< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 718 OF 773 ·
|Mar-29-12|| ||shach matov: <There is NO ADVANTAGE OVER YOUR CONTEMPORARIES.>|
Nobody ever claim that there was. But the fact is that the general age of the top players has decreased considerably so it's not surprising that the #1 is also young. There can be only #1 afterall.
|Mar-29-12|| ||timhortons: <But here you lost me completely. In fact this very fact (in addition to others) made it possible for so many young players to become IM, GM's and top GM's the past 15 years. While obviously there can be only one #1. Another point to think about is that top comps have been around only about 12 years and already there are more young players in the top 10 than ever before. We should wait another 5-10 years and the effect may be even more dramatic with the top five being all 25 years old and younger. The influence of information access and computers has only began it's work and there's only the first generation of players who grew up with computers.>|
who told you that carlsen is a product of computer generation?
ask rolfo!!!!!! fo fo fo fo!
magnus never used computer to strengthen his game!
|Mar-29-12|| ||King Death: <Let me show how stupid your speculations are>|
This "argument" is all of the evidence we need that there's no point trying to discuss anything with <shach>, he has all of the answers.
|Mar-29-12|| ||frogbert: let's see: chess ratings are relative, now and before. tools that everyone has access to aren't very likely producers of relative differences. alas, the relative differences seen in the rating system need explanations that differentiate some player(s) from other player(s).|
is it ok to close the part of the debate that relates to whether generally available things like internet, engines and databases may explain why one modern player reached the very top well before 20 while nobody of roughly the same "generation" (born 1980-1992) even came close at that age?
i really hope so. :o)
|Mar-30-12|| ||shach matov: <let's see: chess ratings are relative, now and before.>|
well try to explain that to <King Dead> since he will never stop to deny it. He supported the opposite view and it's clearly wrong, as has been shown. What else is there to even discuss??
|Mar-30-12|| ||jombar: What is "modern chess?"
The only important thing I can think of about "modern chess" is the advancement of opening theories developed by computers.
If Radjabov (rated 2785) were to have the same opening knowledge as Capablanca, who would you think would win a chess match between the two?
If the knowledge of openings are equal among players, the winner will be the one with more natural talent.
In that case, I would put my chess money on Capa or Alekhine to beat most of these so called "modern players."
It's simply ridiculous how opening knowledge and theories developed by computers have harm the game of chess.
One can literally win a game in chess by just beating the opponent in the opening.
|Mar-30-12|| ||Valmy: <If the knowledge of openings are equal among players, the winner will be the one with more natural talent.>|
I would disagree with you Jombar. The outcome of a match is not only about talent but stamina, work and focus.
Some people say talent is 2 % of the outcome, 98% being work.
|Mar-30-12|| ||King Death: < Valmy: <If the knowledge of openings are equal among players, the winner will be the one with more natural talent.>
I would disagree with you Jombar.>
So would I, it's what you do with your abilities that counts for the most part. There's a chance element in life but in the long run the person that works harder will more often get the gold than the one that thinks "talent is enough." There's also the question of knowledge vs. understanding and the player that has both of those will be better off than somebody with just one of them.
|Mar-30-12|| ||jombar: Let me rephrase it:
If opening knowledge, work, focus, and stamina were equal, the player with more natural talent will win.
|Mar-30-12|| ||moronovich: If intelligence were equally distributed,everyone could see that Nakamura is a formidable chessplayer.|
|Mar-30-12|| ||kappertjes: I do not understand how opening knowledge is somehow not part of natural ability. As a player I can spent time on studying endgames, tactics, openings, pawn-structures etc... Surely having natural ability in any area, makes it possible to focus on others? |
I also disagree that opening-theory is independent of general chess-knowledge. Especially at modern GM-level opening theory amounts to knowledge on/insight in what kind of plans/ideas are valid in which circumstances. I know that, for me, studying the Sicilian has also shown me much about other games with a later c5 push. I expect that e.g. Kramnik's contribution of the Berlin has general value as insight in chess and chess positions.
tl,dr; I think chess openings and knowledge can not be seperated from 'natural talent' and general insight and understanding. The best test of natural talent is fierce competition.
|Mar-30-12|| ||OhioChessFan: <kapper: I do not understand how opening knowledge is somehow not part of natural ability. As a player I can spent time on studying endgames, tactics, openings, pawn-structures etc... Surely having natural ability in any area, makes it possible to focus on others? >|
There are some people who clearly are naturally gifted at Openings. If you play an out of the book move against them, they know immediately how to respond. Some people are very untalented at Openings and make up for it by memorization-which is the big difference between Openings and the rest of Chess. You can compenstate to a very large measure by simply memorizing various lines, and there is no talent needed.
|Mar-30-12|| ||rogge: <You can compenstate to a very large measure by simply memorizing various lines, and there is no talent needed.>|
You need a talent for memorization.
<If opening knowledge, work, focus, and stamina were equal, the player with more natural talent will win>
There's also the melt-down effect (ask Ivanchuk).
<moronovich: If intelligence were equally distributed,everyone could see that Nakamura is a formidable chessplayer.> LOL.
|Mar-30-12|| ||quantum.conscious: <rogge: <You can compenstate to a very large measure by simply memorizing various lines, and there is no talent needed.> You need a talent for memorization.
