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

  • #76
    Well, take Carlsen vs. Anand. At 22, that kid hasn’t even been alive nearly as long as Anand has been playing and studying the game, and yet he creamed him. There’s no talent there? nothing different at all going on under the hood? Everyone is a carbon copy of everyone else?

    Nope.
    Alexander Alekhine is my chess hero.

    An eerie chess short story: The Empty Chair

    My newest chess story: Gamble: A Supernatural Chess Tale

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Rimuel V2 View Post
      Btw, I can solve Rubik's Cube at an average rate of 22 sec. My highest was 13 sec. I achieved this in less than a year. I think that with reasonable intelligence and motor skills, anyone can do it.
      CFOP method? Or which one do you use?
      Don't drive faster than your guardian angel can fly.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Skwerly View Post
        Well, take Carlsen vs. Anand. At 22, that kid hasnít even been alive nearly as long as Anand has been playing and studying the game, and yet he creamed him. Thereís no talent there? nothing different at all going on under the hood? Everyone is a carbon copy of everyone else?

        Nope.
        Always black and white, no gray?

        I will leave it at that. Take as long as you like to figure out that question.
        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


        • #79
          @Meer:

          I know several methods. But yes, my fastest is still the CFOP/Fridrich Method. It's also the most brain dead method xD, hence easy to automate.

          I first started with Petrus (no, I never needed the beginner's method), then CFOP, the last I learned was the Roux method.

          I like methods that require minimal memorisation, so the last method that I was trying to learn was the Heise method. 0 formulas, if I remember correctly. BUT, very reliant on logical brain power and impossible to automate.

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

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Rimuel V2 View Post
            @Meer:

            I know several methods. But yes, my fastest is still the CFOP/Fridrich Method. It's also the most brain dead method xD, hence easy to automate.

            I first started with Petrus (no, I never needed the beginner's method), then CFOP, the last I learned was the Roux method.

            I like methods that require minimal memorisation, so the last method that I was trying to learn was the Heise method. 0 formulas, if I remember correctly. BUT, very reliant on logical brain power and impossible to automate.
            Mmmm, well thanks for your feedback. I guess I'll give that one a look too, coz I like the logical brain power part. I am still a noob, but definitely love the game and am putting some effort now to learn the CFOP. I'll look the Heise as well then.
            Don't drive faster than your guardian angel can fly.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by CookieMonster View Post
              You rant.. But you miss my point entirely. Which is fine by me. At least a few people get it.;-) Thing is I don't take anything as set in stone. I don't know why people do what they do, I also just as simply don't want to give myself an excuse why I couldn't do it.

              Who knows.. Maybe if I wanted it maybe I could have come close to Van Halen's ability to play guitar if I wanted to. I never really had the interest or drive in order to prove otherwise.

              And everything you say backs my statement.



              How do you know unless you dedicated your time to the pursuit? I am sorry but you don't know this. You are assuming. Then you are making an excuse that you don't have the talent. Which could be true, but it's more true that you never tried so you don't know.


              Sorry CM, I have to agree with Skwerly on this one. It is because people who show to be more skilled at anything have clearly different brain structures that have evolved through generations and have imprinted those skills as basic instincts... the whole point? They almost can do what they excel at without using very much of their primary processing areas. They seem to do it great and still, it is executed by secondary areas and let him use the primary to maybe do some deeper processing.

              In that sense, Skwerly is right when he says we can't catch their Talent, coz we just haven't evolved our brain structures to match theirs, and while we have to use most of our conscious thinking to find the best moves, they have done that in second plane and are using their conscious thinking to look deeper ahead. Only people born with similar built-in intelligence can stand a match for them.

              Yeah. Most of us may put all the effort needed to train our brains to the point to get a decent amount of learnt intelligence and sort of play also in the second plane, while using our first plane to get deeper in a position. But, not being that our built-in intelligence, we don't do it as natural born instincts, but learnt ones, which are far weaker. And consider that, if those with built-in intelligence put the same effort as we did to get there, they would reach even further. That's why their natural Talent can't be caught but maybe by people with similar built-in Talent.

