Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules

Forum rules

(1) Posts are to be made in the relevant forum. Users are asked to read the forum descriptions before posting.
(2) Off topic posts are limited to active members who have actually posted on-topic in one of the chess-oriented sections in the past. Any user whose first post does not relate to chess will be banned permanently. Posts in the Introduction section do not count.
(3) Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users. Be tolerant at any time. Flaming or abusing users in any way will not be tolerated.
(4) Discussions on political and religious topics are not allowed. Posts containing elements thereof will be redacted or deleted and a temporary or permanent ban may be placed upon the user.
Discussions on politics in chess organisations and the way politics affect chess are allowed.
(4a) Drug use references are not allowed and discussions on drugs are not allowed.
(5) Members are asked to not act as "back seat moderators". If members have something to report they are welcome to bring it to the attention of moderator either by a PM or in this thread: http://www.chessforums.org/forum-new...moderator.html
(6) If you wish to report a PM please forward the PM to a moderator and leave a post here: http://www.chessforums.org/forum-new...moderator.html. Don't hesitate to report a PM if you believe it violates the forum rules, even if someone else has already reported a (similar) PM by the same user; having more reports makes it easier for the moderators to take action.
(7) These rules apply to forum posts as well as private messages (PMs).
(8) Members should post in a way which is consistent with "normal writing". That is users should not post excessive numbers of emoticons (smilies), large, small or coloured text, etc. Similarly users should not SHOUT or use excessive punctuation (e.g. ! and ?) in topic titles or posts.
(9) Members should use an appropriate, descriptive title when posting a new topic. Examples of bad titles include; "Help me!", "I'm stuck!", "I've got an error!", etc. Examples of good titles include; "New Game: Perseus - SomeOtherPlayer", "Two Knights Defense: Fritz Variation and sidelines", etc.
(10) Spam is not tolerated here under any circumstance.
(11) Continuously linking your own website to promote it is not allowed. You may use your signature (which will come up beneath all your posts) for this purpose.
(12) Members should refrain from posting without adding to the discussion. Posting just to increase postcount is not allowed.
(13) Combine your comments into one post rather than making many consecutive posts to a thread within a short period of time. This can be done by clicking the 'edit' button next to your post.
If your last post, which is the last in the thread, is very old you may use the following trick to make sure it's bumped up to the new posts. Click on the 'edit' button of your last post. Copy the content of the post. Click delete and delete your last post. Paste the content of the now-deleted post in a new post, add what you will and click 'submit reply'.
(13a) You are not allowed to make consecutive posts. If you post more than once without a reply from another user, all posts after the first will be deleted.
(13b) Exceptions may be made for specific types of threads.
(14) Warez are intellectual property (software/music/movies/tv-series/tv-shows/etc) either through download, serial, or crack in a manner that breaks its copyright and/or license. You are not allowed to give/link to/ask for/advocate/provide information for obtaining and the use of warez.
Bittorrent links are not allowed.
(14a) The following international treaties apply:
-Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Berne Convention) (Berne, 1886)
-Universal Copyright Convention (UCC) (Geneva, 1952)
-Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) (Marrakesh, 1994)
-World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty (WIPO Copyright Treaty) (Geneva, 1996)
(15) Books published before 1920 are considered free of copyright and e-books thereof are not warez. Books published after 1920 with permission from the author are considered free of copyright and e-books thereof are not warez provided it can within reason be established that permission has been given. All other books are considered copyrighted and e-books thereof are considered warez.
(16) Usernames that contain obscene or vulgar language or denigrate individuals and/or organisations are not allowed.
(17) Users may only delete their own posts on the grounds that they constitute a severe breach of these rules. Even when this is the case, the editing of the post to effect repairs must at all times be considered first.
The emptying of posts (substituting the content by non-content) is explicitely considered a breach of this rule.
Deletion of whole batches of posts harms thread continuity and the forum as a whole and the Moderation team will take action; in the most extreme case an account may be permanently banned to preserve the posted.
(18) Administrators (Admins) and Moderators (Mods) reserve the right to edit or remove any post at any time. The determination of what is construed as indecent, vulgar, spam, etc. is up to them and not to forum members.
(19) Aforementioned Admins and Mods reserve the right to edit this list of rules at anytime.
See more
See less

This article nails it...

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • This article nails it...

