|
Natural talent bothers me so much now.
Over the past 3 months I've really gone out of my way to improve my chess game. I've watched a lot of videos, learned a lot of openings, and I've started playing better people with more success. For a while I got up to 1450 on chess.com which was a sign of improvement for me. But there's always been one person who I've never been able to beat and that's my friend Kent. He's been my best friend for a long time now, and he's always been ridiculously smart. He's one of those kids who doesn't study at all for a chemistry final and get's a 98 on it.
Naturally, he's always been able to kick my ass at chess. When he got back from college, I challenged him to a game, thinking that I would have more of a chance after all the training I went through. I was wrong; he completely raped me. Every single move he makes is perfect and accurate. It almost feels like you're playing a computer. However, he makes the moves like within 2 seconds of me making them.
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. I don't think he's using an engine himself, because you have to remember I've known him all my life, actually played him in real life, and he's been able to play like this for years. He's playing almost completely by instinct and he doesn't know any of the openings either.
But here's the ironic part, he hates chess and thinks its boring. He has an immaculate feel for the game and yet he doesn't think it's worth playing seriously. It's astonishing. He's never been in a tournament, but if he actually had proper training, I think he could do really really well.
As for me, I would love to have a gift like he has in chess, and I think it's a shame he wasted his talent. Taken, there's no money in chess, but it's sad to me that talented people often don't use what they have while others can sometimes only dream.
Edit: Here are some move notations from matches we played.
Game 1:
;White: Athos
;Black: dthhck
;Date: Sun Jan 03 21:54:22 PST 2010
+ Show Spoiler +
1. e2-e4 c7-c5
2. g1-f3 b8-c6
3. d2-d4 c5xd4
4. f3xd4 g8-f6
5. b1-c3 e7-e6
6. d4xc6 b7xc6
7. e4-e5 f6-d5
8. c3xd5 e6xd5
9. c2-c4 d5xc4
10. f1xc4 d8-a5+
11. c1-d2 a5xe5+
12. d1-e2 e5xe2+
13. e1xe2 d7-d5
14. c4-d3 c8-g4+
15. f2-f3 g4-e6
16. a1-c1 c6-c5
17. d3-b5+ e6-d7
18. b5xd7+ e8xd7
19. e2-f2 f8-d6
20. h1-e1 a8-b8
21. f2-g1 b8xb2
22. d2-c3 b2xa2
23. c3xg7 h8-g8
24. g7-h6 g8xg2+
25. g1-h1 g2xh2+
26. h1-g1 h2xh6
27. e1-e7+ d6xe7
28. c1xc5 e7xc5+
29. g1-f1 h6-h1++
Game 2:
;White: Athos
;Black: dthhck
;Date: Sun Jan 03 22:06:39 PST 2010
+ Show Spoiler +
1. e2-e4 f7-f5
2. b1-c3 e7-e6
3. d2-d4 d7-d5
4. e4xd5 e6xd5
5. g1-f3 f8-b4
6. d1-e2+ g8-e7
7. c1-g5 o-o
8. o-o-o c7-c6
9. a2-a3 b4-d6
10. g5xe7 d6xe7
11. d1-e1 f8-e8
12. e2-d2 b7-b5
13. f1-d3 a7-a5
14. c1-b1 b5-b4
15. c3xd5 c6xd5
16. d3-b5 c8-d7
17. e1xe7 e8xe7
18. b5xd7 b8xd7
19. f3-g5 b4xa3
20. d2-f4 d8-b6
21. b2-b3 a5-a4
22. g5xh7 a4xb3
23. f4xf5 b3xc2+
24. b1xc2 a8-c8+
25. c2-d2 b6-b2+
26. d2-d1 c8-c1++
Game 3:
;White: Athos
;Black: dthhck
;Date: Sun Jan 03 22:33:00 PST 2010
+ Show Spoiler +
1. e2-e4 g8-f6
2. e4-e5 f6-e4
3. d2-d3 e4-c5
4. b2-b4 c5-a4
5. c2-c4 a4-b2
6. c1xb2 e7-e6
7. a2-a3 f8-e7
8. g1-f3 o-o
9. d3-d4 d7-d5
10. c4-c5 a7-a5
11. b4-b5 c7-c6
12. b5-b6 b8-d7
