| Forum Index > Brood War Tournaments |
|
hixhix
1156 Posts
On September 24 2008 17:53 UbRi wrote: blah blah blag......... This means that Idra is probably the best, but all the others definetly have a shot at winning this You dont need high school math to come to that conclusion -.- | ||
|
Quanticfograw
United States2053 Posts
| ||
|
capek
United States585 Posts
Wtf do they feed these progamers (do they even feed them at all?) | ||
|
KlaCkoN
Sweden1661 Posts
On September 24 2008 17:49 IdrA wrote: this is gonna come off as biased since the general perception is that im a mass gamer but why does almost everyone seem to value 'natural talent' (whatever that is) over hard work? its better to be born lucky than to have work ethic? so you happen to naturally have fast hands or a good mind for strategy games.. where does that get you in life? moreover, what does it show about the quality of your character? nowhere, and nothing. whereas someone capable of applying themselves and working really hard to accomplish a goal will succeed in whatever they choose, and it also shows something about their character, to have will power and self control and whatnot. (and you're wrong btw, put garimto or whoever you want up against one of the 16 year old pro team practice drones, guess whos gonna win) This might come of as just a tad bit too nerdy but whatever :p Let's say that we can model "skill" at brood war as s = 10^(1/at) where s = skill and t = time spent practicing. a would then then imo be "talent" namely the speed by which one approaches the maximum possible skill level. This model is obviously flawed since a is dependent on other factors as well, like practice partners etc + that I belive that "talent" also influences the maximum possible skill level. However I still think that it gets a point across. So yea I think "talent" is very important. As for the point you made, I think it is because people feel that "anyone" can work really hard, (it isn't true of course) Talent however they feel is something to look up to, because that is something they themselves simply haven't got, thus it is easier to admire it in someone else. Going "woooow I could _never_ do that!" as opposed to "That's cool, it would take me a lot of hours to be able to do that." That said I have always viewed you as a rather "talented" player, you became really good rather fast, speeding past a lot of people who were playing just as much. Good luck ~~ I both hope and belive you will win. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
that makes sense, but people also follow the opposite line of reasoning quite often. most newbies are clamoring for sc2 to be a 'pure' strategy game, take physical ability out of the mix as much as possible. mainly because they all believe that, given the proper time, they could outthink anyone... they just cant keep up with the game. seems like the same line of logic would apply to this. its not that theyre innately bad, they just dont have the time to get good at the game. people want to believe theyre capable of kicking ass given the proper circumstances. the whole obsession with 'talent' kinda seems to go against that. | ||
|
Xeris
Iran17695 Posts
I DO NOT believe that there is such a thing as talent for one specific thing or another. For example saying "Boxer is naturally good at BW" or "Kobe Bryant is naturally good at basketball" is just plain wrong IMO. I believe that a "talented" person (see above) can excel at any activity they choose to set their mind on. Boxer could have been great at anything he tried; he got attached to BW and rose to the top. This doesn't mean he is talented at this game, but he is just generally talented. Being mentally or physically more capable than others is not the only way to become great at something though. The other most important determining factor is one's will. I believe that if someone wants something badly enough they CAN achieve it (unless they have physical or mental impairments like retardation or something that stop them). If you want something and work hard enough to get it, 9 times out of 10, you will at least accomplish your minimum goal. If you DON'T achieve your goal then you have to examine WHY that happens, and I can almost guarnatee every single time you failed at something in life, you either a) didn't work hard enough or b) didn't work the right way. Anyone can do anything if they train/practice/study/etc the RIGHT way... because there are right ways and wrong ways. If you play 40 games of ICCUP per day, there's only so much you can improve from there if you aren't learning/playing the right way to maximize what you get out of each game. Similarly, if you sit in front of a book for 8 hours you might not be getting everything out of it that you can, etc. So there ARE people who are "talented" i.e more mentally/physically equipped to be good at whatever it is they are interested in, but any normal person can be great at anything too, it just takes extra dedication, will, and effort. | ||