<If opening knowledge, work, focus, and stamina were equal, the player with more natural talent will win>|
There's also the melt-down effect (ask Ivanchuk).
very absurd post by <rogge>. obviously, <rogge> does not know what he is talking about.
If opening knowledge, work, focus, and stamina were equal, the player with more natural talent will win. >
well, natural talent is a gift from nature. yes, one has to hone/nurture that talent. however, people with more natural talent , ofcourse, need to work less hard.
so, if people understand that then there would be no fanboys anymore (carlsen is just lucky that he is so gifted and so is anand) - but then i see fanboys on carlsen page and i get irritated. and then i realize that carlsen fanboys can not help it much because they do not have much talent in the area of I.Q. and E.Q. yes. some people are gifted (natural talent) in the area of E.Q. (Ivanchuk, navara don't have that gift. they need to work hard in this area).
now comes the question : ability to work hard in different areas - is that a function of E.Q. among other things and therefore a gift from nature/God? if Ivanchuk wants to have strong E.Q. , are odds against him? if carlsen fanboys want to give up being fanboys, are the odds against them?
|Mar-30-12|| ||Appaz: U mad?|
|Mar-30-12|| ||quantum.conscious: <Appaz: U mad?>
i don't know who you calling names <appaz> but can you please behave? i have seen you calling names for years on this site as if it has become your addiction. so, it might take some effort from you to behave but behave you must.
however, if you asking someone if that person is mad at someone , then your question needs some elaboration
|Mar-30-12|| ||moronovich: Looks like someones nanny has taken an early eastervacation this year.|
|Mar-30-12|| ||quantum.conscious: <moronovich: Looks like someones nanny has taken an early eastervacation this year.>|
i can understand you reacting to <appaz> namecalling (by suggesting that his nanny should watch him ) but still i would urge you to show restraint.
if you were carlsen fanboy then you would support appaz and criticize me (carlsen fanboys are usually incapable of responding to the post i posted above so they would write about me instead). i discourage such tribal behavior.
|Mar-30-12|| ||Jim Bartle: OCF: "You can compensate to a very large measure by simply memorizing various lines, and there is no talent needed."|
That's me, or at least used to be. But memorizing lines in worthless if you don't know how to take advantage of non-book moves by opponents. And even if you do follow some sophisticate book lines through 15 or 18 moves, you have to know how to play the position when your knowledge runs out.
|Mar-30-12|| ||timhortons: <That's me, or at least used to be. But memorizing lines in worthless if you don't know how to take advantage of non-book moves by opponents.>|
licensure exam for medical technologist, nurses and lawyers are used to be essay and enumeration exam, route memorization help alot passing this type of exam, lately multiple choice test questions replaced it, in multiple question type test, critical thinking is necessary.
|Mar-30-12|| ||King Death: < OhioChessFan: There are some people who clearly are naturally gifted at Openings. If you play an out of the book move against them, they know immediately how to respond...>|
This has very little to do with being "gifted". It's understanding not rote memorization that enables a player like this to come up with a good idea when an opponent plays a non book idea against them. The road to this kind of understanding comes through hard work.
|Mar-30-12|| ||LIFE Master AJ: For a long time, I had a reputation as a booked out monster, but was considered weak in vague/weird/ non-book type of openings. |
I would often reach positions of great advantage, but then not know what to do. (That's where real chess understanding kicks in.)
"Nak" beat Anand recently in a game, the vid was on the 'net. He showed very deep understanding of the positions. He also knew when he was walking on a wire. He also demonstrated knowledge "that while a machine might win this, its very difficult for a human to know what to do."
He also showed some uuncanny insight into human nature, tendencies and psychology, a la Em. Lasker. ("I chose the KID because Anand was first a KP player, and only recently took up the QP, I don't think he would know exactly what to do in many common KID positions.")
These may not be exact quotes, but are from memory ...
|Mar-30-12|| ||timhortons: students of the past are encouraged to memorize the whole book, modern theory of teaching encourage student to think critically.|
|Mar-30-12|| ||haydn20: Actually, many modern students suffer from the wishful delusions of modern education, where everyone believes "memorization kills the spirit." They end up with no facts or principals on which to build critical thinking|
|Mar-30-12|| ||jombar: For some stupid reason when I talk about natural talent, people think natural talent without hard work.|
Of course I mean natural talent with a hard work ethic.
Memorizing 30 moves deep in the opening is not a talent. That is like saying knowing how to follow direction on a map is
Also lets remember when I say opening knowledge that includes computer moves or what is called a computer novelty.
It is damn hard to play chess in the opening when the opponent dishes out 25 computer moves against you. Moves that he didn't come up with, but weird looking moves the computer came up with.
That is what I mean by computer chess openings that have harmed the game of chess.
One can literally beat another player by having a huge advantage in the opening that was deloped by the computer.
It has nothing to do with natural talent of a person. Maybe computer talent, yes.
No amount of hard work will make you as skillful as Fischer or Capablanca if you have no natural talent in the first place.
Not everybody who works hard will become a GM.
Let alone a Fischer or Anand.
Hard work cannot replace natural talent in the highest level of chess.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 718 OF 773 ·