              I'm not saying you can't play guitar as Van Halen. I'm just saying that if you don't have Van Halen's Talent, it will take you a long time to achieve what he achieved in much less, and he has but to put a little extra effort to force you to add on some years more to catch him again. Sad but true. That's just laws of evolution.
              Last edited by Meer; 12-05-2013, 02:04 PM.
              Don't drive faster than your guardian angel can fly.

              Comment


              • #82
                First let's be careful. You give too much first and we might excite Skwerly into thinking he is got something. You are not necessarily 100% agreeing with him:

                You agree that talent can't be trained.

                Ok.. Then you say:

                It is because people who show to be more skilled at anything have clearly different brain structures that have evolved through generations and have imprinted those skills as basic instincts...

                In that sense, Skwerly is right when he says we can't catch their Talent, coz we just haven't evolved our brain structures to match theirs, and while we have to use most of our conscious thinking to find the best moves,

                1. So what you are saying is that talent can be explained? Skwerly is saying it's mystical.

                2. You are assuming we know what talent is, when what you are quoting is merely a theory. Nothing proven.. It's not even developed enough to point in the direction of specifics like talent, or sexual orientation, or mentality of men vs women. Which is basically what you are using. A broad theory to explain Why different people are different from a norm. Why there is not a straight line when it comes to genetic development. Then simply saying it can't be trained because we don't have it genetically. Good argument, but then we have to say that talent can be tracked in order to know this. And you don't have the data to claim this. Then if talent can be explained in this way, it can be trained in those people with that talent. Which effectively makes it not mystical. And in effect proves me right that talent "can" be trained. Or am I wrong in that? Assuming talent can't be trained just because you think people are genetically predisposed is inaccurate because then we go back to the fact that the people with the aptitude still probably trained their skill. Again.. To prove this we have to have proof talent can be tracked. We don't have that.

                3. How can you say talent can't be trained only by stating evolution is the reason? That still doesn't address the fact that we don't know what those people did to achieve their goal? You are just assuming because we have evidence of different brain structures this proves it's directly related to talent.

                You assume too much.



                Not saying talent doesn't exist sir. I am not even saying that you can train a talent that is genetically ingrained in someone that is not in you. What I am saying is we don't know what talent is in reality. And to use it as a variable is much more accurate than using it as an excuse.

                Understand? So in reality there is nothing to disagree with me in this about. I am merely stating the problems with the interpretation of understanding. Talent at this time is best explained as a variable.

                 click to show
                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


                • #83
                  Yes. I agree with you to a point. I am assuming what I believe and have believed all my life, that those rated higher in certain IQ areas have a talent for certain disciplines. Myself, for example, I have always rated higher than average in Mathematical and Logical areas. The result? Yes, I've always been good at subjects with maths involved. I have experienced the fact most people have to study for a whole week before a "difficult" math exam, and see their surprise when they see I only dedicate but 1 or 2 days to review what I already have understood better in class. I was born like that. From as far as I can remember, maths have always been really easy for me.

                  Can I train my maths talent? of course I can. But, do I need quite the same ammount of effort most people would need to understand a math concept? Not really. My family from my mom side have certain inclination to the mathematical and logical reasoning. So, guess i have inherited it from there.

                  I didn't support Skwerly saying it was anything mistical. I just said Talent can't be caught if both, a Talented and a Non-Talented subjects put the same effort into growing it. Coz the one with no talent can't achieve what the other can achieve by just doing the same. He has to put extra effort.

                  Maybe I assume too much as you say, in the sense that natural selection has nothing to do with it. Or maybe I am being overly assuming in that brain structures are directly related to Talent. I can talk about what I have experienced. Or at least, IQ and Talent are highly bound in my experience.

                  I can tell I have been in both positions. Where I have no talent at all for something and I try to compete with people who does have it, and when I have a natural talent for something and I see people wondering why can't they stand a match against me. Of course, there will always be someone better than you at anything... unless you're the ultimate GM, I bet. Hehehe.

                  Just trying to show why I think Talent is something you're born with (non mystical, don't get me wrong), but also, at its deepest levels, not something you can just train your brain to morph into.

