![[us]](/mwf/v12/flags/us.png "United States")
lets say a person plays rybka , fritz,shredder ,zappa,naum, chessmaster,spike etc etc . does not play anyone else and plays 1000's if not 100,000 games and began to win or draw most of his games . learning strictly from computers how strong can a man get ? if he is stronger than the programs ?could he go to a major grand prix tourn and compee in the open section and place 1st or near first ? basically how far can a computer take you as far as training goes ?
![[de]](/mwf/v12/flags/de.png "Germany")
Not very far, I guess. Playing games is one thing, real training is something else. Engines can't provide that.
![[mx]](/mwf/v12/flags/mx.png "Mexico")
Also, even if you learn some strategy that beats Rybka most of the time, that strategy may not even work against me.
![[za]](/mwf/v12/flags/za.png "South Africa")
Also, even if you learn some strategy that beats Rybka most of the time, that strategy may not even work against me. Vytron, I used to play chess without using computers, winning lots of games against my friends. Outclassing them most of the times. I then started using Rybka, my style then changed, I started to be some kind of a positional player, I started doing well against the Chessmaster personalities. I remember oneday, I held Rybka up to over 35 moves and the position was still balanced and eventually I lost.
Ever since I used Rybka, and adopted her style of playing. Now I am losing games against my friends :) because of my patience and positional playing. :(
So I agree with your statement completely.
Yes! The most important thing is don't let an engine disrupt your playing style.
you might be right , but playing vs chess engines gives me a fight for my life , harder than any human ever pushed me , that has to be worth something to play vs a computer that hardly ever makes noticeable errors . also i did not say he only played rybka , played lots of different engines and was inventive played blindfold , played simultaneous 32 players at once vs chessmaster personalities etc . chess is chess ?
![[in]](/mwf/v12/flags/in.png "India")
The problem is without a very high level of training, the person will never have a chance to win or draw against Rybka. My feeling is the person will get frustrated by continuously loosing the games. However, if a person can defend against Rybka, he can definitely defend against the best human player. My guess is the person will become world champion.
Gary and most GMs rely heavly on Chess Programs to develop their games. Useing a combination of both playing humans and useing computer chess is the ideal path to go. However there are many ways to play a computer that can be very human like via set up position from human games and finsh it playing a computer. For example you can take an old fischer game of which he developed a strong advantage and try to finsh the computer off from that loaded position. If you think out of the box useing computers can take you really far. One last thought with internet chess there is no reason to only play your computer anyway.
i maintain that playing vs rybka is a high level of training , look at larry's results lately , i know he has played more than a few games vs rybka ,, he is playing the best chess of his life at 60 !!!! hmmmm very interesting .you could start at 1 ply then 2 ply etc until you get used to playing full go like training wheels .
![[ca]](/mwf/v12/flags/ca.png "Canada")
Unless you are young and still in your formative years, you will never make huge rating gains again. Through hard work and sheer willpower you might gain a couple of hundred points. But you will never see someone who has hovered at say 2100 for a number of years, soar to a sustained 2700 level. If such a thing has ever happened I'd like to see an example. I do laud your efforts but feel that your optimisn is misguided.
Best wishes,
Peter
Best wishes,
Peter
![[il]](/mwf/v12/flags/il.png "Israel")
I think that the main reasons that you do not see it is not lack of ability but lack of motivation and lack of effort.
I cannot play blindfold even a single game so I believe that I have no chance to get rating of 2700 but I believe that many 2100 players can achieve 2700 if they decide to train hard and they simply do not do it when one of the reasons is that they believe your opinion.
I'd like to see many examples for 2100 players who decided to train 8 hours per day on chess for some years in order to achieve 2700 including playing every day against the best programs and analyzing their games before deciding that the task is impossible for people who are not very young.
I believe that there are intelligent players who are not very young(30 years old or 40 years old) who can achieve rating of 2700 by that way.
Uri
I cannot play blindfold even a single game so I believe that I have no chance to get rating of 2700 but I believe that many 2100 players can achieve 2700 if they decide to train hard and they simply do not do it when one of the reasons is that they believe your opinion.
I'd like to see many examples for 2100 players who decided to train 8 hours per day on chess for some years in order to achieve 2700 including playing every day against the best programs and analyzing their games before deciding that the task is impossible for people who are not very young.
I believe that there are intelligent players who are not very young(30 years old or 40 years old) who can achieve rating of 2700 by that way.