13. f1-d3 f7-f6
14. o-o f6xe5
15. f3xe5 d7xe5
16. d4xe5 e7xc5
17. d1-c2 c5xb6
18. d3xh7+ g8-h8
19. h7-d3 d8-h4
20. g2-g3 h4-g5
21. b2-c1 g5xe5
22. c1-b2 e5-g5
23. b2-c1 g5-f6
24. c1-b2 e6-e5
25. b1-d2 c8-h3
26. c2-b3 b6xf2+
27. g1-h1 h3xf1
28. a1xf1 f6-e6
29. d2-e4 f2-a7
30. f1xf8+ a8xf8
31. e4-g5 e6-g4
32. b3xb7 g4-d1+
33. h1-g2 f8-f2+
34. g2-h3 d1-h5++
Game 4: (probably my best effort)
;White: Athos
;Black: dthhck
;Date: Sun Jan 03 23:21:13 PST 2010
+ Show Spoiler +
1. e2-e4 e7-e5
2. g1-f3 b8-c6
3. c2-c3 g8-f6
4. d2-d4 f6xe4
5. d4-d5 c6-e7
6. f3xe5 e7-g6
7. e5xg6 h7xg6
8. f1-d3 e4-c5
9. d3-c2 f8-d6
10. d1-d4 d8-f6
11. c1-e3 f6xd4
12. e3xd4 e8-f8
13. b1-d2 h8-h5
14. c3-c4 b7-b5
15. b2-b3 c8-a6
16. o-o-o a8-e8
17. g2-g3 b5xc4
18. b3xc4 c7-c6
19. d2-b3 c5xb3+
20. a2xb3 c6xd5
21. d4xa7 d6-a3+
22. c1-b1 d5xc4
23. b3xc4 a6xc4
24. b1-a1 h5-b5
25. d1-b1 b5-a5
26. b1-b8 a3-d6+
27. a1-b2 d6xb8
|
Yeah, I have friends like this too, and it sometimes pisses me off by how little effort the expend to be better than me at something.
Oh yeah, Good Will Hunting was a damned good movie, just saying.
|
On December 23 2009 08:10 Jyvblamo wrote:
Oh yeah, Good Will Hunting was a damned good movie, just saying.
loooooooooooool
|
how good is he at starcraft?
|
I've always been better at videogames than my brother, and it kills him. But as far as I'm concerned, having talent is nothing to be proud of because you didn't earn it.
|
Agreed. Seems like half of all asians I meet are piano or violin virtuosos, and couldn't care less about it because it was a forced part of their upbringing. I would drown bunnies for that kind of talent.
|
Fortunately for you, natural talent comes in many ways. Where you might have to bust your ass trying to become any good at chess, you will probably kick your friend's ass in other areas. Find out what you're good at and then challenge him 
Another thing I would like to say: you say that it's ashame talented people waste their talent. While your friend might be a chess talent, he's probably very talented in many other areas aswell. People often tell me I'm wasting my talents, but persuing talents costs time, and there are only 24 hours in a day. I've got a few talents that I persue with great joy, others I just don't have time or money for. The same is probably true for your friend.
|
is he a jew?
no but seriously ur friend sounds like hes a real talented guy, did u tell him to test play chess online? it sounds like he would be pro in no-time )
is he just good at chess or is he good at all stuff like that? like bw? he could try become pro in something maybe not chess but
|
On December 23 2009 08:24 MorroW[MB] wrote:
is he a jew?
no but seriously ur friend sounds like hes a real talented guy, did u tell him to test play chess online? it sounds like he would be pro in no-time )
|
I just watched This Documentary on National Geogarphic. Its about Susan Polgar, the first woman grandmaster who was trained her chess geniousness from her childhood. You need to change your way of thinking man!
your friend wont come far in life with that attitude. Work hard and you will!
|
On December 23 2009 08:34 ThePhan2m wrote:
your friend wont come far in life with that attitude. Work hard and you will!