    I was poking about, trying to figure out where this article would best fit, and then I saw the psychology section. Perfect, I thought.

    This guy is a GM and he nails exactly what Iíve been saying for years. That doesnít mean he's correct, but it makes it really good food for thought and fits well in this section--maybe.

    Anyhow, check this out:

    http://pogonina.com/index.php?option...1&lang=english
    Alexander Alekhine is my chess hero.

    An eerie chess short story: The Empty Chair

    My newest chess story: Gamble: A Supernatural Chess Tale

  • #2
    Should be obvious. Humans are not made equal. It would be pointless if we are, cuz there will not be sufficient diversity in human experience.

    The main problem is, how do we accurately measure talent? If we cannot accurately measure talent, how do we know that we will never reach a certain pinnacle in a given activity?

    That was CookieMonster's point, and also mine, in another post.

    "Blame yourself, or blame God." - Delita, FFT
    "Give up on yourself, and you give up on the world." - Joshua, TWEWY

    Comment


    • #3
      The article is 100% conjecture and based on pure opinion. And not really all that insightful. He could be correct, or completely wrong. What he doesn't do is bring anything new to the discussion.

      Comment


      • #4
        There’s really nothing new to bring to the discussion. If you aren’t talented, you’ll never get a GM title.

        You *might* be able to clear 2200 on hard work alone.

        But would you really work that hard at something you have no talent for? I don’t know.
        Alexander Alekhine is my chess hero.

        An eerie chess short story: The Empty Chair

        My newest chess story: Gamble: A Supernatural Chess Tale

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Skwerly View Post
          There’s really nothing new to bring to the discussion. If you aren’t talented, you’ll never get a GM title.

          You *might* be able to clear 2200 on hard work alone.

          But would you really work that hard at something you have no talent for? I don’t know.
          It takes us all awhile to begin having realistic appraisals of ourselves regarding our capacity for acquiring skills/talents.

          Some things are obvious and make themselves known as truths relatively young: I was born with bad feet and a bad hip and grew up tall and wide--obvious I would never be a ballroom dancer, or long-distance runner. Who knows, maybe I'd have been talented at either, but--no capacity to realize that talent. Physical limitations.

          So be it!

          Other things we delude ourselves about, positively or negatively. Over-estimating our talent or underestimating it: I was pronounced incapable of doing art in elementary school, accepted that lie as truth, and it wasn't until I was in my 50's and self-motivated that I discovered I had a modest (saleable!) talent for painting in egg-tempera. Enjoy it, sell a piece now and then, but never will be legendary, though--realistic appraisal of my talents re "Art". Above mediocre, far less than "great".

          Chess--2200 would be my goal, and an excellent goal just enough out of my reach to force me to exert myself thoroughly, but I no longer have the will or stamina or desire to compete for numbers. So, that ain't gonna happen.

          Talent: I definitely put in over 10,000 hours practicing and playing electric bass quitar in about 18 years of tending to it. I became good enough to play in one particular band that almost-not-quite "made it", but I didn't become a truly great bass-player, like John Entwistle--I'm not gifted with great talent re music of any sort. The ridiculous amount of time I spent with the bass made me good, but never great. Came a day I realized that very frank realization.

          I think that's how it goes with people, with all things. If one is gifted with a capacity to develop talent in a field, one will and does--nothing short of death can prevent it. If one has mediocre talent, one can augment it by hard work, but only to a point.

          If greatness is fated/pre-ordained, one will be great, even--I think--in spite of oneself.

          Otherwise, comes a day of truthful realization, which rather than being a sad day is actually a liberating one. Appreciate the degree of accomplishment you are able to obtain, and don't bemoan not becoming as great as you'd dreamt of becoming.

          Someone has to flip the burgers! Each of us just "flips burgers" in one or more aspects of our lives. Which is as it should be, I guess.
          Last edited by Celadonite; 09-05-2013, 06:11 PM.
          "They work at the pace of amnesia."--M. Bloch

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Skwerly View Post
            Thereís really nothing new to bring to the discussion. If you arenít talented, youíll never get a GM title.

            You *might* be able to clear 2200 on hard work alone.

            But would you really work that hard at something you have no talent for? I donít know.
            Again, this is debateable by many people. It's an interesting discussion, but just spouting opinion, like the author was doing, doesn't actually make it an interesting article. It just makes it yet another opinion piece.