Uri
I think that there is a lot of evidence against this idea. There are plenty of strong amateurs (between 2300 and 2500) who at some point in their life decided to just try how strong they can get and became professionals. There is no reason to assume that they were all not sufficiently motivated, or didn't work hard enough. But there is not a single example of such a player who even came close to 2700.
And here we are talking about players who are way beyond 2100 - so why should weaker players be able to achieve what so many much stronger players were not?
And here we are talking about players who are way beyond 2100 - so why should weaker players be able to achieve what so many much stronger players were not?
No evidence.
People know that they probably cannot live from chess so almost nobody really works hard to improve.
The only way to test ability of players is if some sponsor decides to give money to 30 years old players who have rating of 2100
based on their improvement.
Let say something like
100,000$ for getting 2200 fide rating
300,000$ for getting 2300 fide rating
600,000$ for getting 2400 fide rating
1000,000$ for getting 2500 fide rating
2000,000$ for getting 2600 fide rating
5000,000$ for getting 2700 fide rating
In that case they will really have motivation to do their best so we can test if they can get rating of 2700.
Uri
People know that they probably cannot live from chess so almost nobody really works hard to improve.
The only way to test ability of players is if some sponsor decides to give money to 30 years old players who have rating of 2100
based on their improvement.
Let say something like
100,000$ for getting 2200 fide rating
300,000$ for getting 2300 fide rating
600,000$ for getting 2400 fide rating
1000,000$ for getting 2500 fide rating
2000,000$ for getting 2600 fide rating
5000,000$ for getting 2700 fide rating
In that case they will really have motivation to do their best so we can test if they can get rating of 2700.
Uri
"People know that they probably cannot live from chess so almost nobody really works hard to improve."
No, that's just wrong, and I had explicitly stated the opposite in my post. I said explicitly that I am talking about players who do want to be professional chess players, who quit their jobs to do nothing else but play chess. Why do you assume that they lack motivation? And really, there are plenty of examples.
No, that's just wrong, and I had explicitly stated the opposite in my post. I said explicitly that I am talking about players who do want to be professional chess players, who quit their jobs to do nothing else but play chess. Why do you assume that they lack motivation? And really, there are plenty of examples.
I do not know about these players.
I know only about the opposite
talented chess players who quit chess.
See for example kamsky(now he returned back but he left chess for some years)
I know about another example of chess grandmaster who works a doctor and does not live from chess(GM Yona Kosashvili)
He plays in the israeli league but he does not live from chess.
I guess he could get better results in case of not learning to be a doctor of medicine.
Uri
I know only about the opposite
talented chess players who quit chess.
See for example kamsky(now he returned back but he left chess for some years)
I know about another example of chess grandmaster who works a doctor and does not live from chess(GM Yona Kosashvili)
He plays in the israeli league but he does not live from chess.
I guess he could get better results in case of not learning to be a doctor of medicine.
Uri
![[gb]](/mwf/v12/flags/gb.png "United Kingdom")
If you're willing to pay me a wage, I'll turn professional and guarentee you a 100 elo improvement per year or that year's free :) It's win win!
Sorry, but I don't get your point. Of course there are players who quit chess. And of course there are plenty of grandmasters who are no professionals. What is this supposed to show? You talked about 30 or 40 years old players rated 2100 who should start playing seriously and get 2700. I know of not one single player who climbed from 2100 to 2500 when he was beyond 30 - feel free to give an example (not Afromeev and the likes). On the other hand, there are numerous players who were already strong and who tried to become professionals, yet never came close to 2700. All of the 2700s worked professionally from their - mostly early - childhood. Simply because you learn best when you are young.
So it seems like there is plenty of evidence against your thesis, and absolutely no evidence which supports it.
So it seems like there is plenty of evidence against your thesis, and absolutely no evidence which supports it.
I agree that people learn better when they are young but part of the reason is the fact that young people have more time to learn
when older people have a job and other things to do.
I think that the interest in success in chess is not very high so I believe that there are 2100 players who can get 2700 if they start to train at age 30.
They could also get 2750 or 2800 in case of starting to train at younger age so I do not say it is not better to start at younger age.
I only believe that the difference is smaller than what people think.
Uri
when older people have a job and other things to do.
I think that the interest in success in chess is not very high so I believe that there are 2100 players who can get 2700 if they start to train at age 30.
They could also get 2750 or 2800 in case of starting to train at younger age so I do not say it is not better to start at younger age.