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.
|
On December 23 2009 08:34 ThePhan2m wrote:I just watched This Documentary on National Geogarphic. Its about Susan Polgar, the first woman grandmaster who was trained her chess geniousness from her childhood. You need to change your way of thinking man! your friend wont come far in life with that attitude. Work hard and you will!
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'm one of those "wonders" when it comes to chess, however I suck at studying.
Chess has nothing to do with academical skills but with spatial skills.
And regarding the natural edge from my own experice it has its limiations. Once you reach a certain level of players I had to start train myself or I would lose really easy.
Allot of the players at that level were horribly when they they started chess and had to work very hard but they now kick my ass with ease unless I train as hard as them, which is why I quit chess haha.
Because chess is fucking boring.
|
there are chess computers now that no human can beat or will ever beat.
|
Meh I think in chess it really is quite hard to improve your so much you can compete with a player that earlier was really much better than you. With mass-gaming, studying openings and studying progames and such you will get a lot better but even that might not be enough. I know it's frustrating (played competitive chess for over ten years, max ELO only around 1750) but the fact that he doesn't enjoy the game and you do might help putting it in perspective.
And after all, he won't get better from not playing and you will by practicing so eventually you will beat the hell out of the guy. Natural talent is always limited.
|
On December 23 2009 08:34 ThePhan2m wrote:I just watched This Documentary on National Geogarphic. Its about Susan Polgar, the first woman grandmaster who was trained her chess geniousness from her childhood. You need to change your way of thinking man! your friend wont come far in life with that attitude. Work hard and you will! What "attitude"? Its not as if he said his friend doesnt give a crap about school or getting better at things he likes, hes just good and uninterested in chess. Why are you making that bigger than it is?
|
On December 23 2009 08:21 Khenra wrote:Fortunately for you, natural talent comes in many ways. Where you might have to bust your ass trying to become any good at chess, you will probably kick your friend's ass in other areas. Find out what you're good at and then challenge him Another thing I would like to say: you say that it's ashame talented people waste their talent. While your friend might be a chess talent, he's probably very talented in many other areas aswell. People often tell me I'm wasting my talents, but persuing talents costs time, and there are only 24 hours in a day. I've got a few talents that I persue with great joy, others I just don't have time or money for. The same is probably true for your friend.
in what other areas would that be? Most people with a natural talent in something requiring intelligence (most things) will be good at everything else requiring intelligence (again! most things) different types of intelligence might exist but as far as i can tell people with exceptional talents usually apply them across the board.
|
United States47024 Posts
On December 23 2009 08:39 Khenra wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2009 08:34 ThePhan2m wrote:
your friend wont come far in life with that attitude. Work hard and you will!
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.
So?
The world is a big place. Just because someone is better than you at something (even if it's your career) doesn't mean you can't do as well for yourself as you can. Denying yourself contentment because of jealousy is really just petty.
Do you see progamers like Hiya or Tempest giving up just because they'll never be as good as Flash or Jaedong?
|
Maybe he smurfed you and is a grandmaster ?
|
Sounds a bit like performance anxiety.
Or he's just a level above you.
Or both.
But know this:
You have the cooler online handle.
Athos was my favorite of the Musketeers.
|
On December 23 2009 08:59 Boblion wrote:
Maybe he smurfed you and is a grandmaster ?
Well, time to wipe sticky liquid (soda) off my keyboard again.
|
Canada8029 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.
|
Just realize that just from putting your effort into chess you've walked into a whole world of chess professionals. It may not mean much but you stand above a ton of common people who just try to play the game, and you're better for that already.
|
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.
|
On December 23 2009 08:39 Khenra wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2009 08:34 ThePhan2m wrote:
your friend wont come far in life with that attitude. Work hard and you will!
