@xi_32 I am perfectly aware of this. I just don't agree with the assumption that a very intelligent, talented and motivated player would perform worse w/o GM assistance than a dumb, non-talented and motivated player with a GM.
@eqjugg
I am reminded of this quote : Hard work beats talent when talent refuses to work hard.
People with good coaches can learn at a much faster rate than people without good coaches. A good coach has 'seen it all' and knows how to get the best out of a person. And it's only the people with wealth and resources that can get good coaches to teach them.
There are numerous instances of average players succeeding, for example, in the NBA, because they work harder, are willing to learn, and have great coaches to teach them. A recent example is Draymond Green who plays for the Golden State Warriors. He was picked in the 2nd round 35th overall and is now an all star and the best Defensive Player in the NBA. Draymond Green has been the 2nd best player from the 2012 draft (after Anthony Davis).
This is entirely due to 1) Draymond Green's work ethic and 2) He has had great coaches and is teachable!
The only way to get great coaches is to have the resources to pay for them.
I am reminded of this quote : Hard work beats talent when talent refuses to work hard.
People with good coaches can learn at a much faster rate than people without good coaches. A good coach has 'seen it all' and knows how to get the best out of a person. And it's only the people with wealth and resources that can get good coaches to teach them.
There are numerous instances of average players succeeding, for example, in the NBA, because they work harder, are willing to learn, and have great coaches to teach them. A recent example is Draymond Green who plays for the Golden State Warriors. He was picked in the 2nd round 35th overall and is now an all star and the best Defensive Player in the NBA. Draymond Green has been the 2nd best player from the 2012 draft (after Anthony Davis).
This is entirely due to 1) Draymond Green's work ethic and 2) He has had great coaches and is teachable!
The only way to get great coaches is to have the resources to pay for them.
Draymond has high basketball IQ...future Hall of Famer for sure after being drafted in the 2nd round. (reminds me of Rodman)
@xi_32 well, that's very ...debatable. So is my opinion too tbh.
1) Draymond Green:
I am not a big expert on basketball. But there certainly is a possibility that (his development aside) his skillset just got overlooked. It's not like the small ball center was a thing back then and even in this day Draymond still remains somewhat unique. There is barely a way that a player who could end up with his skillset is an "average talent". [Another example: Stephen Curry would (likely) have been picked earlier in '18 if he was drafted again. But since he was the prototype he went somewhat late in '09]
Ofc scouting/talent evaluation is not the only thing - additional factors would include player development (not every talent reveals itself at the same stage), work ethic (indeed), great coaching / development environment (let's say he was picked by Sacramento or Charlotte instead of GSW..hmmm).
2) Now back to chess.
Imo you are way too pessimistic there. Chess is still somewhat of an equal field compared to other areas. Some indications:
1) You probably don't even notice a significant influence from a GM (vs an noobish above-average tournament player) before a level of 16-1700xx. In fact GM's aren't even aware what's going on in these regions because everything is just so...different there.
Even speaking about 1700-2000 I'm not convinced the average player there can notice a difference between an IM or GM coach..
2.1) there are quite a few autodidacts in chess. I've read a interview from Tukmakov where he pointed out that Wesley So hadn't had a trainer until he was nr. 5 in the world...Quite a few of the top players just got well-versed coaches because of their (already) extremy rapid chess development
2.2) On the other hand you surely know players trained by GM's who are complete fools and won't get better regardless (at least I do). If you completely miss chess talent or working the wrong way (btw that's also a skill which separates bright from not-so-bright people) that's it.
Sometimes the teacher-student chemistry doesn't work as intended either (might be true with an intelligent student as well)
2.3) Stockfish 9, (cheap/sometimes even free) lectures from top GM's and coaches (even including standard coaching things like building your repertoire), databases, free tactic puzzles. Practice plays a substantial role as well. That's like at least 90% if not more if you ask me. Be aware that one of the substantial advantage of a coach is his ability to motivate you and enforce you to keep on (training, improving).
Which is gone if we assume that both person A (rich) and person B (avg-poor) have extremely high motivation regardless.
EDIT: corrected some typos
1) Draymond Green:
I am not a big expert on basketball. But there certainly is a possibility that (his development aside) his skillset just got overlooked. It's not like the small ball center was a thing back then and even in this day Draymond still remains somewhat unique. There is barely a way that a player who could end up with his skillset is an "average talent". [Another example: Stephen Curry would (likely) have been picked earlier in '18 if he was drafted again. But since he was the prototype he went somewhat late in '09]
Ofc scouting/talent evaluation is not the only thing - additional factors would include player development (not every talent reveals itself at the same stage), work ethic (indeed), great coaching / development environment (let's say he was picked by Sacramento or Charlotte instead of GSW..hmmm).
2) Now back to chess.
Imo you are way too pessimistic there. Chess is still somewhat of an equal field compared to other areas. Some indications:
1) You probably don't even notice a significant influence from a GM (vs an noobish above-average tournament player) before a level of 16-1700xx. In fact GM's aren't even aware what's going on in these regions because everything is just so...different there.
Even speaking about 1700-2000 I'm not convinced the average player there can notice a difference between an IM or GM coach..