I only believe that the difference is smaller than what people think.
Uri
The argument is: Is it possible? If so then how probable is it.
No one knows if it is possible or not. Maybe an exceptional, special, once in 10 lifetimes human is capable of such a thing.
The point is that there exists or existed plenty of strong masters who don't work (wealthy, on disability, investments working for them, etc.) who tried very hard to achieve not only 2700 status but mere grandmaster status. This statement is correct because I knew a few like this.
These individuals worked and trained many hours a day (after all they didn't have to work). But after several years they never obtained the grandmaster title (or 2700).
But yes they did get stronger but not GM strong.
I believe creativity and ingenuity plays a huge part of a 2700 player.
My opinion is that it is very hard to train the creative areas in the brain after a certain age.
Now my opinion is that it can't be achieved simply because of the definition of the elo rating system.
There can't be many 2700's, for this is mathematically impossible. Also, most of the 2500-2700's that both had a head start in chess training at an early age and now train many hours a day will always have an advantage over those 2100s that just train many hours a day. This is because they had a head start and are using it to stay ahead and keep the 2100's from making it to their level.
No one knows if it is possible or not. Maybe an exceptional, special, once in 10 lifetimes human is capable of such a thing.
The point is that there exists or existed plenty of strong masters who don't work (wealthy, on disability, investments working for them, etc.) who tried very hard to achieve not only 2700 status but mere grandmaster status. This statement is correct because I knew a few like this.
These individuals worked and trained many hours a day (after all they didn't have to work). But after several years they never obtained the grandmaster title (or 2700).
But yes they did get stronger but not GM strong.
I believe creativity and ingenuity plays a huge part of a 2700 player.
My opinion is that it is very hard to train the creative areas in the brain after a certain age.
Now my opinion is that it can't be achieved simply because of the definition of the elo rating system.
There can't be many 2700's, for this is mathematically impossible. Also, most of the 2500-2700's that both had a head start in chess training at an early age and now train many hours a day will always have an advantage over those 2100s that just train many hours a day. This is because they had a head start and are using it to stay ahead and keep the 2100's from making it to their level.
> There can't be many 2700's, for this is mathematically impossible.
Check your mathematics, and the workings of the ELO formula. This chart http://www.fide.com/component/handbook/?id=75&view=article is easy to read and shows how Fide calculated differences in ELO based on your winning percentages.
I say check your mathematics, because in the ELO system, there is nothing special about 2700, or 2000, or any fixed number. The calculation will only tell us how much higher you are rated than me, after we've played enough games, but it will never tell us our rating. At some primeaval time, a rating number was given to a man, and when that man played another, a difference in their ratings was established. Then, when anyone plays one of those two, the third person's elo can be established as an offset from the person he played. Extend this process to the present day, and you have the type of scaling that we've inherited from the past, where the number 2700 represents something amazing.
But even there, there is nothing in the mathematics that prevents many, many people from reaching that rating. All you need is a gaggle of up-and-comers who get wins and draws against today's Grandmasters, and all the while these youngsters as well as the established Grandmasters would be playing and defeating 2600-rated oponents like they were snacking on bacon. Mathematically, you'd get your wish (or you'd get the counterexample to your claim): as many people as you like could have elo ratings as high as you like, if we can produce a group of ultra-talented people. That's a big if, and it won't happen because that's not how the human race is wired, on average, but there's nothing in the math of the elo system preventing it.
ty
My comment is somewhat similar to Uri's here--logically speaking, one would expect that a player over 30 years old rated 2100 or less is simply of the type who never chose to take chess seriously because he had, well, other things on his mind. Such people are going to be the type who will tend to continue taking other things more seriously, and will thus be considerably less likely ever to break 2500.
Yes, of course, but like I said, there are many counterexamples to this, and noone of them became a super-GM.
2700 is a level which only a tiny elite group of chess players can ever aspire to - even with all the training and motivation in the world. In fact, I face Class B/A players who study chess for more than 2-4 hours a day without much improvement and I'm sure it's a similar case for master level players if not more so because they have subtler flaws. It's not just lack of training. In fact, I'd say even IM level is actually outside of the mental capability of all but a few chess players. It's true that master level player usually study a great deal and often from an early age, but that does not mean that it is any less impressive or more feasible. The same is true for doctors and astronauts (only some examples that came to mind). It all requires enormous dedication and so some think that anyone can do it with enough training. Many people can put just as much work and simply not respond well to the training - not make any meaningful improvement. The capacity to benefit from training is a huge part of intelligence. If you try to train a monkey to read with just as much if not more training than a human child, I doubt you would get similar results. Of course, I'm not claiming that all 2100 players are plateaued, but only that advancing beyond that is not just a matter obsessive dedication.
