Talent v Likeability

[Tal]

That's a good point. I could work solely on chess for a few years and possibly - only possibly - get to International Master level. I definitely couldn't get to the next level of being a Grandmaster tho. That requires another level of talent. No one is a Grandmaster by work alone.

Probably like being a scratch golfer. You can get down under 5 by being quite good and working hard but it takes more than commitment and a decent set of bats to be a club pro.

Is that really true with Chess? I always imagined if someone had enough commitment and ~average iq they could become a grand master with enough effort. I mean like serious dedicated training full time etc.

Yes I'd say so. A few friends of mine who are IMs say that themselves. Some of them are professionals (well make their money from coaching and books but don't have conventional jobs) so it would be in their interests to be a level higher if they could.

[DaveShoelace]

That's a good point. I could work solely on chess for a few years and possibly - only possibly - get to International Master level. I definitely couldn't get to the next level of being a Grandmaster tho. That requires another level of talent. No one is a Grandmaster by work alone.

Probably like being a scratch golfer. You can get down under 5 by being quite good and working hard but it takes more than commitment and a decent set of bats to be a club pro.

As with my scratch golfer comparison, there is a huge gap then between a professional player and the world's best. This thread is mainly about the elite of course.

What about the Polger sisters (The two that became GrandMasters)? Their Father specifically set out to rear a chess grandmaster through hard work. I know he himself was a chess player and the argument could be made he had something in his genes, but surely this was entirely due to their upbringing?

[Tal]

That's a good point. I could work solely on chess for a few years and possibly - only possibly - get to International Master level. I definitely couldn't get to the next level of being a Grandmaster tho. That requires another level of talent. No one is a Grandmaster by work alone.

Probably like being a scratch golfer. You can get down under 5 by being quite good and working hard but it takes more than commitment and a decent set of bats to be a club pro.

As with my scratch golfer comparison, there is a huge gap then between a professional player and the world's best. This thread is mainly about the elite of course.

What about the Polger sisters (The two that became GrandMasters)? Their Father specifically set out to rear a chess grandmaster through hard work. I know he himself was a chess player and the argument could be made he had something in his genes, but surely this was entirely due to their upbringing?

They all happened to have talent in chess (if it's a genetic thing, that's easy to believe), although Judit's is extraordinary and Susan's excellent. Probably not dissimilar to the Williams sisters in that respect.

Judit's particular gift is her natural flair for aggression and combinations. She - and to a lesser extent Susan - have incredible ability to visualise positions in their head and that can come from hard training at an early age.

You can have an asset naturally like running quickly, ball control, balance, a strong throw and so on and have it unearthed by chance but then nurtured. Even then, you have to have all the other strings to your bow to make it to the very top and that can't come from coaching alone.

[kinboshi]

That's a good point. I could work solely on chess for a few years and possibly - only possibly - get to International Master level. I definitely couldn't get to the next level of being a Grandmaster tho. That requires another level of talent. No one is a Grandmaster by work alone.

Probably like being a scratch golfer. You can get down under 5 by being quite good and working hard but it takes more than commitment and a decent set of bats to be a club pro.

As with my scratch golfer comparison, there is a huge gap then between a professional player and the world's best. This thread is mainly about the elite of course.

What about the Polger sisters (The two that became GrandMasters)? Their Father specifically set out to rear a chess grandmaster through hard work. I know he himself was a chess player and the argument could be made he had something in his genes, but surely this was entirely due to their upbringing?

There was no 'control' with his experiment, so you can't draw a conclusion either way.

[redarmi]

That's a good point. I could work solely on chess for a few years and possibly - only possibly - get to International Master level. I definitely couldn't get to the next level of being a Grandmaster tho. That requires another level of talent. No one is a Grandmaster by work alone.

Probably like being a scratch golfer. You can get down under 5 by being quite good and working hard but it takes more than commitment and a decent set of bats to be a club pro.

As with my scratch golfer comparison, there is a huge gap then between a professional player and the world's best. This thread is mainly about the elite of course.

What about the Polger sisters (The two that became GrandMasters)? Their Father specifically set out to rear a chess grandmaster through hard work. I know he himself was a chess player and the argument could be made he had something in his genes, but surely this was entirely due to their upbringing?

There was no 'control' with his experiment, so you can't draw a conclusion either way.

