Author: Marc van Hal
Date: 13:32:54 12/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 17, 2000 at 16:16:01, Ed Schröder wrote: >On December 17, 2000 at 15:24:20, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On December 17, 2000 at 11:34:07, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >> >>>On December 17, 2000 at 11:13:34, Fernando Villegas wrote: >>> >>>>As a matter of fact, famous, very rich, very important and so and so kind of >>>>people tend to be considered, always, as "very good" at any activity they >>>>perform. It is part of his glamour. Take the case of Napoleon. >>> >>>Or mine, for instance. >>> >>>> If you look at >>>>any of his documented games, you will see he clearly is an agressive but at most >>>>average kind of player AND playing against people very inclined to concede >>>>victory to the Great Man. Nevertheless you always can get a book about Napoleon >>>>where it is said he was a master level player. >>>>Of course, smartness has a very asimetrical relation with chess ability. >>>>Einstein was a less than average player and that would be enough to probe the >>>>case. On the opposite side, a more than average chess player cannot be a dude. >>>>In fact I.Q data has been collected about many GM players and if I recall well, >>>>most of them or even all are above 140 IQ people, that is, in the 2 or 3% most >>>>high part of the curve. >>> >>>So much for the IQ test. I met magnificent chess players that were magnificent >>>imbeciles, and extremely intelligent people that played horrible chess. For >>>example, I have never been a great player. >> >>I believe that every intelligent player can learn to become a master if it is >>important for him(her) and (s)he has enough time to invest on chess and he has >>the right chess program to teach him(her). >> >>One of the problems is that I guess that the right program is not on the market. >> >> >>I believe that it can be an possible target of chess programmmers to create a >>program that teach players to become masters(fide rating of 2300) in one year if >>the players use the program 4 hours per day. > >I think the key-word is passion. Same as in all other sports, passion + >talent = success. > >Ed > > >>In order to convince other players that the program is productive they should >>first try to use the program for themselves in order to become masters. >> >>Uri I more agree on Kasparov's point Talent and pasion alone are not enough It is the hardwork wich will help most like in all other activetys Using a chessprogram alone is not a good idea neither a If you would be a program wich only produced perfect chess (wich is not the case) you would loose way to much creativety Secondly with the programs wich are there today humans have still a better positional insight when using the program alone you never will find these positinal improvements. And like I told you before to become a GM is most of all a verry good memory Most top GM's of today are walking databases. (Though I start to doubt thatmyself after the Worldchampionschip between Kasparov and Kramnik lol because a) Nf3 gives Black the better chances in the Grunfeld defense simply after Qa5 Rd8! And I also did send a complete anelyze to Club Kasparov from the Berlin defense wich is a infreur and secondly lost the meaning was to play h3 g4 f5 I know h3 g4 f5 is not realy possible but then again it is g4 f5 wich is most important When the pawn is on f6 the reason from the Bischop on b2 becomes clear
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.