Author: Vasik Rajlich
Date: 09:25:35 05/09/05
Go up one level in this thread
On May 09, 2005 at 07:09:41, Uri Blass wrote: >On May 09, 2005 at 06:18:00, Vasik Rajlich wrote: > >>On May 09, 2005 at 03:51:29, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On May 09, 2005 at 01:16:11, Timothy J. Frohlick wrote: >>> >>>>Jorge, >>>> >>>>It only proves that a guy with a 200 IQ can play chess like a moron. Oppenheimer >>>>was a better physicist than Einstein but a complete nincompoop on the >>>>chessboard. >>> >>> >>>It proves nothing of what you claims. >>> >>>Note only that the claim that >>>"a guy with a 200 IQ can play chess like a moron" is obvious. >>> >>>Even Anand can play chess like a moron so certainly a guy with a 200 IQ that >>>only learned the rules before the game can play like a moron >>> >>>I do not know when Oppenheimer learned the rules of chess and what is his >>>experience when he lost the game so I have no opinion on his talent for chess >>>based on that game. >>> >>> >>>[Event "Biel-B"] >>>[Site "Biel"] >>>[Date "1988.07.??"] >>>[Round "9"] >>>[White "Zapata,Alonso"] >>>[Black "Anand,Viswanathan"] >>>[Result "1-0"] >>>[Eco "C42"] >>>1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Nc3 Bf5 6.Qe2 1-0 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>TJ >>>> >>>>PS I have seen this in many highly intelligent people. They can be blindingly >>>>brilliant but no good at chess. >>> >>>Of course >>> >>>I think that if you want to be fair you need to tell us what is their experience >>>in chess. >>> >>>Chess is a game when people with no experience have no chance. >>> >>>I believe that every brilliant person can become a master if he decides that it >>>is important for him. >>> >>>It probably was never important for them to be good in chess. >>> >>>I have no special talent for chess(I even cannot play blindfold) but I got the >>>title of candidate master few days ago(Israeli rating above 2070 when Isreli >>>rating is equivalent to fide rating). >>> >> >>I'm not sure I follow the logic here but anyway there are many different types >>of talent. I've seen plenty of people who were brilliant at math who couldn't >>throw a football or make a lay-up to save their lives. And vice-versa. And it >>wasn't a matter of enough training. Chess is just another thing you can either >>get, or not get. >> >>Vas > >Of course there are different types of talent and I do not claim that everybody >can get rating of 2600 with enough training. > >My point is that I believe that most people can achieve master level(fide rating >of 2300) by training if they decide that it is really important for them >and decide to learn to think correctly and to learn opening theory and endgames. > >learning to think correctly is very important because typical mistake is not >considering the next move of the opponent or not considering the next move of >yourself and I believe that it is possible to learn to avoid this type of >mistake by training even without being able to play blindfold. > >Uri > >Uri Aha, yeah - ok, this I agree with. You can always learn more and more, this won't break down for a while. Probably most people could gradually get up to 2500 or so, maybe even more. I thought you were trying to draw some parallel between ability for physics and ability for chess. As I understand these things, there just isn't that much similarity. A properly-trained Oppenheimer would be as likely to have trouble with chess as with something like football. Vas
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.