I noticed that most good chess players are not very creative. It seems like there are at least two kinds of creativity. The so called creativity in chess which simply means finding the best and most unconventional solution within a strict game structure. And then there‘s a genius in "free creativity“. A book author or a composer for example. That’s why I have a problem with the word creativity within the chess world. It‘s much more a logical thinking ability, experience, a good memory. But calling it creativity in the classical way is bullshit in my opinion. All good players that I know are not those dreamy people who kept their inner child alive and who are awesome storytellers. They mostly have down to earth jobs, are quite good with numbers and stuff. Are into science, history or technology or are teachers. They have a need for security regarding their profession. So could it be the chances of becoming a really good chess player are smaller when you are a succesfull creator of music or literature?
<Comment deleted by user>
Boy, what a crockful of stereotypes. And you know, it's just possible that you're not quite an accomplished enough player yourself to grasp the true creativity of a Kasparov or a Bronstein.
As for "free creativity"...well, I don't think there really is such a thing. Authors and composers all have to learn a number of conventions and past techniques; nobody is starting out from square one in anything.
And how do I know this? Because I'm a novelist.
Oh yeah, a couple more things about this "good player": I hate math...and my inner child is very much alive! (and toddling around here on a daily basis).
As for "free creativity"...well, I don't think there really is such a thing. Authors and composers all have to learn a number of conventions and past techniques; nobody is starting out from square one in anything.
And how do I know this? Because I'm a novelist.
Oh yeah, a couple more things about this "good player": I hate math...and my inner child is very much alive! (and toddling around here on a daily basis).
Novelist... what ever that means. Good chess players are mostly drowning in mediocrity whatever they do.
Creativity is one thing, but it is not hard to play creative but poor moves. Good players mostly face other good opponents, who are trying to complicate their task and are ready to punish any mistake. And there is a plenty of theory.
Alekhine was a phenomenal player, but it is not too difficult even for an average GM to show creative chess with many combinations in simuls or when playing much less experienced opponents. But it is not so interesting from the competitive point of view.
In fact, in Capablanca's and Alekhine's times even many well-known masters were much weaker than the world champions and had few chances against them. The average level of play has grown up quite a lot since Alekhine's times and the competition has been growing as well. Which means that creative play can often be dangerous and that there are fewer possibilities to play creatively when you are facing a really strong opponent.
What is 39.Qc6 in this game, if not a clear sign of creativity? www.chess.com/game/live/73675796761
And it is not just me, almost all GMs can play creatively when there is a good opportunity.
Alekhine was a phenomenal player, but it is not too difficult even for an average GM to show creative chess with many combinations in simuls or when playing much less experienced opponents. But it is not so interesting from the competitive point of view.
In fact, in Capablanca's and Alekhine's times even many well-known masters were much weaker than the world champions and had few chances against them. The average level of play has grown up quite a lot since Alekhine's times and the competition has been growing as well. Which means that creative play can often be dangerous and that there are fewer possibilities to play creatively when you are facing a really strong opponent.
What is 39.Qc6 in this game, if not a clear sign of creativity? www.chess.com/game/live/73675796761
And it is not just me, almost all GMs can play creatively when there is a good opportunity.
There’s also creativity in making up usernames as the op has demonstrated.
Draw your own conclusions about someone who uses such a username.
Draw your own conclusions about someone who uses such a username.
@SukkMikeHawk said in #1:
> I noticed that most good chess players are not very creative. It seems like there are at least two kinds of creativity. The so called creativity in chess which simply means finding the best and most unconventional solution within a strict game structure. And then there‘s a genius in "free creativity“. A book author or a composer for example. That’s why I have a problem with the word creativity within the chess world. It‘s much more a logical thinking ability, experience, a good memory. But calling it creativity in the classical way is bullshit in my opinion. All good players that I know are not those dreamy people who kept their inner child alive and who are awesome storytellers. They mostly have down to earth jobs, are quite good with numbers and stuff. Are into science, history or technology or are teachers. They have a need for security regarding their profession. So could it be the chances of becoming a really good chess player are smaller when you are a succesfull creator of music or literature?
You can only be as creative as the information you have gathered before.
So creativity is almost always the same and often completly misunderstood.
> I noticed that most good chess players are not very creative. It seems like there are at least two kinds of creativity. The so called creativity in chess which simply means finding the best and most unconventional solution within a strict game structure. And then there‘s a genius in "free creativity“. A book author or a composer for example. That’s why I have a problem with the word creativity within the chess world. It‘s much more a logical thinking ability, experience, a good memory. But calling it creativity in the classical way is bullshit in my opinion. All good players that I know are not those dreamy people who kept their inner child alive and who are awesome storytellers. They mostly have down to earth jobs, are quite good with numbers and stuff. Are into science, history or technology or are teachers. They have a need for security regarding their profession. So could it be the chances of becoming a really good chess player are smaller when you are a succesfull creator of music or literature?
You can only be as creative as the information you have gathered before.
So creativity is almost always the same and often completly misunderstood.
Ding wouldn't agree with you after yesterday
@BorisOspasky said in #6:
> There’s also creativity in making up usernames as the op has demonstrated.
> Draw your own conclusions about someone who uses such a username.
Sure, Sir Boris!
> There’s also creativity in making up usernames as the op has demonstrated.
> Draw your own conclusions about someone who uses such a username.
Sure, Sir Boris!
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.