Chess culture and chess power are different concepts. Think for level 2100 need only practical skills. Judge by myself. I need only remember the debuts of their first moves and after watching some of the masters of the party game, revealed the plan and pattern of play. Dealing with only tactics, get a rating of 2100 feasible task. To do this, you can beat the players 1800-1900 and cherished bar rating 2100 will be taken. I myself have approached this point several times, having 1 category. But to go further without a knowledge base is hardly possible. At the CM level, the chess player is erudite and theoretically literate. To beat it a difficult task. To confuse tactics, waiting for the gift of life and only. Therefore, I repeat the coaches ' idea: Chess should be studied. And who succeeds in this, he will play harder.
I think you got it wrong about the Polgar sisters. It doesn't prove anything. Their father searched for something they had natural talent for and it happened to be chess, not the other way around.
I'm sure there are millions of untalented kids out there, that you won't get anywhere by shoving chess to them at young age.
Their father just happened to find the territory his daughters are good at and nurtured it, unlike many other awful parents who ignore their children's talent at specific area, or even drive them away from it.
@orior
I'm not sure how you could detect a natural talent for chess in a child, but it would be impossible to detect such talent in an unborn child. The father claims that he choose chess as it had a rating scale which to prove success.
"great chess players are born bla bla"... just please stop that modern era propaganda of excuses on "Why can't I get to level X in something". Hard work and loving what you do, plus some strong character to fight for your target. Those three things have been said by many sportsmen, but somehow people always put in that talent talk... or even better, genetics lol
Just play e4
Those who gather their chunks from praxis: it comes down to the same.
So, good players know what to do. Tens of thousands of chunks collected in ten of thousands of hours of working/playing/studying.
Why do we have to discuss this every week?
@Sarg0n we have to discuss it for same reason as we have to discuss every week
- take backs
- re-matches
- why didn I win althought opponent ran out of time
- What would be my FIDE rating (answer being : very low) when blitz/rapid/classic is something
:)
world changes but it does not improve
@petri999 should add also a topic like:
1) if I start now and study chess 3h a day for 10000 days, can I become GM? lol
It is possible. I haven't met the term "hedgehog" in old books. A player who studied chess about 20 years ago can be unfamiliar with it. About Maroczy bind - if you don't play accelerated dragon for black and maroczy bind for white, you can ignore it.
@will_is_myth, Knowing the openings names and some lines, knowing how some middle game structures are called, doesn't make someone a better chess player. If one can understand a concept, then it doesn't really matter how the concept is named. On the other hand, not being able to fully understand the concept makes the knowledge about the names irrelevant.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.