                  Thanks for a nice chance for an interesting discussion

                   click to show
                  Last edited by Meer; 12-05-2013, 08:19 PM. Reason: Adding quote.
                  Don't drive faster than your guardian angel can fly.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Well, there are some very good points, here. I’d like to clarify that by ‘mystical’, I only mean that pretty much I *personally* don’t know what makes up talent. I’m sure science has something to say about it but I’m not that ejumikated to know exactly what that would be. What I do know is that the kid who is acquiring GM norms at twelve years old has something other than a great study regimen and coach; that kid, without a doubt, has a truckload of talent.

                    I would never consider an accounting job. I’d honestly rather panhandle. Is that because I hate numbers? No! It’s because I’m no good at them no matter how hard I try, and that lifestyle would therefore be a real pain for me.

                    I would, however, consider a career in editing. I’m good with words, *naturally*. I know mistakes when I see them and I have a good feel for how they should flow and what they mean, no matter how many meanings they may have. I have been exposed to both numbers and letters for about the same amount of time, but I far prefer letters because I work with them well.

                    Also, not everyone who is extremely talented is a savant. The fact that Rain Man could count 200-some-odd toothpicks in seconds doesn’t *necessarily* make him talented in anything else, although we all know he was because we watched the movie.

                    Ask anyone good in their field and they’ll say they have talent for that field. Liking the subject matter helps greatly, but that isn’t the whole of it. We all like chess, and we all like it a lot or we wouldn’t spend so much time talking about it and playing the game. But liking chess does not make a master. Liking chess PLUS being talented does, most of the time. Yes, I’m sure there are a few guys out there who only mildly enjoy the game who’ve earned master titles, but they are talented. That’s all there is to it. Do I believe that someone with NO talent for chess could ever master the game? Nope. I do believe someone could master the game and hate it, though; as I said, enjoyment and talent aren’t exclusive.

                    Everything that happens in our brains is invisible until it surfaces and morphs into something we can see or hear or read about or what have you. A chess master has to play chess in order to get the title, but he could be a chess master who never played and nobody would know. some folks have a talent for driving, others for bowling, and still others for poetry or painting, etcetera. There are so many ways to be talented it’s ridiculous. I.Q. and effort have little to do with it, in the end, if you ask me; it’s there, all the time, whether it’s used or not.

                    Anyhow, just more ridiculous banter from me.
                    Alexander Alekhine is my chess hero.

                    An eerie chess short story: The Empty Chair

                    My newest chess story: Gamble: A Supernatural Chess Tale

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      The major differences between Skwerly and Cookie's arguments:


                      Skwerly

                      1. Talent cannot be trained. You either have a talent, or you do not have it at all. Talent=1 or Talent=0.

                      2. People without talent, Talent=0, cannot catch up with people with talent, Talent=1.


                      Cookie:

                      1. Talent can be trained. In what way? We do not know how talent really works at the moment, so we do not know how it can be trained.

                      2. Talent exists as a sliding scale, a<T<b.



                      I have just one question for Skwerly. You claim that you have a talent for words. Based on your model of talent, you should be a Talent(Words)=1. However, can you claim to be as talented as, say, Stephen King? He is also presumably talented, since he is a prolific published writer who sold many copies of his work, so we can assume that his Talent(Words)=1.

                      Are you as talented as Stephen King?

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

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Well, since we have established that we don’t even really know what talent is, I’d have to say ‘I don’t know.’ With writing, taste and opinion come into play a lot, too, so it’s really hard to say. For instance, if someone just loves my stories but really hates Stephen King for some reason, they are bound to say I’ve got more talent, and vice versa. Realistically, however, I’d have to say no, I don’t have his type of talent. But I do have some talent which, when honed as I’ve been doing over the past five years, may turn into something real. Who knows?

                        Real good question, though, I think. The guy who is more talented in chess wins, but the author who is more talented--what? Has more fans and a bigger bank account?

                        Interesting thoughts to chew on for sure.
                        Alexander Alekhine is my chess hero.

                        An eerie chess short story: The Empty Chair

                        My newest chess story: Gamble: A Supernatural Chess Tale

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X