coaching/training process. luckily for me their natural talent didn't translate to chess as i have beaten both of them fairly easily (and i'm not exactly a good chess player either, just an enthusiast). so my point being, talent can only get you so far. It's the hard work and discipline that will really take you to the next level. | ||
|
jfazz
Australia672 Posts
On December 23 2009 10:34 unknown.sam wrote: so my point being, talent can only get you so far. It's the hard work and discipline that will really take you to the next level. This | ||
|
ilovezil
United States4143 Posts
| ||
|
Pawsom
United States928 Posts
On December 23 2009 08:07 Athos wrote: One time, about a year ago, I got so frustrated playing him that I tried sicking the chessmaster engine on him. He somehow smashed right through the engine and won the game while playing white. According to the November 2007 Swedish Chess Computer Association (SSDF) rating list, Chessmaster 9000 has an estimated Elo rating of 2710 on an Athlon-1200 PC.[2] Chessmaster 9000 defeated then U.S. Chess Champion International Grandmaster Larry Christiansen in a four-game match held in September 2002. Source: Wiki Sorry but your friend does not play GM level chess with no formal training. | ||
|
Kiarip
United States1835 Posts
On December 23 2009 09:36 Cloud wrote: I honestly think that you're exaggerating or completely blind to what they really are doing. It's very easy to be impressed by a result when you don't know the steps that led to it, regardless of how stupidly simple they were. Natural talent is just an excuse to fill those gaps for your own mind. QFT. Talent is just a term used for what science is still not able to explain about the differences that people have in their requirements to learn. It's used nowadays in such a end-all manner that it's disgusting. Talent only translates into aptitude in very particular circumstances, so for the most part if you're performing way worse then you feel you should be with the amount of work you put in, it probably means that you're not putting in work in the circumstances that is most favorable to your natural abilities. You have to learn how to learn before you can learn. | ||
|
Nosmo
Canada210 Posts
On December 23 2009 10:12 ShaperofDreams wrote: I think we should start a small chess training community in TL, I'm interested in it and I'm sure other people are in this site, since it is a gaming one. I like this idea. I'm just getting into chess now, so it would be pretty neat to get help from other people on TL. | ||
|
unknown.sam
Philippines2701 Posts
On December 23 2009 10:49 Kiarip wrote: so for the most part if you're performing way worse then you feel you should be with the amount of work you put in, it probably means that you're not putting in work in the circumstances that is most favorable to your natural abilities. You have to learn how to learn before you can learn. well said. | ||
|
Frits
11782 Posts
| ||
|
Raptor[eigen].
Canada18 Posts
Ooo. I like that. Well I have heard the expression with 10,000 hours of practice and you can improve at almost anything. I think what that implies is that no one is hopeless, something that history proves, one of many examples.. I mean look at abe lincoln. The stuff he had to go threw when he was younger to where he ended up when he was older. | ||
| ||