            The interplay between talent and hardwork is incredibly difficult to test and work through, and this gentleman making assumptions and asking us to gobble it up as truth doesn't quite do much for me.

            Just my own opinion of course.

            I'm undecided on what real 'talent' looks like in chess, and how much you can actually bootstrap it with 'intentional practice'.

            The quality and type of practice seems to be a big part of the equation missed here. 10,000 hours watching chess videos or leafing through chess books is entirely different than 10,000 hours of playing long time control games, or 'Guess the Move' exercises, and yet people jam them together like they count the same towards the end goal of achieving mastery.

            Not to mention what mastery even is is debateable.

            Comment


            • #7
              Maybe "talent" and "mastery" are so nebulous, so will-o'-the-wisp, that all that is available to use when talking about either is opinion, or anecdote?

              Opinion is either intellectual prejudice, or it's based upon one's personal experience, one's best estimation of a situation---such experential--or even intuitional!--estimations can be valid contributors towards development of scientific/math theory.

              The contents of personal experience aren't invalidated by naming them opinion. Regarding what that GM said, probably the best we could do would be to conduct a year long research and obtain statistics regarding how many other GM's believe as he does, or differ in their "opinions". We'd have a percentage, which would tell us nothing about the absolute truth of the matter, only what opinion had more adherents. As these opinions represented the experience/intuition of GM's, they'd be more heavily weighted towards accuracy than, say, my experential opinion would be--GM's are experiencing at a much more functional level re chess than I am.

              Newton had an opinion about gravity, due to his experience with the apple, and luckily possessed the math to validate his opinion.

              Maybe that's the definition of a non-prejudicial opinion? Simply unmathematically validated experience?
              Last edited by Celadonite; 09-05-2013, 06:24 PM.
              "They work at the pace of amnesia."--M. Bloch

              Comment


              • #8
                Opinions are not a bad thing at all as long as they are kept in check as being what they are I suppose.

                Comment


                • #9
                  So does this mean if I have talent I can stay in my hotel room, sleep through the whole tournament, and come away with first?

                  But I may not have talent. You might. So if we both try together we have twice as much of a chance. And if the whole section does it, we'll have the same chance we had before we all started sleeping.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    @Octal:

                    No, it means that if X has little talent, while Y has a lot of talent, and you put them through the same level of training and they exert the same amount of effort, Y will perform significantly better than X.

                    @Skwerl:

                    But would you really work that hard at something you have no talent for? I don’t know.

                    Even if someone sucks at something, if he enjoys it significantly, he might still insist on trying hard.


                    The main problem is how do you know you have talent, and how much or how little of it?

                    Will you just trust your own intuition and experience on that?
                    Last edited by Rimuel V2; 09-06-2013, 07:36 AM.

                    "Blame yourself, or blame God." - Delita, FFT
                    "Give up on yourself, and you give up on the world." - Joshua, TWEWY

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      The only way to really test this is to take a group of children and subject them to a battery of identical learning processes over time and see where they end up.

                      The Polgar sisters did something close to this, but even they were not tested identically, and had differing results.

                      This is impossible to do of course, but it's the only way to really parse an answer out here.

                      So the truth is we will never know, and people claiming that they have the answer are wrong.

                      Now, we can all have opinions about the value of certain types of study, or this mythical talent idea, and opinions are great coffee time chat topics, but to see a book like Talent is Overrated get taken too seriously, or to hear guys like this blogger think he has the answers to these questions, is really quite laughable.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Here is my opinion how ever significant it is. Also I would like to add that I really thought that doulos and rimuel both have very good points:

                        Lets revisit doulos again:

                        Again, this is debateable by many people. It's an interesting discussion, but just spouting opinion, like the author was doing, doesn't actually make it an interesting article. It just makes it yet another opinion piece.

                        The interplay between talent and hardwork is incredibly difficult to test and work through, and this gentleman making assumptions and asking us to gobble it up as truth doesn't quite do much for me.

                        Just my own opinion of course.

                        I'm undecided on what real 'talent' looks like in chess, and how much you can actually bootstrap it with 'intentional practice'.

                        The quality and type of practice seems to be a big part of the equation missed here. 10,000 hours watching chess videos or leafing through chess books is entirely different than 10,000 hours of playing long time control games, or 'Guess the Move' exercises, and yet people jam them together like they count the same towards the end goal of achieving mastery.