This is simply not true.  The result of the "experiment" means that it is much more likely that you can nurture a top class chess player.  It doesn't mean that it is now absolutely true that you can nurture a world class chess player but it certainly has an affect on the probabilities because of the extremity of the results.  If only one of the sisters had become a grandmaster then you are possibly right but all three did.  It is statistically very unlikely that their "training" didn't have an impact.

[Tal]

There are hundreds of thousands of parents across the world who have tried to turn their children into chess masters - more in India, Russia and China than anywhere else I'd venture - but only a negligible percentage get to the very top. This can only be IMO due to the skills they were born with, combining with their coaching. Only one of the Polgar sisters became a women's world champion. Yes another sister became a GM and that's very impressive too.

Some will have the skill but not be coached right, of course.

[The Baron]

That's a good point. I could work solely on chess for a few years and possibly - only possibly - get to International Master level. I definitely couldn't get to the next level of being a Grandmaster tho. That requires another level of talent. No one is a Grandmaster by work alone.

Probably like being a scratch golfer. You can get down under 5 by being quite good and working hard but it takes more than commitment and a decent set of bats to be a club pro.

As with my scratch golfer comparison, there is a huge gap then between a professional player and the world's best. This thread is mainly about the elite of course.

What about the Polger sisters (The two that became GrandMasters)? Their Father specifically set out to rear a chess grandmaster through hard work. I know he himself was a chess player and the argument could be made he had something in his genes, but surely this was entirely due to their upbringing?

I'm pretty sure Judit is widely regarded as a prodigy.

[kinboshi]

That's a good point. I could work solely on chess for a few years and possibly - only possibly - get to International Master level. I definitely couldn't get to the next level of being a Grandmaster tho. That requires another level of talent. No one is a Grandmaster by work alone.

Probably like being a scratch golfer. You can get down under 5 by being quite good and working hard but it takes more than commitment and a decent set of bats to be a club pro.

As with my scratch golfer comparison, there is a huge gap then between a professional player and the world's best. This thread is mainly about the elite of course.

What about the Polger sisters (The two that became GrandMasters)? Their Father specifically set out to rear a chess grandmaster through hard work. I know he himself was a chess player and the argument could be made he had something in his genes, but surely this was entirely due to their upbringing?

There was no 'control' with his experiment, so you can't draw a conclusion either way.

This is simply not true.  The result of the "experiment" means that it is much more likely that you can nurture a top class chess player.  It doesn't mean that it is now absolutely true that you can nurture a world class chess player but it certainly has an affect on the probabilities because of the extremity of the results.  If only one of the sisters had become a grandmaster then you are possibly right but all three did.  It is statistically very unlikely that their "training" didn't have an impact.

You can nuture a top class chess player, IF they have the fundamental intelligence and other attributes required.

For it to be a 'good' experiment it would be better to take a number of groups of identical twins and give one half one sort of coaching and training and overall chess education, and give the other half a different form.  Half the groups of twins should be from chess-playing stock, the other half from non-chess playing stock. 

That would give far more interesting results.

[MintTrav]

There's a famous story of Dwight Yorke and Brian Lara being from the same area in Trinidad and one being the best footballer and the other the best cricketer (but the other way round!).

Yorke is from Tobago. You're probably thinking of Shaka Hislop, who is the same age as Lara, and grew up in Diego Martin*, near Port-of-Spain, or possibly Ato Bolden, who went to the same Port-of-Spain school as Lara, though he is a bit younger.

Whatever, your point is still well made. Hislop and Yorke were apparently very good cricketers and Lara was a junior international at football and table-tennis, while Ato started as a footballer and switched to athletics.


[*Diego Martin is an extraordinary place. I spent a couple of weeks there a few years ago staying with my then-girlfriend's family, but that is for another thread sometime. Chicken-foot soup, anyone?]

[Tal]

Ah! Close enough

[The Baron]

Sam Allardyce.

[sovietsong]

Sam Allardyce.

I like big Sam, his fake twitter account is awesome

[The Baron]

His interview on ITV a few minutes ago about his CV versus others and how he's been stopped getting a big job was cringeworthy.

[The Baron]

Sam Allardyce.

I like big Sam, his fake twitter account is awesome

Lol true!

[smashedagain]

I was gonna ask if Sam was talentless but had like ability