I am of the opinion that there is no luck in chess. Only correct and incorrect play. As for the whole "normal high school kid" thing, I was President of the Chess Club in high school and starting Defensive End on the football team. I'd play a game on Friday night, and then leave early Saturday morning to go the local weekend Swisses. To imply that he must be reclusive to progress in chess as such, is an ill-informed judgement. Take Waitzkin or Schwartzman for example: perfectly normal teens who made it far in chess without comprimising their social lives.
Obsessive? Damn right, well-told. If you are going to vie for the World Title of Chess, you better have a healthy dose of obsession, otherwise you're wasting your time. If you want to be the best at ANYthing, you must obsess to a certain extent.
Originally posted by rubberjaw30You're over looking the fact that he is a natural! Some people are just automatically good a chess. When i was studying Computer Science at Uni, i played a maths student who literally only knew the rules (how the pieces moved, etc..). IMO opinion he was about 1700 in strength! He used his eyes and played good moves. If he was to study chess i recon he'd hit 2000+ inside a year or two, no problem!
my question is this:
when you are 16 years old and rated 2700,
what kind of a social life do you have?
chess is fun, but to be so dedicated that ud go that high by 16?
that's just obsessive...
Carlson is a prodigy, i'm sure he works very hard on his game but his natural ability gives him an edge on most players. Unless my memory is decieving me, he became National champion at 11. How much study could he have made before that when you consider he was at school, etc...? Not a lot, his gift pulled him through.
Originally posted by Marinkatombpeople like to give the impression things come naturally to them, as if they didn't work for it. and it's understandable, because who wouldn't like to be admired? -most likely he learned chess as a kid, and had been playing throughout the years. maybe even working on it. the usual. there just isn't any shortcuts.
who literally only knew the rules (how the pieces moved, etc..). IMO opinion he was about 1700 in strength!
Originally posted by idiomsInteresting comparison but, how profitable is chess for the best players, I've always assumed anyone out side of the top 10 is making peanuts out of the game.
Actually I think chess would be one of the least socially destructive competitive pursuits that a young person can be engaged in. Think of how much pressure young gymnasts have to endure .. with the added risk of one injury and it can all be over. What's more, by the time you're in your mid 20's its all over. At least Carlsen can look forward to a long and profitable (thanks Bobby) career.
I further guess that the programmrs of chess programs such as hydra earn more than the GMs that advise them.
Anyone know?
Originally posted by Marinkatomb"used his eyes". What does that mean?
You're over looking the fact that he is a natural! Some people are just automatically good a chess. When i was studying Computer Science at Uni, i played a maths student who literally only knew the rules (how the pieces moved, etc..). IMO opinion he was about 1700 in strength! He used his eyes and played good moves. If he was to study chess i recon he'd ...[text shortened]... fore that when you consider he was at school, etc...? Not a lot, his gift pulled him through.
Originally posted by The Swine Down HopeProgrammers earn more then GMs? A degree means more money then skilled labor? Imagine that.
Interesting comparison but, how profitable is chess for the best players, I've always assumed anyone out side of the top 10 is making peanuts out of the game.
I further guess that the programmrs of chess programs such as hydra earn more than the GMs that advise them.
Anyone know?
Originally posted by MarinkatombI don't believe that for a second. The "he's a natural" argument is just a way for everyone else to make excuses for themselves. Some people are no doubt more inclined toward certain disciplines, but it takes every amount of nurturing to realize it's full potential. From what I understand, Magnus' dad is very much committed to his son's chess. IMO, for every "natural", you find a considerable amount of nurturing behind them.
You're over looking the fact that he is a natural! Some people are just automatically good a chess. When i was studying Computer Science at Uni, i played a maths student who literally only knew the rules (how the pieces moved, etc..). IMO opinion he was about 1700 in strength! He used his eyes and played good moves. If he was to study chess i recon he'd ...[text shortened]... ore that when you consider he was at school, etc...? Not a lot, his gift pulled him through.T
Laszlo Polgar raised what most would consider three chess prodigies, at last two that are some of the best in the world. The odds of one father raising three "naturals" isn't that likely. He is a pretty miserable chess player himself, but still managed to bring the Polgars to where they are now. He is also a proponent of the "genius is made, not born" idea.
You can look to other areas as well. Most people think Mozart was a natural as well, but Mozart always wrote that he felt no composer ever worked as hard as he did. He was no doubt a genius, but the idea that it came effortlessly was a veil that others push on him to heighten his brilliance.
Some people are born with supernatural abilities, and they are considered to be "naturals" not only at chess but intellect in general. Look at Kim Peek or Daniel T. they both have amazing abilities to grasp large amounts of information and remember thousands of things. Now, you can't tell me that they practiced doing this, which is why they are so smart.