BTW: I do think that most people of average intelligence (or maybe a bit higher than average since we're talking about chess players) can reach at least Class A with sufficient training. Although, there might be exceptions where some very smart people lack precisely the qualities for chess. Perhaps they are easily distracted (ADD?) and miss simple tactics or hang pieces way too often.
BTW: I do think that most people of average intelligence (or maybe a bit higher than average since we're talking about chess players) can reach at least Class A with sufficient training. Although, there might be exceptions where some very smart people lack precisely the qualities for chess. Perhaps they are easily distracted (ADD?) and miss simple tactics or hang pieces way too often.
In principle, I absolutely agree with you - by far not everyone who learns chess at a very early age can achieve 2700. I have also seen many examples of players who started early, had all the support in the world, worked hard, etc., but only got to 2000.
But IM level only possible for 'all but a few'? I don't know - depends on what 'a few' means. There is at least one thing in which Uri is right: There are only very few players who dedicate their life to such a goal.
But IM level only possible for 'all but a few'? I don't know - depends on what 'a few' means. There is at least one thing in which Uri is right: There are only very few players who dedicate their life to such a goal.
Yes, but don't forget that those that do tend to self-select themselves. It's not an accident.
Okay, but many talented chess players simply have other interests. In most countries, it is much wiser to focus on your education, rather than devoting your life to chess.
These types of discussions always humor me - 'hard work' or 'natural talent'? People that excel think hard work is more important than talent and people who are less successful think that it is all about natural talent. To me, it is quite obvious that talent is more important than hard work. It cracks me up when the mothers of olympic gold medalists are interviewed, saying things like 'Little Carl always loved to run. Ever since 3yrs old he wanted to be in the Olympics. It shows what hard work and dedication can do". Of course, 90% of us wanted to be athletes, actors, Presidents, and the like and a good number of us worked hard and a very small number of us made it to the top. Certainly chess players can improve with with hard work but hard work cannot make one a great chess player. Also, I think it is true that people tend to pursue endeavors they are good at doing.
I agree with you as well. But it is obvious that both talent and hard work are necessary conditions for success.
![[lu]](/mwf/v12/flags/lu.png "Luxembourg")
In this context, I think it is interesting to note that the father of the polgar sisters is clearly in the "hard work" camp as opposed to the "natural talent" camp and that all three of his daughters became excellent chess-players. I do not think that this can be coincidence and I do not believe that all three of them had exceptional luck with respect to their getting the right genes to go into chess.
One other fact that points towards the "hard work" hypothesis is that at least in some fields, e.g. amongst professional soccer players, it has been shown that the birth months of top performers are not equally distributed (or, to put it more precisely, there are significant differences between the distribution of birth months of top soccer players and the general population). The most natural explanation of these findings is that children who are at the old end of their age brackets will tend to outperform their peers in competition, resulting in both increased motivation and them receiving increased support from trainers and parents towards going professional eventually. I could imagine similar effects to be at work also in chess and they would be unrelated entirely to natural talent.
I am also not sure that the rate of learning strictly decreases with age. Indeed, there are many things which young adults seem to learn faster than schoolchildren when they put in comparable amounts of effort; foreign languages are a case in point in my opinion.
With respect to the general "hard work vs. inborn talent" debate, I would like to point out the following two Scientific American articles as worth reading:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-expert-mind
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-secret-to-raising-smart-kids&print=true
Best regards,
Neuromancer
One other fact that points towards the "hard work" hypothesis is that at least in some fields, e.g. amongst professional soccer players, it has been shown that the birth months of top performers are not equally distributed (or, to put it more precisely, there are significant differences between the distribution of birth months of top soccer players and the general population). The most natural explanation of these findings is that children who are at the old end of their age brackets will tend to outperform their peers in competition, resulting in both increased motivation and them receiving increased support from trainers and parents towards going professional eventually. I could imagine similar effects to be at work also in chess and they would be unrelated entirely to natural talent.
I am also not sure that the rate of learning strictly decreases with age. Indeed, there are many things which young adults seem to learn faster than schoolchildren when they put in comparable amounts of effort; foreign languages are a case in point in my opinion.