|
EGLzGaMeR
United States1867 Posts
Good to see korea hasnt changed you greg =) | ||
NonY
8751 Posts
On September 29 2008 08:23 likeaboss wrote: So can I buy tickets online or do I have to wait to be in person http://www.eforallexpo.com/content/563/registration/ | ||
|
hanmunjae
United States7 Posts
| ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
| ||
|
KlaCkoN
Sweden1661 Posts
On September 29 2008 09:12 IdrA wrote: that model doesnt even make sense, as practice time increases skill decreases(according to it). not to mention its totally arbitrary. and practice time is obviously quite a bit more important, especially in modern bw. dont think anyone would argue against boxer being insanely talented (whatever that means, coordination or intelligence or mindset), but how many starleagues has he made since hes been confined to the airforce practice schedule and training partners? that makes sense, but people also follow the opposite line of reasoning quite often. most newbies are clamoring for sc2 to be a 'pure' strategy game, take physical ability out of the mix as much as possible. mainly because they all believe that, given the proper time, they could outthink anyone... they just cant keep up with the game. seems like the same line of logic would apply to this. its not that theyre innately bad, they just dont have the time to get good at the game. people want to believe theyre capable of kicking ass given the proper circumstances. the whole obsession with 'talent' kinda seems to go against that. Lolol posted at 3 am without dubble checking and went to sleep, now I look like an idiot :p oh well. And I am not sure why everyone cites boxer as the one with most talent, he obviously has developed a sick "feel" for the game after all these years. (His scans are beyond awsome) but again if I am not misstaken, the reason as to why he dominated so hard in the beginning was that he was the first one to practice 12 hours a day nonstop. There are and have always been a lot of people playing this game for 8+ hours a day, only a few of them actually are any good. For example, if I am not misstaken Flash started playing like 3-4 years ago, in raw practice time he is probably behind a lot of the other progamers but he is still playing at a higher level than most of them. I think they are slightly different groups of people  . The ones convinced that they could win everything if only the game was easier are bad players, very bad players. Too bad to be able to appriciate talent in top players at all. | ||
|
Ghardo
Germany1685 Posts
On September 29 2008 10:56 Xeris wrote: Here's my view of talent. There are people who are smarter, i.e they have a greater capacity to learn and process information more quickly than others. There are people who are talented athletically, for whatever reason their bodies are stronger, faster, etc, than others. You can say that these types of people are naturally talented. I DO NOT believe that there is such a thing as talent for one specific thing or another. For example saying "Boxer is naturally good at BW" or "Kobe Bryant is naturally good at basketball" is just plain wrong IMO. I believe that a "talented" person (see above) can excel at any activity they choose to set their mind on. Boxer could have been great at anything he tried; he got attached to BW and rose to the top. This doesn't mean he is talented at this game, but he is just generally talented. so you want to say just because Kobe Bryant is a great basketball player ("athletically talented") he could write poems like Goethe if he chooses to "set his mind on it"? i don't think that's what you want to say. it would make your whole argument seem rather silly. of course you are talented in one field or another. just look at people with an "asperger syndrome".. they can take the n-th root of 294820720587250293 just like that but have IMMENSE shortcomings in other areas. on the other hand there are many very very talented poets, writers, artists who are fucking newbs at maths. so you need to define your understanding of "talent" better. i give you that kobe bryant could probably excel in kinds of sports which are related to basketball, thus, require similar mechanics. but that doesn't mean he would be a natural table tennis star. to be honest there have been only very few people in history who were really universal geniuses. someone like Leonardo could make that claim but I don't know if he'd have become a celebrated basketball star. rather doubt it. look at Slayer (not boxer), he was called a "one in a million talent" by a respectable player like Fisheye and he did indeed excel above all others at his time