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...
|
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.
|
On December 23 2009 08:45 Jayme wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2009 08:34 ThePhan2m wrote:I just watched This Documentary on National Geogarphic. Its about Susan Polgar, the first woman grandmaster who was trained her chess geniousness from her childhood. You need to change your way of thinking man! your friend wont come far in life with that attitude. Work hard and you will! 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.
|
lol thats lame. of all the things, this unfortunate guy gets blessed with chess talent
|
maybe he smurfed you like that other guy's roommate did.
|
Talent means nothing, or near to nothing in chess. Everyone always talks about how talented players like Kasparov or Carlsen are, but it is disrespectful to them, they work 8+hours a day on their chess, everyday. They have teams of strong GMs helping them.
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
|
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.
|
your friend sounds like capablanca lol.
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.
|
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
|
talent...rofl, what a bastardized word.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
Some people just aren't that competitive.
|
On December 23 2009 10:57 unknown.sam wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
United States1865 Posts
Are you playing your friend online?
Because I am 100% positive he did not beat the Chessmaster engine, so either you used an incredibly weak version or he is also using an engine on you, there are many that are stronger than Chessmaster.
Try playing this guy in person and see if your practice pays off more.
|
The other thing is that if you're only 1450 on chess.com that means you're probably about 1400 max in real life, and a 1400 player is duck soup to beat if you know even a slight bit more tactics than they do, no matter what opening they play. Strategy only matters at the master level, until you're 2100 it's tactics, tactics, tactics.
I mean, think about it this way. You're playing a TvZ and you outmacro your opponent with the perfect build order and just when you're about to break his sunks, he takes his lurkers off hold position and kills all of your m/m. You just lost to a tactic. It didn't matter what his strategy was.
|
I would love to be good at chess. But I always play my dad and ragequit.
|
(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)
Thinking you could do better with someone elses talents doesn't make them unsuccessful.
|
Also did you study the openings in depth or do you just know what they look like? Do you know what the key moves are, where all of the important sacrifices are, how to deal with different variations of moves that the opponent can play, the thematic ideas behind it, etc.?
For example, I play the french defense as black, and i like it when opponents play the advance variation against me, but what happens if they play the tarrasch? It's similar but because you're forced to play Nf6 you lose the exchange. Same strategy, different lines, different thematic moves. How much did you study and how much did you practice?
|
On December 23 2009 11:41 gyth wrote:Show nested quote +(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) Thinking you could do better with someone elses talents doesn't make them unsuccessful.
Sorry if I phrased it wrong, but what I meant that compared to his potential, he couldn't flourish as one with his talents could've. Read Outliers. Malcolm phrases this far better than I can.
|
On December 23 2009 11:41 gyth wrote:Show nested quote +(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) Thinking you could do better with someone elses talents doesn't make them unsuccessful.
Plus the fact that he is basing success off of all the wrong things. For a man like Langan, do you HONESTLY believe he measures success by his wealth or position? Clearly not, or he would have achieved it already. Bad example imo. He has written many ridiculous papers that I'd implore you to look at before you venture and call him unsuccessful due to being a farmer (if I remember correctly farming is actually his passion, so even more LOL)
Wealth/position are easily attainable and are the layman's excuse for success. Intellect DOES limit you. It's that simple
|
Yes, Langan says farming is a passion, but imagine the things he coulda done had he been born, say, to parents who were doctors/lawyers. Odds are he woulda become a college professor, done even greater philosophical, scientifical work.
Btw, when did I mention I based success off how much dough or social status someone achieved? I'm saying Langan coulda achieved an even higher level of intellectual development had he been more fortunate to meet decent parents.
|
On December 23 2009 11:23 Atrioc wrote:
Are you playing your friend online?
