What do GM's have and we don't • page 2/5 • Off-Topic Discussion • lichess.org

PaRAmKaRwAl

#11

They have longer profiles (because they have so much rating, the mods have to make the rating rectangle longer)

OpeningBreaker edited

#12

GM's have years (maybe) of experience, have learnt many traps and have fast and quick thinking but the most important:

They have the determination and courage to play brave moves
Even if they know what to do, they think for a while and then only play as lasker would say "When you see a good move look for a better one"
They never stop studying

do not mind my rating look at @VedanthS

GM's have years (maybe) of experience, have learnt many traps and have fast and quick thinking but the most important: 1. They have the determination and courage to play brave moves 2. Even if they know what to do, they think for a while and then only play as lasker would say "When you see a good move look for a better one" 3. They never stop studying do not mind my rating look at @VedanthS

Ath2010

#13

THEY HAVE CONFIDENCE IN THEMSELVES WHICH WE DO NOT HAVE

AnshR

#14

Actually,everyone is capable of becoming a GM if we are determined to play chess and study it.

Tuliptonite

#15

Opening knowledge, in particular, is a huge part of today’s game, and maybe it’s slightly out of proportion just how much your opening knowledge determines how well you do in the current climate. But I don’t think there’s any class of things that an International Master knows and a FIDE Master doesn’t. I think a FIDE Master is an International Master who hasn’t played chess enough yet.

Some people do have a ceiling they will never reach above, but it’s very, very difficult to determine who does and who doesn’t, and in general it’s a question of experience. I could use psychobabble like “pattern recognition” which also has, I think, a lot to do with experience. The more you play the more you learn to recognise certain things you’ve seen before and react to them in an optimal way.

Once again, I’m not a deep thinker on questions of chess philosophy and I think it’s mainly to do with experience and your level of commitment to the game, but I don’t think there are classes of things which top-level people know and lower-level people don’t apart from openings. Openings definitely are one area of the game where the top players have a huge advantage over people lower down the rankings.

One thing I wanted to point out is that perhaps the difference between the really, really top players and players lower down the ladder is that they got there and didn’t get killed. If you do that it means you adapted and you probably are an all-rounder – a more or less complete chess player who has no obvious holes in his game. We all have a level at which we get found out, so to speak, and if you reach really, really high – playing against the best of the best – and stay there for a while, it means that you weren’t really found out. Let’s say, if your positional understanding or endgame technique is abysmal – or rather much, much worse than your position – they will consciously steer you towards those positions and beat you there and you’ll disappear from sight. If this hasn’t happened then it probably means that you’ve acquired those skills which you may have initially lacked. The people at the top are much more complete chess players.
https://chess24.com/en/read/news/peter-svidler-q-a-part-1

Opening knowledge, in particular, is a huge part of today’s game, and maybe it’s slightly out of proportion just how much your opening knowledge determines how well you do in the current climate. But I don’t think there’s any class of things that an International Master knows and a FIDE Master doesn’t. I think a FIDE Master is an International Master who hasn’t played chess enough yet. Some people do have a ceiling they will never reach above, but it’s very, very difficult to determine who does and who doesn’t, and in general it’s a question of experience. I could use psychobabble like “pattern recognition” which also has, I think, a lot to do with experience. The more you play the more you learn to recognise certain things you’ve seen before and react to them in an optimal way. Once again, I’m not a deep thinker on questions of chess philosophy and I think it’s mainly to do with experience and your level of commitment to the game, but I don’t think there are classes of things which top-level people know and lower-level people don’t apart from openings. Openings definitely are one area of the game where the top players have a huge advantage over people lower down the rankings. One thing I wanted to point out is that perhaps the difference between the really, really top players and players lower down the ladder is that they got there and didn’t get killed. If you do that it means you adapted and you probably are an all-rounder – a more or less complete chess player who has no obvious holes in his game. We all have a level at which we get found out, so to speak, and if you reach really, really high – playing against the best of the best – and stay there for a while, it means that you weren’t really found out. Let’s say, if your positional understanding or endgame technique is abysmal – or rather much, much worse than your position – they will consciously steer you towards those positions and beat you there and you’ll disappear from sight. If this hasn’t happened then it probably means that you’ve acquired those skills which you may have initially lacked. The people at the top are much more complete chess players. https://chess24.com/en/read/news/peter-svidler-q-a-part-1

They have experience

GM's have the highest rating in the world and a player has less

Break_ToS

#18

Permission to enter titled arenas

SaNyob