With respect to the general "hard work vs. inborn talent" debate, I would like to point out the following two Scientific American articles as worth reading:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-expert-mind
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-secret-to-raising-smart-kids&print=true
Best regards,
Neuromancer
i think you hit on a very good point about how smart the person is who is trying to get alot better . i read fischer had a iq of 172 that might explain his 2770 rating .
There have been lots of discussions about Fischer's true IQ, though I have never heard the number 172 mentioned--I have always heard either 180 or 187. It sounds like he may have taken a test in high school whose results equated to an IQ of 180 or more. I would not doubt that his actual IQ was something like this. It may also be that he had a photographic memory and that this made him seem more intelligent than he actually was, though I know that after hearing a conversation in Icelandic for the first time, he was able t recite it perfectly, and I think that more than photographic memory is required to do that--something else that takes advantage of a photographic memory is, I think, required, and if I am right, this would in itself imply an incredibly high IQ. On the other hand, Kasparov had a peak rating of over 2850 (Fischer's by the way, was 2785, just before his match with Spassky), but he has said that his IQ is only 135, though I am not sure how much I believe this, as he might have been saying this to mislead his future opponents.
![[ar]](/mwf/v12/flags/ar.png "Argentina")
We have some examples in Argentina, the worst one being GM Hugo Spangenberg, he was a brilliant chess player at a very young age, got his GM title and a rating over 2500, and quit chess in his early 20s to play backgammon and now poker.
Spangenberg has a positive score against Kramnik!!
Spangenberg has a positive score against Kramnik!!
I agree with Uri on this.
Can you cite a sufficiently large amount of people who have ever done this? Hovered around some mediocre rating for a few years then devoted their lives to improving the game?
Like Uri, I do feel that people could achieve better results than you think they could if they did this. It just hasn't been tried that much. Not enough to be able to form generalizations about it being impossible.
Can you cite a sufficiently large amount of people who have ever done this? Hovered around some mediocre rating for a few years then devoted their lives to improving the game?
Like Uri, I do feel that people could achieve better results than you think they could if they did this. It just hasn't been tried that much. Not enough to be able to form generalizations about it being impossible.
Depends on what you mean by 'mediocre'. I was talking about people in the range of 2300-2550. I know a couple of people personally who were never professionals and who gave up their jobs whwn they were already adults to devote their life to chess. There must be hundreds (or eventhousands) of people altogether who tried something like this. Not a single one of them has ever reached a rating of 2700. Why on earth should someone rated 2100 (!) be capable of doing this in his thirties or even forties? It contradicts everything we know about cognition and learning.
Okay, I can concede this: It isn't 'impossible'. Maybe there is one in a million or one in a billion who is capable of this. Who knows. But what Uri said sounded more like 'if someone is reasonably talented and devotes his life to chess ...'. These 2700s are all extraordinarily talented and each of them worked extremely hard since his early childhood. Look at an average grandmaster: Most of them were also talented by far above average. Many of them worked just as hard as the elite guys. But they never got that far.
Okay, I can concede this: It isn't 'impossible'. Maybe there is one in a million or one in a billion who is capable of this. Who knows. But what Uri said sounded more like 'if someone is reasonably talented and devotes his life to chess ...'. These 2700s are all extraordinarily talented and each of them worked extremely hard since his early childhood. Look at an average grandmaster: Most of them were also talented by far above average. Many of them worked just as hard as the elite guys. But they never got that far.
I have a feeling that humans are capable to do more than what they really do and the main problem is that players do not know how to think and do not learn how to think.
If you know many 2300-2550 players who left their job for chess then I guess that the reason is simply that they do not think correctly and it is not something that they cannot fix by better learning methods.
I wonder how many players try to look at their games and to define thinking rules to prevent their mistake(and of course good thinking rules should prevent many mistake and not one mistake)
Thinking rules mean instructions what questions to ask yourself during a chess game to prevent mistakes.
If you ask what I mean by thinking rules then I can give one example.
I remember that many years ago in some position I did not see
a defence against Qh6 and pawn at f6 with Qg7 mate and there was a defence.
The reason was that I thought only how to protect g7 but there was a way simply by capturing f6 by Qa1+ and Qxf6
A weak player may think only if he can protect g7
A good player may think also if he can capture f6(capturing f6 with the queen also protect g7 but it is not a square that weak players may consider when there is no direct capture there)
The problem of the weak player is wrong thinking.