                        Not to mention what mastery even is is debateable.
                        The only way to really test this is to take a group of children and subject them to a battery of identical learning processes over time and see where they end up.

                        The Polgar sisters did something close to this, but even they were not tested identically, and had differing results.

                        This is impossible to do of course, but it's the only way to really parse an answer out here.

                        So the truth is we will never know, and people claiming that they have the answer are wrong.

                        Now, we can all have opinions about the value of certain types of study, or this mythical talent idea, and opinions are great coffee time chat topics, but to see a book like Talent is Overrated get taken too seriously, or to hear guys like this blogger think he has the answers to these questions, is really quite laughable.

                        And Rimuel:

                        Should be obvious. Humans are not made equal. It would be pointless if we are, cuz there will not be sufficient diversity in human experience.

                        The main problem is, how do we accurately measure talent? If we cannot accurately measure talent, how do we know that we will never reach a certain pinnacle in a given activity?

                        That was CookieMonster's point, and also mine, in another post.
                        Sorry for all the quotes, but they have great information that people should consider heavily!

                        Now, for my side:

                        I think you are missing something Skwerly.

                        He (This GM of course) is again only going by what "HE" feels is hard work. Just like when you claim something similar you base your belief on what you did to get where you got. Kind of egocentric in a way.

                        If most anyone here did what he did I am sure they would be GM's. Look at what he said again:

                        When I reached the age of about 16-17 I had already dropped out of school, and decided the only thing I had any talent for was chess. So I worked on the game. I'd spend 5-6 hours a day going through games of the top players in the world, going over their notes, from publications like New In Chess. I didn't do this over a prolonged period, but I might do this for a couple of weeks or so, which is certainly a lot more than I do now.
                        Basically what he is doing is omitting how strong he was before 16-17.. Then he gives you a small hint of how much work he did. Again omitting exactly how much work he did, and how long he did it. He just claims that he "started at 16-17".


                        5-6 hours a day going through games of the top players in the world, going over their notes, from publications like New In Chess.
                        Do you realize what this entails??? Lets analyse this a minute. Even one minute can bring astounding results.

                        1. HE DROPPED OUT OF SCHOOL!!!

                        2. HE DROPPED OUT OF SCHOOL!!! (Should I place he dropped out of school in more numbers??) Pretty much anyone committed to studying anything for 5-6 hours and only one subject and not getting proficient is doing something wrong! Or they have a very low IQ. If I could spend 5-6 hours a day on chess and nothing else.. I guarantee I would make at least FM in 2 - 5 years. Yes this goes back to luxury of commitment, but I have said in the past that what you do or what you are interested in and your interest level plays a large part in your ability to excel in a subject. Interest and drive guys.. Very important! People going through college can get masters degrees in 5 years and they must study multiple subjects to get the master degree! Think about focusing on one subject could do? Doctorates and PhD's are 6-10 years depending on the subject right?? What if we matched that with chess? A basic masters degree being equal to a 2200 master to FM? And Doctorates and similar are comparable to IM-GM?

                        3. Do you doubters, who doubt that hard work can get you what you want if you just commit the time honestly spend 5-6 hours a day doing exactly what he said he did? If you do then you fall into one of three categories:

                        A: You are just starting and therefore should be an FM or IM in a few years.

                        B: You are going to be an FM or IM soon, because you have been doing this for a while.

                        C: You are not studying exactly what he said he studied or you are lying somewhere.


                        So far all I see that he claims is exactly what every other GM says. Except he seems to be confusing the terms "interest and drive" for the term "Talent". In my opinion this can be misleading. Unless you are one of those special souls who believes in the aptitude theory. Which is basically the same as saying talent, but it goes more in the direction of saying both "interest and drive" and "IQ". In other words, your "IQ" For a subject is more for certain subjects than others. But they don't know if it's an enigmatic term, or interest and drive. Hence the term "Talent".. The talent term tries to explain the enigmatic side that people either cannot or do not want to explain. Read this article sometime and try to think about exactly what he said.

                        He "WORKED" for his GM. He also found good and correct material that spoke to him. Which could indicate that he has a very high chess IQ. And obviously his interest and drive was there.

                        This is something a lot of people do not do. They do not find correct or good material that speaks to them, or they simply do not want to do the work, OR BOTH. Whether or not they have the time is of little significance. With interest and drive, you will find time to do anything.


