PDA

View Full Version : Natural Ability in Chess?



JGB
21-04-2004, 09:42 PM
Are Chess Masters, so strong due only to years of study and playing (lots of work) or is their a shared 'natural ability' or talent (a kind of intellgence) among the best players?

I have my own ideas but i'd like to hear what you guys think.

ToeAndno
21-04-2004, 10:51 PM
Natural ability certainly helps. Some say that Capablanca had the most natural chess ability out of all past champions. But he still needed to to study and play.

On the other hand, Alekhine didn't have natural ability but achieved his greatness through hard work.

On average I would assume that there is a mix of the both, but whatever the ratio, everyone needs to work hard. Doh!

Garvinator
22-04-2004, 12:26 AM
Natural ability certainly helps. Some say that Capablanca had the most natural chess ability out of all past champions. But he still needed to to study and play.

On the other hand, Alekhine didn't have natural ability but achieved his greatness through hard work.

On average I would assume that there is a mix of the both, but whatever the ratio, everyone needs to work hard. Doh!
doh looks better when you use the emoticon :doh: ;) :D

Alan Shore
22-04-2004, 02:08 AM
Are Chess Masters, so strong due only to years of study and playing (lots of work) or is their a shared 'natural ability' or talent (a kind of intellgence) among the best players?

I have my own ideas but i'd like to hear what you guys think.

I'm sure it's a combination, you can only go so far with just one of the two. I've never studied chess myself personally I only play it for fun and I've gotten to an average level.

jenni
22-04-2004, 01:00 PM
I have felt (from years of observing juniors), that it is a combination of 3 things.

1. natural talent
2. hard work and being prepared to do the boring learning
3. psycholology

The first 2 are as described in other posts. The third is equally important. I have seen many talented juniors, who have done a lot of work fail to get to the top, because of a lack of belief in themselves and a lack of ability to handle the stress. Often they will give up playing because of this factor, but it also manifests itself in the taking of endless draws in winning positions, because they don't have the confidence to fight it out. It can also manifest itself in very passive play in a game where they don't feel confident.

frogmogdog
22-04-2004, 02:44 PM
i agree with jenni except those 3 factors aren't "equally important". hard work is the key to being good at chess (or just about anything).

also i'm sure it makes a huge difference to learn as a child, the younger the better. it must be rare for an adult learning how to move the pieces to even get to 1800. and, although jose may find this depressing, i actually wouldn't be surprised if there has never been a 2400+ player who wasn't already rated over 2000 by the age of 18 (counter-examples?).

Kevin Bonham
22-04-2004, 03:09 PM
I have felt (from years of observing juniors), that it is a combination of 3 things.

1. natural talent
2. hard work and being prepared to do the boring learning
3. psycholology

This also applies to adults; a subsection of "psychology" is what I call "match toughness" - the ability, through experience, to bring home the point when there is a risk of being swindled; the ability to hang in there in a difficult position and keep chipping away for something to happen. Match toughness often trumps natural talent at almost any level.

An opponent I have swindled four times previously (two wins and two draws from utterly lost positions), last night made it five by taking a draw against me in this position:

3rk3/8/2R4p/4pBpP/1p3pP1/8/5n1K/8 b - - 0 44

playing 44...Rd2 and allowing me to triple-repeat with checks on c8 and c7 rather than risk me ripping off his h-pawn and queening my own. Actually Black is very clearly winning after 44...e4 intending ...Rd2

JGB
22-04-2004, 03:53 PM
also i'm sure it makes a huge difference to learn as a child, the younger the better. it must be rare for an adult learning how to move the pieces to even get to 1800. and, although jose may find this depressing, i actually wouldn't be surprised if there has never been a 2400+ player who wasn't already rated over 2000 by the age of 18 (counter-examples?).

...I hope this is incorrect or im going to be the first!? :hmm:

anyway, im 25 and earnt my first chess rating 16 months ago (after playing in my first rated games while living here in Germany). In a short period ive studied and played (you could say a fair bit :lol:). Anyway I will be recieving and elo of just over 2000 in the next FIDE release. I hope my performace continues, and when im back in oz. I will admit that ive put in heaps of hours study.

JGB
22-04-2004, 08:52 PM
This also applies to adults; a subsection of "psychology" is what I call "match toughness" - the ability, through experience, to bring home the point when there is a risk of being swindled; the ability to hang in there in a difficult position and keep chipping away for something to happen. Match toughness often trumps natural talent at almost any level.


I agree and its a part of the game which also improves over the years im sure. It seems easier to 'swindle' younger players who are more nervous of losing an (almost) won point compared to experienced adults.