Is chess by definition a loaded sport?

Chess - and albeit many sports like ping pong or sprint or NBA - is dominated by folks who are born prodigies and talented.

This is obviously not an excuse not to pour sweat and tears to grind and improve. And this doesn't discount talent supplanted by hardwork such as Susan Polgar.

However do you feel the top 1% who goes to dominate chess had massive headstart by being prodigies.

In my opinion kind of ruins the playing field.

I think in chess an ability to clearly visualise in your minds eye is as much an advantage as height is an advantage in basketball .
super Gm's seem to have the above and an a photographic memory for chess games

I think it requires above average memorization and visualization and strong focus. It requires a Supreme work ethic and devotion. But I don't think your IQ needs to be above 135.

Players less gifted need to just play as perfect as possible with fewer lines and pray and hope and use clock to calculate at a high level when out of theory. Lots of players reach 2400 on a limited repertoire. But likely won't reach top 20 overly limited.

Learning young and familiarizing with 20 lines gives players a big advantage. From 8 to 16 they can have diverse knowledge and intuitively understand positions from repetition while spending the next 10yrs improving calculation and tactics. Hard to compete with if you start at 17.

@snipermode said in #1:

However do you feel the top 1% who goes to dominate chess had massive headstart by being prodigies.
In my opinion kind of ruins the playing field.

Yeah, and composers such as Mozart spoilt the field for all their merely highly gifted contemporaries. Not fair.

Time and chance.

@snipermode said in #1:

Chess - and albeit many sports like ping pong or sprint or NBA - is dominated by folks who are born prodigies and talented.

This is obviously not an excuse not to pour sweat and tears to grind and improve. And this doesn't discount talent supplanted by hardwork such as Susan Polgar.

However do you feel the top 1% who goes to dominate chess had massive headstart by being prodigies.

In my opinion kind of ruins the playing field.

interesting. in fact, if you look at the past of world champions, they all started very young and were titled or linked to the high level very early. look for GMs who became GMs after starting chess at age 12+. if there are 5-6 in the world I admit I am wrong. yes there is the factor of age and attending high level very early, such as university championships in basketball and B teams in football. talent is obtained through work which comes through aptitude and a penchant of the person for a certain field. the only difficulty is remaining at a high level: how many child prodigies have had careers ruined by poor lifestyle, lack of motivation or the weight of responsibilities? a lot.

You obviously don't know about the difference between people and human beings , the gods, that will tell you all you need to know about this world and the truth of chess that Fischer was looking for xxx

Can you give an example of a sport where people at the top were not born with exceptional talent?

@snipermode said in #1:

This is obviously not an excuse not to pour sweat and tears to grind and improve. And this doesn't discount talent supplanted by hardwork such as Susan Polgar.

Both sisters are remarkable. but take into account that both received coaching by Bobby Fisher, that alone helped them reach the finish like like 5-10 years before everyone else.

In this dumpster fire of a forum the moment someone posts something it gets immediately downvoted by beta male incels. This is why I stopped posting in this trash forum. No room for open discussion.

Bunch of 13 year old redditors trapped in adult body.