18 Jul 12
The post that was quoted here has been removedIt's just, generally I usually study by learning from my mistakes. I don't even like Nakamura, I don't care what the guy says. Well, that's a lie, I do, but he's still a butt. He basically said Kasparov as a chess coach is only good for teaching openings. Can you believe that? Only studying openings past 1800 will get your butt kicked very easily. I mean, Kasparov had to coach him on his openings. When you're playing 1.e4 c6 2. Qh5, you'd need to be weaned off that silly style of playing. Everyone gave him heat for that comment, even Americans.
If you're getting coached by a FM @ the age of 5, you can pretty much do whatever you want regarding chess study.
18 Jul 12
The post that was quoted here has been removedEh. I think it's too easy to fall back on "talent".
Intelligence? I've beaten smarter people before. I used to chill with the gifted team in chess club. Was not difficult to beat them. Their homeroom teacher on the other hand, was much harder to beat. I was pretty much the average guy in the group. I still won games. I earned their intellectual respect. I closed the gap so quickly because I knew more, all I wanted to do was win. Their extra intelligence did not make chess any easier for them. They didn't give 2 figs about chess however, to them it was just for fun.
I guarantee you Anand's IQ is no more than 120. Maybe 125 at the most. The man works very hard, and he has lots of amazingly useful practical knowledge. He's 42! All the best chess players still have limits, when it comes to progress. I suspect they generally improved at a rate of 50-75 ELO points a year.
They say chess naturally increases IQ. In that case, working on your chess should increase your chess potential. I think gaining 50 ELO points a year is a realistic goal for anyone. For me, that's enough motivation. I want to exhaust the "50 ELO points gain" thing until I'm sure I cannot progress.
Becoming a class A player would help me prove my theory, but it would not make me happy in the long run.
Here's an idea: Coach a young boy/girl to GM status. Then, have them coach you! You can't go wrong with this one, haha!
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
18 Jul 12
Originally posted by RJHindsYeah, well. The nutters in Eurovision also consider Azerbeidjan to be European, and some want to include Kyrgysystan as well! Nonsense, of course. Anything East of the Urals or South of the Caucasus
Some consider Armenia and George as Eastern European nations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Europe
and don\'t get me started on people who call all Europeans "Caucasian", as if early 19th century racist theories were still held valid
is clearly Asia. There are good historical reasons, too, to consider Byelorussia and the Ukraine borderline European at most.
Richard
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
18 Jul 12
The post that was quoted here has been removedAnd note also that one shouldn't confuse a true patronymic with a surname that has a patronymic form. There are many Pietersens, Johnsons and MacDuffs whose father was not called Pieter, John or Duff. Presumably at some point they have a male ancester who did bear that name, but since then they've become true surnames. Therefore, there is nothing that need preclude someone from having (as Tigran did) both a true patronymic and a patronym-shaped surname.
Richard
18 Jul 12
1 edit
Originally posted by hamworldInterest and a passion for the game is more important than intelligence and talent. But I must admit that to be a truely great chess player, I believe one must have the ability to visualize the board, like those that are able to do the blindfold chess.
Eh. I think it's too easy to fall back on "talent".
Intelligence? I've beaten smarter people before. I used to chill with the gifted team in chess club. Was not difficult to beat them. Their homeroom teacher on the other hand, was much harder to beat. I was pretty much the average guy in the group. I still won games. I earned their intellectual respect rl to GM status. Then, have them coach you! You can't go wrong with this one, haha!
18 Jul 12
Originally posted by RJHindsVisualisation is an attainable skill to an extent. Anybody, barring any disorders, can develop the ability to play blindfold chess and the funny part is that when I play blindfold chess I don't really even visualise the board, I feel it instead.
Interest and a passion for the game is more important than intelligence and talent. But I must admit that to be a truely great chess player, I believe one must have the ability to visualize the board, like those that are able to do the blindfold chess.
18 Jul 12
Originally posted by RJHindsWay I see it, visualization is only good for calculation in chess. Calculation is of course, a useful skill but it can become a crutch for those who lack the knowledge to break through. The reverse is sometimes true, though. Knowledge can become a crutch for those who lack the calculation skills to make progress. I honestly believe I am the latter. I just can't calculate well as other folks. I don't do most tactical puzzles because the ratings they give you are just inaccurate. On one website, I had the "tactical skill" of a 1600 when I was obviously playing at a 1300-1400 level. Now, my rating's caught up but I still feel tactically deficient. Time management is usually an issue at every level of play, but it is a recurring theme in my play specifically.
Interest and a passion for the game is more important than intelligence and talent. But I must admit that to be a truely great chess player, I believe one must have the ability to visualize the board, like those that are able to do the blindfold chess.
Because of this, I will always believe I can make up for my lack of time management/calculation/tactical deficiencies by acquiring tons of useful, practical knowledge. When time management is no longer an issue, I will start reviewing my chess beliefs.
19 Jul 12
Originally posted by ChessPraxisAw man. I would've have loved to study under Petrosian as his student...
My best friend and chess mentor over the years played in a simul against Petrosian in the 1970s. My friend was a youngster at the time. Petrosian won, but my friend made a decent showing. One of his prized posessions is the score sheet with the Iron Tiger's signature.
19 Jul 12
2 edits
Originally posted by hamworldThey are not innacurate. They are simply a different pool. For example, on chesstempo I am 1900-2000+ and I am probably a high 1600 to low 1700 on here (even thought my current rating doesn't show it.) So keep doing them and shoot for that tactical level if you want to break into the 1700s.
Way I see it, visualization is only good for calculation in chess. Calculation is of course, a useful skill but it can become a crutch for those who lack the knowledge to break through. The reverse is sometimes true, though. Knowledge can become a crutch for those who lack the calculation skills to make progress. I honestly believe I am the latter. I just ledge. When time management is no longer an issue, I will start reviewing my chess beliefs.
PS I don't think you can attain much knowledge without at least rudimentary calculating skills. I believe this because chess isn't played single move by single move but by series of moves... how can you make a plan if you can't calculate at least a little? The difference I noticed between now and when I first broke into the 1600s is back then I was all tactics and general ideas... now I use general and specific ideas in my play.