and now in his poker career he is *again* extremely successful (this one is also directed at Idra), praised by his friend Tillerman, and this is because - there goes my guess - poker requires similar skills as starcraft. we don't know what his weaknesses are but he will have some. to make it shorter: 1. yes, natural talent in certain areas 2. only few universal geniuses (+ physical =/= mental) 3. ability to excel in fields close to "yours" *edit* as far as dedication and discipline is concerned: i don't want to dismiss it, not at all. i think idra is right that nowadays refined mechanics are more important than ever and even with all talent you still need to train 12 hours a day to keep up, no question. but the whole "denial" of talent is a bit silly imho. (because it makes a difference if jaedong trains 12 hours a day or if mumyung trains 12 hours a day.. results are results) | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On September 29 2008 20:02 KlaCkoN wrote: Lolol posted at 3 am without dubble checking and went to sleep, now I look like an idiot :p oh well. And I am not sure why everyone cites boxer as the one with most talent, he obviously has developed a sick "feel" for the game after all these years. (His scans are beyond awsome) but again if I am not misstaken, the reason as to why he dominated so hard in the beginning was that he was the first one to practice 12 hours a day nonstop. There are and have always been a lot of people playing this game for 8+ hours a day, only a few of them actually are any good. For example, if I am not misstaken Flash started playing like 3-4 years ago, in raw practice time he is probably behind a lot of the other progamers but he is still playing at a higher level than most of them. I think they are slightly different groups of people . The ones convinced that they could win everything if only the game was easier are bad players, very bad players. Too bad to be able to appriciate talent in top players at all. its not so much overall practice time as skill levels are kinda asymptotic, its really really easy to improve when you're bad and gets progressively harder as you get better and better. thats why new progamers can catch up to the established ones, their practice is more efficient until they reach that level. "the reason as to why he dominated so hard in the beginning was that he was the first one to practice 12 hours a day nonstop" isnt that kind of what you're arguing against? you were saying talent is a big deal, but somehow or another a guy who mass gamed when most others didnt was the only player ever to win 2 starleagues in a row? | ||
|
selboN
United States2523 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + But at least if he does post again, this might take him off subject so IdrA can stop dickslapping him. | ||
|
Shauni
4077 Posts
| ||
|
KlaCkoN
Sweden1661 Posts
On September 30 2008 07:55 IdrA wrote: its not so much overall practice time as skill levels are kinda asymptotic, its really really easy to improve when you're bad and gets progressively harder as you get better and better. thats why new progamers can catch up to the established ones, their practice is more efficient until they reach that level. "the reason as to why he dominated so hard in the beginning was that he was the first one to practice 12 hours a day nonstop" isnt that kind of what you're arguing against? you were saying talent is a big deal, but somehow or another a guy who mass gamed when most others didnt was the only player ever to win 2 starleagues in a row? Can agree with the first thing I guess, though that is still ignoring the fact that there are a lot of people in the same enviroment, playing just as much that don't even make the qualifiers. Nah I said that talent is important, obviously practice time is more important (Like in all other areas) talent is more like the thing that puts people who are practicing a lot apart. Then again if we assume that boxer really is extremly talented, then his domination makes even more sense. | ||
|
NiGoL
1868 Posts
| ||
|
StylishVODs
Sweden5331 Posts
If two players practice 12 hours a day, only the guy with more talent will be stronger than the other, given that they practice under the same conditions. Thats why some enter the starleagues over and over again, and others don't. Don't you agree? | ||
|
pokerface
507 Posts
Sry for the bad english but i guess u got my point. | ||
|
Epicfailguy
Norway893 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
RongYI Cup
ByuN vs TriGGeR
herO vs Rogue
OSC
RongYI Cup
Clem vs ShoWTimE
Zoun vs Bunny
Big Brain Bouts
Serral vs TBD
RongYI Cup
SHIN vs Creator
Classic vs Percival
OSC
BSL 21
RongYI Cup
Maru vs Cyan
Solar vs Krystianer
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
BSL 21
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