I think that a good chess book should give many questions that a player should ask himself during his game and many exercises that are not about finding the best move but about which questions to ask.
Maybe there is a good book with that idea but
I do not know and I doubt if many players learned to ask themselves the right questions during a game.
Uri
If you know many 2300-2550 players who left their job for chess then I guess that the reason is simply that they do not think correctly and it is not something that they cannot fix by better learning methods.
I wonder how many players try to look at their games and to define thinking rules to prevent their mistake(and of course good thinking rules should prevent many mistake and not one mistake)
Thinking rules mean instructions what questions to ask yourself during a chess game to prevent mistakes.
If you ask what I mean by thinking rules then I can give one example.
I remember that many years ago in some position I did not see
a defence against Qh6 and pawn at f6 with Qg7 mate and there was a defence.
The reason was that I thought only how to protect g7 but there was a way simply by capturing f6 by Qa1+ and Qxf6
A weak player may think only if he can protect g7
A good player may think also if he can capture f6(capturing f6 with the queen also protect g7 but it is not a square that weak players may consider when there is no direct capture there)
The problem of the weak player is wrong thinking.
I think that a good chess book should give many questions that a player should ask himself during his game and many exercises that are not about finding the best move but about which questions to ask.
Maybe there is a good book with that idea but
I do not know and I doubt if many players learned to ask themselves the right questions during a game.
Uri
I don't believe your theory. Take my son Raymond for example. He is clearly talented at chess; he became a master (US) at age 15, and missed a forced draw against Kasparov in a serious 8 board clock simul shortly after that. He wants to be a chess pro, spend many months in Europe twice playing and studying chess almost continuously, and finally earned the norms and rating for the IM title. He is clearly improving from all this work, but it is clear to both of us from the rate of progress and his age (25) that the most he can hope for is to eventually reach 2500 FIDE and earn the GM title. I believe that there is some approximate limit that any given person can achieve in chess, which depends on many factors: intelligence, visualization skills, memory, concentration, stamina, etc. I believe that GM Nigel Davies gave a formula in one of his books that estimated the limit to which a person could hope to aspire in chess: IQ times 10 plus 1000. If he is right then the average person can only reach 2000 and the average college graduate maybe 2200. Of course this formula overlooks all the other key components to chess ability, but in principle I think he is right. I don't think I could have done better than perhaps 2500 FIDE (my actual peak was 2445) if I had devoted my whole life to playing chess; in my case visualization skills are the limiting factor.
>I believe that there is some approximate limit that any given person can achieve in chess, which depends on many factors: intelligence, visualization skills, memory, concentration, stamina, etc.
Out of curiosity, how do you explain a phenomenon such as the Polgar sisters. Doesn't their success provide an argument that proper training at a young age means more than natural talents and other personal characteristics you describe above. It is, after all, hard to believe they were all born chess geniuses in the same household.
Regards,
Milton
Their success does show the value of training at a young age. However, from what I've heard both of the parents were highly intellectual people, and it is likely that all three daughters have quite high IQ's. Also, given that they all had the same environment, opportunities for instruction and competition, and all chose to make chess their life (at least up until adulthood), it is noteworthy that they reached approximately 2600, 2500, and 2700+ at their peaks respectively. This spread of over 200 points at this level is surely a sign that some sort of talent made the difference between not even earning the (men's) GM title in one case and becoming one of the world's top ten players in another. I see all the time how huge a factor individual ability is in chess. I have been teaching two young brothers for several years; they were virtual beginners when they started taking lessons, and have had equal opportunity to play and equal instruction. Despite this, the younger one (now about 10 years old) is far stronger than the older one. It is obvious to me that the younger one could become a pretty strong player eventually if he sticks with it, probably a master at least, while it is equally obvious that the older one will never be anything but a weak amateur player. He just lacks certain innate abilities that his younger brother has.
I read an interview with judit polgar and she explained the fact that she had better results by the fact that she had better
environment.
She could learn from her sisters when she was young(something that her sisters could not do).
She said in that interview that she is not something special and most people could get similiar results in case of growing in similiar enviroment.
I do not agree with her(most is certainly too much) but I believe that there are many players who can get 2700 if they train hard enough and simply did not try hard to do it(reasons can be lack of interest or lack of motivation or lack of ability that they can do it).
I cannot say that these people got wrong decision even if we talk only about money because it is possible that they earn more money relative to 2700 players.