                        Also Another way of putting it:

                        It seems what he is saying is just simply studying 10,000 hours won't cut it. You have to find the material that actually says something to you. This is absolutely true.. But then what if you find it? How much time do you honestly put into chess? Do you spend 5-6 hours a day on it? Probably not.. If you don't.. How can you possibly know you can't do it if you never tried?

                        I think this is what it boils down to. Argue till you are blue in the face that people stronger than you are more "talented" than you. That way you have an excuse.. Let's never admit that the reason we are weaker than masters is because we just didn't put the time and effort in. Makes us feel better that way doesn't it?

                        PS:

                        (Food for thought: Think about something.. If he started at 16-17, studied for 5-6 hours a day for 10 years? He would be 26-27 he would have studied: (5*365)10=18,250 hours. Well exceeding the 10,000 hour rule. If he did the American study plan?: ((5*5)52)10=13,000. Still exceeding the 10k hours. Notice he omitted very important information. Probably to not risk being too analysed, or called out I would imagine. But it is still not too difficult to place in logical assumptions. Do you really think if you have fun at something, that 5-6 hours a day would seem like work? Think about it.. I am not too different. When I was 22 I studied for about 4-5 hours a day for about 7 years on the american plan. I reached 1950+ when I was ~35 and I didn't do exactly correct material. ((5*5)52)7=9100. Slightly incorrect material in 7 years giving me close to expert? What if I did correct material? What if I do the correct material now, and did that time again? Could I make FM in 5 years? Would it be worth the time? All of this is possible, and all the factors play a part. BTW: If I could guarantee FM strength in 5 years? My wife would support it. Unfortunately I only have 95% chance of success. That 5% doubt gives the "no" factor from my lovely wife. And wife trumps chess for me. Hahaha!! )
                        I am a proud supporter of the GM Igor Smirnov way of teaching. If you would like to see the system and want to try out his teaching methods please follow this link: http://chess-teacher.com/affiliates/...?id=1517_2_3_1

                        If you have questions/want a tutor inquire with messages. I am going to rewrite my web page and it will also go here.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          What is the American Study Plan?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Rimuel V2 View Post
                            @Octal:

                            No, it means that if X has little talent, while Y has a lot of talent, and you put them through the same level of training and they exert the same amount of effort, Y will perform significantly better than X.

                            @Skwerl:

                            But would you really work that hard at something you have no talent for? I donít know.

                            Even if someone sucks at something, if he enjoys it significantly, he might still insist on trying hard.


                            The main problem is how do you know you have talent, and how much or how little of it?

                            Will you just trust your own intuition and experience on that?


                            Right! The Ďhow do I know if Iím talented?í bit is the key.

                            If a kid sits down and learns piano more quickly than the other kids, heís probably got talent/aptitude for it, and the adults will let him know.

                            If you understand things about chess that others at Ďyour ageí or Ďyour levelí donít or canít, you know you have a little talent. I think you can feel talent.

                            And, of course this is just one manís opinion, but itís one man who happens to be a GM. If a professional bowler gave me medical advice I might get a second opinion, even though heís very good at what he does. But if a doctor gives me medical advice, Iím going to listen.

                            This guy isnít some 1900 regurgitating advice heís heard/read over the years. This is a GRANDMASTER, something which none of us in this conversation will ever be.

                            Alexander Alekhine is my chess hero.

                            An eerie chess short story: The Empty Chair

                            My newest chess story: Gamble: A Supernatural Chess Tale

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Skwerly View Post
                              Right! The Ďhow do I know if Iím talented?í bit is the key.

                              If a kid sits down and learns piano more quickly than the other kids, heís probably got talent/aptitude for it, and the adults will let him know.

                              If you understand things about chess that others at Ďyour ageí or Ďyour levelí donít or canít, you know you have a little talent. I think you can feel talent.

                              And, of course this is just one manís opinion, but itís one man who happens to be a GM. If a professional bowler gave me medical advice I might get a second opinion, even though heís very good at what he does. But if a doctor gives me medical advice, Iím going to listen.

                              This guy isnít some 1900 regurgitating advice heís heard/read over the years. This is a GRANDMASTER, something which none of us in this conversation will ever be.

                              A GM can know a lot about chess, and very little about how to get someone else there.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X