EPTJust something random ._.
Chess Prodigy Rising the Ranks - Page 2
| Blogs > jdseemoreglass |
Empyrean
17038 Posts
Just something random ._. | ||
|
mdb
Bulgaria4059 Posts
| ||
]343[
United States10328 Posts
And most top GMs don't end up like Fischer lol. At "worst" they become like Kasparov and raise a lot of shit (and run for Russian president?) | ||
|
Probulous
Australia3894 Posts
On September 06 2011 15:21 mdb wrote: You cant compare Carlsen and Fisher. One has the the best chess computers and players helping him, the other was alone relying only on his brain. That's a nonsensical argument. You win based on beating people. Sure the level of support may have increased, but so has the competition. You get to be the best by being better than others. | ||
|
mdb
Bulgaria4059 Posts
On September 06 2011 15:32 Probulous wrote: That's a nonsensical argument. You win based on beating people. Sure the level of support may have increased, but so has the competition. You get to be the best by being better than others. As I said, you cant compare them both. Maybe you should work a little on your chess history. Fisher was training alone against all the Soviet GMs who had tens of other GMs helping them prepare for the candidates and on later stages against Spaski for the Wch. Carlsen was picked up by Kasparov very young and although he is getting the best possible coaching and computer assistance, he is still very far away from the total domination Fisher had in the chess world. | ||
|
Jaxtyk
United States600 Posts
| ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
On September 06 2011 15:46 mdb wrote: As I said, you cant compare them both. Maybe you should work a little on your chess history. Fisher was training alone against all the Soviet GMs who had tens of other GMs helping them prepare for the candidates and on later stages against Spaski for the Wch. Carlsen was picked up by Kasparov very young and although he is getting the best possible coaching and computer assistance, he is still very far away from the total domination Fisher had in the chess world. Yes, it's too early to compare Fischer's lifetime accomplishments with Carlsen's. I was simply comparing the fact that they were both young prodigies, and illustrating the dangers that obsessions can create. Fischer reached GM at age 16, 3 years older than Carlsen, and he didn't win the world title until he was 29. Carlsen reached rank #1 in the world at only 19, the youngest ever. I guess the point is, he certainly has immense potential. Kasparov didn't start training him until 2009, and all of his competitors have access to the same computers he does, so I'm not sure how that changes anything. | ||
|
kainzero
United States5211 Posts
On September 06 2011 14:06 Ecrilon wrote: That simply isn't true. Do any among us really believe that with a lifetime of training, we could match FlaSh? mastery has become a hot topic lately, with a lot of popular books being published to discuss it, and many of them come to the conclusion that it is about the quantity and quality of practice moreso than talent. i think countering it with an anecdotal example won't accomplish much. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5823 Posts
On September 06 2011 15:46 mdb wrote: As I said, you cant compare them both. Maybe you should work a little on your chess history. Fisher was training alone against all the Soviet GMs who had tens of other GMs helping them prepare for the candidates and on later stages against Spaski for the Wch. Carlsen was picked up by Kasparov very young and although he is getting the best possible coaching and computer assistance, he is still very far away from the total domination Fisher had in the chess world. It's not totally logical, is it? Computer assistance isn't a luxury exclusive to Carlsen, and it's of no great help in tournament play. It's just a tool to assist preparation, something GMs have always spent a lot of time on. Fischer had peaked in his late 20s. The fact that we can't judge Carlsen on his serious attempts at the championship (as he hasn't had any) doesn't mean we need to discount him out of hand either. | ||
|
mdb
Bulgaria4059 Posts
On September 06 2011 16:22 oBlade wrote: It's not totally logical, is it? Computer assistance isn't a luxury exclusive to Carlsen, and it's of no great help in tournament play. It's just a tool to assist preparation, something GMs have always spent a lot of time on. Fischer had peaked in his late 20s. The fact that we can't judge Carlsen on his serious attempts at the championship (as he hasn't had any) doesn't mean we need to discount him out of hand either. Oh, no, I`m not discounting him at all. On the contrary, he is without a doubt the most serious contender for the world title. Noone can argue against that. All I`m saying that you cant compare Fisher and Carlsen, because they have totaly different paths towards the chess top. Comparing Fisher to Carlsen is like comparing Tal to Karpov imo. | ||
|
masterbreti
Korea (South)2711 Posts
If someone young enough comes through the ranks and all of a sudden is taking games off the best. If that kid decided to take their enough life to learning the game. Then side effects can occur. I think though if one is that smart to know enough about chess and to be that good. They would know that its not healthy to have no interaction with human being for long stretches of time. | ||
|
Ecrilon
501 Posts
On September 06 2011 16:13 kainzero wrote: mastery has become a hot topic lately, with a lot of popular books being published to discuss it, and many of them come to the conclusion that it is about the quantity and quality of practice moreso than talent. i think countering it with an anecdotal example won't accomplish much. Won't accomplish much? It's correct. When your general theory statement if countered by an anecdotal counterexample, you are required to provide either an explanation why the anecdote is irrelevant, an elaboration of the theory, or some demonstration that it's a special case. But whatever, here's a non anecdotal argument if you really want one: Some people's brains and bodies are built differently and can't do certain things. You can practice all you want. You can't exceed your physical limitations. A book's popularity says nothing about its accuracy. Carlsen didn't get good at chess because of intense and rigorous training. That came later, after he had already shown considerable skill. So if your "goal" of mastery is "become grandmaster at age X," I am absolutely certain that you're not getting there through training. | ||
|
LoneWolf.Alpha-
123 Posts
On September 06 2011 11:58 Count9 wrote: I'd like to see him vs. the world's best chess computers, that'd be cool. The greatest chest software in the world can be run on a laptop and win 99 out of 100 times against the strongest human player. | ||
|
Fwmeh
1286 Posts
On September 06 2011 18:01 LoneWolf.Alpha- wrote: The greatest chest software in the world can be run on a laptop and win 99 out of 100 times against the strongest human player. Citation please? Other than that, I recently read http://www.amazon.com/Talent-Overrated-Separates-World-Class-Performers/dp/1591842247 , and after that I don't believe in prodigies. | ||
|
calgar
United States1277 Posts
On September 06 2011 18:49 Fwmeh wrote: It's clear that he doesn't know what he's talking about because the difference is nowhere near that extreme. Having said that, the strongest computers are much better than any human now. If you gave them a rating they might be somewhere around ~3000+ compared to the top tier of 2800 FIDE players (Carlsen, Anand, and Aronian currently).Citation please? Other than that, I recently read http://www.amazon.com/Talent-Overrated-Separates-World-Class-Performers/dp/1591842247 , and after that I don't believe in prodigies. Ever since 1997 when Deeper Blue beat Kasparov 3.5-2.5 they have only gotten better. Just take a peek at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human-computer_chess_matches. In 2005 the 7th best player in the world is crushed 5.5-.5. Rybka has had decent results giving up pawn, move, and exchange odds vs. other top tier GMs. | ||
|
EsX_Raptor
United States2802 Posts
It is the same case with many other disciplines; right now, a high school student can be taken to know more math than all top-tier mathematicians during Pythagoras’s era. This is because we are standing on the shoulders of giants to reach higher heights. Comparing Carlsen to Fischer is much like comparing a P-51 Mustang to an F-22 Raptor; you cannot draw the line in between these two planes because they fight in different realms and under different meta-rules. | ||
|
kainzero
United States5211 Posts
On September 06 2011 17:22 Ecrilon wrote: Won't accomplish much? It's correct. When your general theory statement if countered by an anecdotal counterexample, you are required to provide either an explanation why the anecdote is irrelevant, an elaboration of the theory, or some demonstration that it's a special case. ok. here's why it's irrelevant. none of us will ever receive a lifetime of training in the same time frame that Flash was trained, and none of us will know the nature of Flash's training and mental state when he was training so we can't easily replicate it either. on top of that, this ignores the fact that Flash is still training. But whatever, here's a non anecdotal argument if you really want one: Some people's brains and bodies are built differently and can't do certain things. You can practice all you want. You can't exceed your physical limitations. when do your physical and mental limitations really matter? people born with a third arm may be able to catch a ball better, but that doesn't mean people with two arms are that much disadvantaged. this guy medaled over people who have two working legs. A book's popularity says nothing about its accuracy. it was a demonstration of the attention that the field of mastery is receiving. all these books cite actual studies, and many studies are ongoing. Carlsen didn't get good at chess because of intense and rigorous training. That came later, after he had already shown considerable skill. So if your "goal" of mastery is "become grandmaster at age X," I am absolutely certain that you're not getting there through training. intense and rigorous training doesn't necessarily mean that it's the best quality/quantity of training. having a fascination and a willingness to explore the game raises the training quality more than hardcore drilling. "The Art of Learning" by Josh Waitzkin goes over how he (Waitzkin) learned how to play chess, which I feel is relevant to this discussion. it also answers one of the OPs concerns about how he'll have no life, since it covers that point as well. | ||