Uri
environment.
She could learn from her sisters when she was young(something that her sisters could not do).
She said in that interview that she is not something special and most people could get similiar results in case of growing in similiar enviroment.
I do not agree with her(most is certainly too much) but I believe that there are many players who can get 2700 if they train hard enough and simply did not try hard to do it(reasons can be lack of interest or lack of motivation or lack of ability that they can do it).
I cannot say that these people got wrong decision even if we talk only about money because it is possible that they earn more money relative to 2700 players.
Uri
"...but I believe that there are many players who can get 2700 if they train hard enough..."
while i agree w/ your conjecture in principal, i dont believe in your threshold. let's take a physical challenge: breaking the 4-minute mile. i assert that the average person (defined as whatever u want it to (reasonably) be) does not possess the physical ability to run a sub 4-min mile even if it were a matter of life and death, and even if he trained for as long as he wanted.
a 2700 rating is similar to a 4-min mile. u can spar w/ rybka all the live long day, and try to draw against it. that is, u could train yourself to become a "draw master." but most people simply do not possess the mental ability to achieve 2700 even if it were a matter of life and death.
lower the rating to say, somewhere around 2400-2500, then i'd say it's definitely possible.
while i agree w/ your conjecture in principal, i dont believe in your threshold. let's take a physical challenge: breaking the 4-minute mile. i assert that the average person (defined as whatever u want it to (reasonably) be) does not possess the physical ability to run a sub 4-min mile even if it were a matter of life and death, and even if he trained for as long as he wanted.
a 2700 rating is similar to a 4-min mile. u can spar w/ rybka all the live long day, and try to draw against it. that is, u could train yourself to become a "draw master." but most people simply do not possess the mental ability to achieve 2700 even if it were a matter of life and death.
lower the rating to say, somewhere around 2400-2500, then i'd say it's definitely possible.
The middle sister could learn from her older sister, but she ended up the weakest of the three.
There was a TV-program where Zsuzsa was tested in various kinds of intelligence tests together with a number of other people.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6563195.stm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qOlacRg_w8
As I understood, she was was quite average, far from the IQ 155 derived from her ELO according to the Levitt equation. And as someone mentioned, Kasparov himself was tested as IQ 135 in the eighties.
Cited from http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Lab/7378/iq.htm:
"In 1987-88, the German magazine Der Spiegel went to considerable effort and expense to find out Kasparov's IQ. Under the supervision of an international team of psychologists, Kasparov was given a large battery of tests designed to measure his memory, spatial ability, and abstract reasoning. They measured his IQ as 135 and his memory as one of the very best. "
And Rybka herself would probably not score better on an IQ test than a thermostat, but like Kasparov she has an excellent memory :-)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6563195.stm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qOlacRg_w8
As I understood, she was was quite average, far from the IQ 155 derived from her ELO according to the Levitt equation. And as someone mentioned, Kasparov himself was tested as IQ 135 in the eighties.
Cited from http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Lab/7378/iq.htm:
"In 1987-88, the German magazine Der Spiegel went to considerable effort and expense to find out Kasparov's IQ. Under the supervision of an international team of psychologists, Kasparov was given a large battery of tests designed to measure his memory, spatial ability, and abstract reasoning. They measured his IQ as 135 and his memory as one of the very best. "
And Rybka herself would probably not score better on an IQ test than a thermostat, but like Kasparov she has an excellent memory :-)
From your first link:"The IQ tests a lot of old knowledge, academic knowledge"
In other words both Zsuzsa and kasparov could probably get better results in IQ tests in case of studying some knowledge.
Uri
In other words both Zsuzsa and kasparov could probably get better results in IQ tests in case of studying some knowledge.
Uri
thats a very good point but i ask you . take yourself your obviously a very strong player but as you say will never be a 2700 player . even at your age im sure you can still learn even if it were slower . really try this ,what ever your highest rating was beat it . go higher even if its 1 rating point .that will prove 1 point that age is not the determining factor . then maybe you dont have time but , push yourself , do something that is not in your comfort zone like blindfold chess . with computers any kind of training you want is possible . i dont believe you have gotten everything out of yourself and that you cant get better . i guess im just one of those people who thinks anything is possible and i have never seen a problem i could not solve . i guess my message dont sell yourself short 1 st you really got to believe . can you beat rybka 1 ply perm brain off , knight odds ? start there . if you can get 100 points added to your elo would you do it ??? but if you could get to 2700 or 2800 what would you do with it ?