Because I am 100% positive he did not beat the Chessmaster engine, so either you used an incredibly weak version or he is also using an engine on you, there are many that are stronger than Chessmaster.
Try playing this guy in person and see if your practice pays off more.
I entirely agree that someone who doesn't play chess at all can't be beating that engine without cheating.
|
Why do you think that him doing things as a doctor or a lawyer or a college professor is any more important than feeding the population?
And he could have achieved a higher level of intellectual development? The man has the highest recorded IQ in the world!
|
On December 23 2009 10:44 Pawsom wrote:Show nested quote +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.
There is no way around the fact that your friend cheated. Want proof? Ask him to play against the computer face to face with you making moves for the computer. Then sit back and watch the program own your friend as many times as he cares to play.
|
On December 23 2009 12:20 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
Why do you think that him doing things as a doctor or a lawyer or a college professor is any more important than feeding the population?!
You've completely missed my point. Please read my post again.
|
You've completely missed my point. My point being, don't be put discouraged by talent.
Would reading it without the "put" give the right meaning?
Effort and a dose of luck is more important IMO, though having talent is always a plus...
I don't think I'm arguing against your point.
Just your measure of success.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Langan
|
Thanks for all the responses. I should have clarified a few things. Thing is, he does play chess but he has no formal training, he's never been coached and he's completely self taught. He used to play on yahoo chess for a while, and he's admitted to playing roughly a thousand games on zone.com so I guess he's had his fair share of practice. However, there's no doubt in my mind he is talented. It just always came of as weird to me that he never bothered to learn formal openings or chess terminology, I guess everything he learned just came from playing the game.
As for him beating the chessmaster, I don't think he cheated because he's played the same we he's played in every game. It was definitely not set to full power on my old crappy computer and I was just using the instant recommended move. I think I could show you guys some games I've played against him, and maybe from that you can figure out how strong he is.
|
Double post--
In regards to the topic, though, can you post a game of his so we can analyze it? We'll tell you what level he's at roughly if you post a few games.
|
On December 23 2009 12:37 win8282 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2009 12:20 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
Why do you think that him doing things as a doctor or a lawyer or a college professor is any more important than feeding the population?! You've completely missed my point. Please read my post again.
Why did you put an exclamation point on my post?
I must have missed your point, what was it? I thought it was that he might have done something "greater" as a college professor. Clearly, you've never been to college.
On December 23 2009 12:12 win8282 wrote:
Yes, Langan says farming is a passion, but imagine the things he coulda done had he been born, say, to parents who were doctors/lawyers. Odds are he woulda become a college professor, done even greater philosophical, scientifical work.
Also, "scientifical" is not a word.
|
I think the point was that talent isn't a good determinant of likelihood of success.
But it got muddled with bad examples.
|
he obviously needs to be introduced to go.
|
On December 23 2009 12:12 win8282 wrote:
Yes, Langan says farming is a passion, but imagine the things he coulda done had he been born, say, to parents who were doctors/lawyers. Odds are he woulda become a college professor, done even greater philosophical, scientifical work.
So your measure of success is how important his existence is to mankind? I would say that a successful life is a life where you are happy with yourself. It doesn't matter what your "potential" is, just because he is born a genius do not mean that he should be forced to work hard on things he don't want to do.
But if we measure success as as in how much others envy you, I bet that he is still more successful than you ever will be and also more successful than most college professors. Newspapers very rarely writes about professors unless they win the Nobel prize and even then it isn't as as much media attention as this guy have gotten.
|
Are you sure you're not sharing the same friend with this guy? (http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=108386)
|
uh...so have you actually played more chess than he has?
|
Maybe a better example of un-unfulfilled talent is Stephen Hawking.
Who possibly wouldn't have focused into the amazing man he is without ALS.
|
sure, post some games, ill tell you to the best of my ability how strong he is (up to and about 2550 rating, above that I would be murky).
|
On December 23 2009 13:43 Athos wrote:
Thanks for all the responses. I should have clarified a few things. Thing is, he does play chess but he has no formal training, he's never been coached and he's completely self taught. He used to play on yahoo chess for a while, and he's admitted to playing roughly a thousand games on zone.com so I guess he's had his fair share of practice. However, there's no doubt in my mind he is talented. It just always came of as weird to me that he never bothered to learn formal openings or chess terminology, I guess everything he learned just came from playing the game.
As for him beating the chessmaster, I don't think he cheated because he's played the same we he's played in every game. It was definitely not set to full power on my old crappy computer and I was just using the instant recommended move. I think I could show you guys some games I've played against him, and maybe from that you can figure out how strong he is.
yeah show us games between you two
|
Basically, if you want to be world class at something you have to not only have talent but you ALSO have to start at a pretty young age.
Of course, talent doesn't mean you'll be elite in the end because hard work is also needed. But those with talent and hard work there's no way for people with hard work to match them.
My brother recently won $7500 at a chess tourney, and has some college scholarships to UMBC and texas for chess... but he doesn't really care that much about playing chess professionally. If you don't have the hard work to go along with your talent then it's a moot point.
|
Good old nature vs. nurture.
|
Haha this reminds me so much of Initial D, but chess instead of cars.
|
Figured I'd bump this because I recently played some more games with him and remembered to save the move data this time. One of the games he accidentally sac'd a piece yet he still won with superior play. There's no doubt in my mind I played like shit during these games, but I would appreciate any feedback I can get. We don't really play with time controls since we're friends, but roughly each game took about 30 minutes.
Anyways, I can post the move notations here I guess.
Game 1:
;White: Athos
;Black: dthhck
;Date: Sun Jan 03 21:54:22 PST 2010
+ Show Spoiler +
1. e2-e4 c7-c5
2. g1-f3 b8-c6
3. d2-d4 c5xd4
4. f3xd4 g8-f6
5. b1-c3 e7-e6
6. d4xc6 b7xc6
7. e4-e5 f6-d5
8. c3xd5 e6xd5
9. c2-c4 d5xc4
10. f1xc4 d8-a5+
11. c1-d2 a5xe5+
12. d1-e2 e5xe2+
13. e1xe2 d7-d5
14. c4-d3 c8-g4+
15. f2-f3 g4-e6
16. a1-c1 c6-c5
17. d3-b5+ e6-d7
18. b5xd7+ e8xd7
19. e2-f2 f8-d6
20. h1-e1 a8-b8
21. f2-g1 b8xb2
22. d2-c3 b2xa2
23. c3xg7 h8-g8
24. g7-h6 g8xg2+
25. g1-h1 g2xh2+
26. h1-g1 h2xh6
27. e1-e7+ d6xe7
28. c1xc5 e7xc5+
29. g1-f1 h6-h1++
Game 2:
;White: Athos
;Black: dthhck
;Date: Sun Jan 03 22:06:39 PST 2010
+ Show Spoiler +
1. e2-e4 f7-f5
2. b1-c3 e7-e6
3. d2-d4 d7-d5
4. e4xd5 e6xd5
5. g1-f3 f8-b4
6. d1-e2+ g8-e7
7. c1-g5 o-o
8. o-o-o c7-c6
9. a2-a3 b4-d6
10. g5xe7 d6xe7
11. d1-e1 f8-e8
12. e2-d2 b7-b5
13. f1-d3 a7-a5
14. c1-b1 b5-b4
15. c3xd5 c6xd5
16. d3-b5 c8-d7
17. e1xe7 e8xe7
18. b5xd7 b8xd7
19. f3-g5 b4xa3
20. d2-f4 d8-b6
21. b2-b3 a5-a4
22. g5xh7 a4xb3
23. f4xf5 b3xc2+
24. b1xc2 a8-c8+
25. c2-d2 b6-b2+
26. d2-d1 c8-c1++
Game 3:
;White: Athos
;Black: dthhck
;Date: Sun Jan 03 22:33:00 PST 2010
+ Show Spoiler +
1. e2-e4 g8-f6
2. e4-e5 f6-e4
3. d2-d3 e4-c5
4. b2-b4 c5-a4
5. c2-c4 a4-b2
6. c1xb2 e7-e6
7. a2-a3 f8-e7
8. g1-f3 o-o
9. d3-d4 d7-d5
10. c4-c5 a7-a5
11. b4-b5 c7-c6
12. b5-b6 b8-d7
13. f1-d3 f7-f6
14. o-o f6xe5
15. f3xe5 d7xe5
16. d4xe5 e7xc5
17. d1-c2 c5xb6
18. d3xh7+ g8-h8
19. h7-d3 d8-h4
20. g2-g3 h4-g5
21. b2-c1 g5xe5
22. c1-b2 e5-g5
23. b2-c1 g5-f6
24. c1-b2 e6-e5
25. b1-d2 c8-h3
26. c2-b3 b6xf2+
27. g1-h1 h3xf1
28. a1xf1 f6-e6
29. d2-e4 f2-a7
30. f1xf8+ a8xf8
31. e4-g5 e6-g4
32. b3xb7 g4-d1+
33. h1-g2 f8-f2+
34. g2-h3 d1-h5++
Game 4: (probably my best effort)
;White: Athos
;Black: dthhck
;Date: Sun Jan 03 23:21:13 PST 2010
+ Show Spoiler +
1. e2-e4 e7-e5
2. g1-f3 b8-c6
3. c2-c3 g8-f6
4. d2-d4 f6xe4
5. d4-d5 c6-e7
6. f3xe5 e7-g6
7. e5xg6 h7xg6
8. f1-d3 e4-c5
9. d3-c2 f8-d6
10. d1-d4 d8-f6
11. c1-e3 f6xd4
12. e3xd4 e8-f8
13. b1-d2 h8-h5
14. c3-c4 b7-b5
15. b2-b3 c8-a6
16. o-o-o a8-e8
17. g2-g3 b5xc4
18. b3xc4 c7-c6
19. d2-b3 c5xb3+
20. a2xb3 c6xd5
21. d4xa7 d6-a3+
22. c1-b1 d5xc4
23. b3xc4 a6xc4
24. b1-a1 h5-b5
25. d1-b1 b5-a5
26. b1-b8 a3-d6+
27. a1-b2 d6xb8
|
im kind of like your friend, in that people think im really talented. i definately excel at maths/science subjects. honestly, i think that people who say i, and others like me (please ignore any tone of arrogance that you might read in the post, im not trying to sound uppity, just hopefully insightful), are naturally talented dont fully understand our mindset.
our minds are extremely logical, and because of this it allows to think through problems, or new concepts ourselves, rather than needing a teacher to show us (seriously, youve been through high school, youll know how easily a teacher's skill can make or break the average student's mark - that just shows the dependence of the student on the teacher).
the fact that i can understand some sciency things so well seems mystical to some of my friends. but im not some kind of prodigy. i have just cultured a very good mindset in myself. ANYONE can do this, but most people don't believe it because of years of being cultured to their own mindset that people are smarter than them, theres nothing they can do about it, and at the end of the day it makes them feel better.
do you think your friend is smart just by *completely* natural aptitude? let me tell you that this is a load of crap. i totally get how this misconception arises though. these 'smart' people dont tend to admit just how much work they do, instead saying something like o yeah i dont really do that much work. something along those lines.
maybe they do not do as much writing, or something like that. but i will bet my bottom dollar, time and time again, that they are doing more thinking than you. they will think why the differentiation from first principles work as theyre catching the tram home, or why the R U R' U R U U R' algorithm works the way it does on a rubiks cube.
i dont think ill spend more time trying to quantify the gist of what im saying, because i dont think its useful past this point. hopefully you get what im saying. people CAN become smart if they want. its all about what mentality you foster: the can-do attitude, or the can't-do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