|
iSTime
1579 Posts
On September 06 2011 15:46 mdb wrote: As I said, you cant compare them both. Maybe you should work a little on your chess history. Fisher was training alone against all the Soviet GMs who had tens of other GMs helping them prepare for the candidates and on later stages against Spaski for the Wch. Carlsen was picked up by Kasparov very young and although he is getting the best possible coaching and computer assistance, he is still very far away from the total domination Fisher had in the chess world. It's not really fair to say Fischer was alone relying only on his brain when he taught himself russian and spent 12+ hours a day studying chess material. It's not like he sat in a room using only his brain to figure the game out. | ||
|
MrProphylactic
296 Posts
On September 06 2011 16:09 jdseemoreglass wrote: Yes, it's too early to compare Fischer's lifetime accomplishments with Carlsen's. I was simply comparing the fact that they were both young prodigies, and illustrating the dangers that obsessions can create. Fischer reached GM at age 16, 3 years older than Carlsen, and he didn't win the world title until he was 29. Carlsen reached rank #1 in the world at only 19, the youngest ever. I guess the point is, he certainly has immense potential. Kasparov didn't start training him until 2009, and all of his competitors have access to the same computers he does, so I'm not sure how that changes anything. 1. Rating inflation . todays 2800 elo = 2700 in Fischers time 2. Fischer had a near 90 percent win ratee in tournaments over his entire career against his contemporary world class Gms , no one in history has come remotely close to this level of domination . You say above his oponets have access to the same programs so it is not relevant , well the reason it is , IS becuase Carlsens win rate and rating are not substantially better than his oponents . As I said above there are a group all within points of eachother . This was not the case with Fischer which set himself fart apart rating and win rate-wise from his oponents , and he did it all alone with no help .While all of his oponents were Russian and on the same team, all working together to beat this one man, and they could not do it . 3. Fischer had no aide but himself and his own brain , computer programs were not relevant 4. Carlsen studies the theory Fischer created 5. Carlsen's win rate and rating is not nearly as substantially better than his contemporaries, there are a group within points of eachother . Aronion , Anand , Kramnik, Ivanchuck etc. 6. It is a well known fact Gms are being created younger and younger due to programs and thus easier access to databases and theory , this is a well documented fact 7. Fischer dominated an entire team of Russians , some of the greatest chess minds in history all by himself . 8. Fischer could dominate in any opening , much like Ivanchuck today , yet he had to rely on himself to create the theory, not learn it from a program , Which being a master myself I can tell you makes the process take quite a bit less time , as well as the confidence you have in the theory . Fischer had to trust his own analysis To sum up ; While Carlsen is an amazing player , it is too early to compare him to Fischers accomplishments . Also the adversity Fischer dealt with makes it all the more incredible, as someone pointed out he dominated an entire team of Russians working against him , some of the best chess minds in history all by himself without the aide of technology To me this sets Fischer apart from any GM in history. If Fischer would not have walked away it would be hard to imagine how long he would have held the title and how high his rating would have gotten . He left the world stage in his prime . Simply put there has never been a Gm in history that dominated the world class level as Fischer did , not even kasparov . Morphy came close for a time . While Calrsen is a prodigy( I think no one is arguing that) that is the only thing that he can be compared with , his level of domination is just not there , and no where close to Fischers . The win rate Fischer achieved has never been seen in history accept by him . The only one you can compare to Fischer is Fischer , there has never been a talent like him before or since . | ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
This is because Carlsen is still young, and hasn't had time to actually achieve anything substantial, other than reaching youngest world #1 in history. It doesn't make any sense to compare a 20 year old's achievements to someone who played the game twice as long, obviously. You can only compare where they were at similar ages. Whether this will continue and lead to the same accomplishments is too early to tell, but there is nothing wrong at all with comparing their status as young prodigies. Also, I strongly disagree with your statement that Kasparov did not dominate his era like Fischer did. No other player has dominated as long or as strongly as Kasparov. You won't find many chess enthusiasts who believe that Fischer was more dominant than Kasparov, either. Fischer's career was brief in comparison, and he left at the peak of his achievements. I understand people being big fans of Fischer, but you shouldn't let that blind you to any valid comparisons with other great players. | ||
| ||