2.1) there are quite a few autodidacts in chess. I've read a interview from Tukmakov where he pointed out that Wesley So hadn't had a trainer until he was nr. 5 in the world...Quite a few of the top players just got well-versed coaches because of their (already) extremy rapid chess development
2.2) On the other hand you surely know players trained by GM's who are complete fools and won't get better regardless (at least I do). If you completely miss chess talent or working the wrong way (btw that's also a skill which separates bright from not-so-bright people) that's it.
Sometimes the teacher-student chemistry doesn't work as intended either (might be true with an intelligent student as well)
2.3) Stockfish 9, (cheap/sometimes even free) lectures from top GM's and coaches (even including standard coaching things like building your repertoire), databases, free tactic puzzles. Practice plays a substantial role as well. That's like at least 90% if not more if you ask me. Be aware that one of the substantial advantage of a coach is his ability to motivate you and enforce you to keep on (training, improving).
Which is gone if we assume that both person A (rich) and person B (avg-poor) have extremely high motivation regardless.
EDIT: corrected some typos
The more intelligent you are, the more apt you're going to be for playing chess well. Of course, the higher your intelligence the more prone you become to a whole bunch of anti-social and other peculiarities such as an inability to complete school unless it's entirely on your own terms. Bobby Fischer had somewhere around an IQ of 185, but could barely finish school due to the mental problems that arise when one has such a high IQ. Fischer once even noted that what he really liked about chess is that it allows him to be in "complete control." NBA players do many times have undergraduate degrees because they went to college on a basketball scholarship and part of that scholarship is a requirement to take classes that count towards graduation. That doesn't mean that the NBA is not filled with overglorified animals with a unique ability to play a team sport. It simply means that in order to make money in the NBA, most NBA players need to play in college first. Until you can opt out of taking classes, there's going to be an immense number of athletes with degrees that would've never been achieved on a purely academic criterion. Hence, the act of achieving a degree (which really isn't that difficult to begin with) is certainly not a good argument in finding out superior intellect in our society. The ability to play chess very well is a good test of one's intellectual raw abilities. But, that's not necessarily going to translate into success in terms of money or anything else especially considering that our society is built around an average IQ of 100 by definition. If you're even on this site reading this, then you've probably got at least a 115 IQ. An average of 100 is simply terrifying to think of.....that's probably why there's still protests that turn violent in the USA....low IQ's and no self-discipline....thank god for the 2nd Amendment, so those of us with a high IQ have a fighting chance!!! Those animals in the street don't settle things with a casual game of chess!
Yeah, I agree with you. People with abnormally high IQ can never enjoy/willingly complete normal, mundane school. I don't have an abnormally high IQ, I guess mine is around 125-130, but I still hate school(I'm in 9th grade).But that does not mean I am bad at academics and similar stuff. I am good at all subjects(but that's because I don't want a few rubbish subjects to get my average down), but I only like a few subjects like Physics, Math and Chemistry. What I mean by this is that a certain amount of skill can definitely be developed via practice and hard work, even if one does not like doing it(like me in the case of English, History and Geography).So chess is also similar to this. If you work hard, you will become a good player even if you have average IQ. But I guess an above-average IQ helps to grasp some important points in chess. Obviously, getting a degree neither determines intelligence nor the ability to play chess well. However, intelligent people have an edge over normal people over nearly everything.
Agreed +1.
@xi_32 long story short... because degree say nothing about if someone is smart or not lol, may be 25 years ago, yeah if you got Master of Science in something then would say wow. Unfortunately today degrees are basically a "product to buy".
Whereas again like 2 decades ago, there would be no need to do that, but today you have to define what means smart for You... For some guy smart means someone who understands maths and physics, for other guy it is someone who makes IQ tests perfectly, for other guy it is some lawyer who can memorize hundreds of paragraphs and do bla bla about wine and whisky, and some ancient stuff etc...
Whereas again like 2 decades ago, there would be no need to do that, but today you have to define what means smart for You... For some guy smart means someone who understands maths and physics, for other guy it is someone who makes IQ tests perfectly, for other guy it is some lawyer who can memorize hundreds of paragraphs and do bla bla about wine and whisky, and some ancient stuff etc...
@TrainingOTB
Short story long, if I accept the premise that a degree says nothing about smartness then what does chess have to say about smartness? For example, if an average person takes the time to memorize the endgame and memorize all the openings, then they will get a very good chess rating. Even if they are mediocre in the middlegame. Does that really make them smart?
I'm not that good in chess, but how far can you get with memorization and a computer to show you the lines? I'm guessing pretty far -- maybe not grandmaster but still far. Does this make you smart or just a person with a good memory?
Short story long, if I accept the premise that a degree says nothing about smartness then what does chess have to say about smartness? For example, if an average person takes the time to memorize the endgame and memorize all the openings, then they will get a very good chess rating. Even if they are mediocre in the middlegame. Does that really make them smart?
I'm not that good in chess, but how far can you get with memorization and a computer to show you the lines? I'm guessing pretty far -- maybe not grandmaster but still far. Does this make you smart or just a person with a good memory?
I'm pretty sure you can reach 2300ELO without being particularly intelligent if you have a good coach who is a titled player
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.