Hi,
A. Rubinstein has learned chess at 16, it is rather late, but it has not stopped him to be in the top 3 at some period of time.
It is clear that when you learn chess earlier you have easier task but it is not impossible to do it later.
The human brain is the secret we are using 20-30% of it so... I think your son is having chances, still.
To be 2700 it is neccssary to have a team of people working for that.
Ranking it is the merit of the effectivness of using the knowledge not the knowledge by itself.
I suppose that many 2500 players have the knowledge of 2700 players but do not have some psychological factors and team support.
Rgds
Hetman
A. Rubinstein has learned chess at 16, it is rather late, but it has not stopped him to be in the top 3 at some period of time.
It is clear that when you learn chess earlier you have easier task but it is not impossible to do it later.
The human brain is the secret we are using 20-30% of it so... I think your son is having chances, still.
To be 2700 it is neccssary to have a team of people working for that.
Ranking it is the merit of the effectivness of using the knowledge not the knowledge by itself.
I suppose that many 2500 players have the knowledge of 2700 players but do not have some psychological factors and team support.
Rgds
Hetman
If I remember right, wasn't the situation similar with Sultan Khan?
I don't think that the typical 2700 player has a "team", only the few near 2800 can afford that. They may have one trainer or assistant, but players at all levels usually have one or more chess friends whom they practice with. As for psychological factors, I think that is really a minimal factor. Sure there are a few GMs with psychological problems, including some of the best ones, but there is no reason to think that this is more common at 2500 than at 2700. The difference between players at 2500 and 2700 is mostly just analytical ability (including ability to analyze blindfold and speed of analysis) and intuition for what moves are likely to work. This intuition must be based on some kind of learning from experience, which differs greatly from person to person. It is an ability that is somewhat like intelligence, but not quite the same thing. That's why estimating a player's potential from IQ is only a crude approximation to the truth; we would need some special IQ test that no one has ever invented. My point is that a player's potential is genetically determined, but very hard to measure.
I agree that the potential is genetically determined but I think that it is more than what people get practically.
The potential is the maximal that a player can get with the best help.
If 2500 players can get level of 2600 with a team that they do not have then it means that their potential is at least 2600.
I say at least because it is also possible that they can even get better than it with some special software to teach them that does not exist today.
Uri
The potential is the maximal that a player can get with the best help.
If 2500 players can get level of 2600 with a team that they do not have then it means that their potential is at least 2600.
I say at least because it is also possible that they can even get better than it with some special software to teach them that does not exist today.
Uri
Thank for the answer.
2500-2700 diferrence it is an analytical ability only...
I have thought that in practical play person vs person the psychological factors are important. We do have a problem of uneasy partner , partner we never won, colour problem etc.
I was correspondence player with some successes (in pre-computer area). I was not able to do the same in the OTB chess.
The success in CC play was decided by analytical skills. It was such an opinion.
Here (OTB) we have to take the decision at once, we do not have time to calm down when we face unexpected move or change.
I suppose that to be GM it is neccessary to be psychologicaly stable. When partners have similar knowledge the psychology is deciding. It s not only in chess.
How would you explain such a case: player is making 75% playing with equals in rating(+200) and is losing when meeting +200 ?
He should have drawn. It is called as to be used to play with strong players, is it not the psychology ?
2500-2700 diferrence it is an analytical ability only...
I have thought that in practical play person vs person the psychological factors are important. We do have a problem of uneasy partner , partner we never won, colour problem etc.
I was correspondence player with some successes (in pre-computer area). I was not able to do the same in the OTB chess.
The success in CC play was decided by analytical skills. It was such an opinion.
Here (OTB) we have to take the decision at once, we do not have time to calm down when we face unexpected move or change.
I suppose that to be GM it is neccessary to be psychologicaly stable. When partners have similar knowledge the psychology is deciding. It s not only in chess.
How would you explain such a case: player is making 75% playing with equals in rating(+200) and is losing when meeting +200 ?
He should have drawn. It is called as to be used to play with strong players, is it not the psychology ?
I am such a player myself. I usually gain Elo points when paired down, but lose Elo points when paired up. The reason has nothing to do with psychology; it's just that I'm a very steady player, I rarely make obvious mistakes but I have trouble seeing really deeply without error. So I win against weaker players and lost to stronger ones. No mystery there.
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill