lichess.org
Donate

Want to be a grandmaster in chess? Choose your parents wisely.

In my opinion, chess is the sport that needs the least talent. The memory to remember opening lines and intuition is far easier for some. You can still overcome this just by sheer training and repetition. This is not the same as a five footer vs a seven footer in basketball. The GM title is fairly achievable if you spend enough time on the right things with the right resources. IQ doesn't matter much considering how stupid some gms and supergms are outside of chess. :)

In my opinion, chess is the sport that needs the least talent. The memory to remember opening lines and intuition is far easier for some. You can still overcome this just by sheer training and repetition. This is not the same as a five footer vs a seven footer in basketball. The GM title is fairly achievable if you spend enough time on the right things with the right resources. IQ doesn't matter much considering how stupid some gms and supergms are outside of chess. :)

8×11+8, its easy logic if u are from Russian school.
I know some bad gay who have iq about maybe 60-80, he's criminal, but he impressed gamer of chess. Mind can build body, and body can build mind, in medical university i see people whos got up after carcrush, only will give people perfect gift

8×11+8, its easy logic if u are from Russian school. I know some bad gay who have iq about maybe 60-80, he's criminal, but he impressed gamer of chess. Mind can build body, and body can build mind, in medical university i see people whos got up after carcrush, only will give people perfect gift

You don't even need the numbers to the left of the "results".
Watching how the results progress is enough (+7, +9, +11, +13, +15, +17, +19...).
5, 12, 21, 32, 45, 60, 77, 96...

You don't even need the numbers to the left of the "results". Watching how the results progress is enough (+7, +9, +11, +13, +15, +17, +19...). 5, 12, 21, 32, 45, 60, 77, 96...

starting early matters more than talent in chess. far more.

starting early matters more than talent in chess. far more.
<Comment deleted by user>

@sac_and_cheese said in #15:

starting early matters more than talent in chess. far more.

Not sure what 'matters more' means. And, not sure what 'starting early' means. You need to define it. Having said that, if you start playing early at age 6 (and have little to no talent) and I start later at age 16 (and have talent), and we have the same chess coaches and put in the same time practicing, and all other things being equal, there's no doubt in my mind I'd achieve GM before you do. In fact, you may never reach GM since you may not have the requisite talent or any talent for that matter. So, starting early (age 6 vs 16) has nothing to do with reaching the desired goal- lets say a GM title. The reason you hardly see any GMs, that start chess later in life, is because most adults at age 16 or more don't have the time to practice/study because of school, work, travel, etc. Now, if you start MUCH later, lets say 26, then you start factoring in cognitive decline...which is not a fair comparison. Studies have shown that chess performance increases rapidly until the early 20s, plateaus around age 35, and then begins to decline after 45.

@sac_and_cheese said in #15: > starting early matters more than talent in chess. far more. Not sure what 'matters more' means. And, not sure what 'starting early' means. You need to define it. Having said that, if you start playing early at age 6 (and have little to no talent) and I start later at age 16 (and have talent), and we have the same chess coaches and put in the same time practicing, and all other things being equal, there's no doubt in my mind I'd achieve GM before you do. In fact, you may never reach GM since you may not have the requisite talent or any talent for that matter. So, starting early (age 6 vs 16) has nothing to do with reaching the desired goal- lets say a GM title. The reason you hardly see any GMs, that start chess later in life, is because most adults at age 16 or more don't have the time to practice/study because of school, work, travel, etc. Now, if you start MUCH later, lets say 26, then you start factoring in cognitive decline...which is not a fair comparison. Studies have shown that chess performance increases rapidly until the early 20s, plateaus around age 35, and then begins to decline after 45.

@mullerrj said in #17:

Not sure what 'matters more' means. And, not sure what 'starting early' means. You need to define it. Having said that, if you start playing early at age 6 (and have little to no talent) and I start later at age 16 (and have talent), and we have the same chess coaches and put in the same time practicing, and all other things being equal, there's no doubt in my mind I'd achieve GM before you do. In fact, you may never reach GM since you may not have the requisite talent or any talent for that matter. So, starting early (age 6 vs 16) has nothing to do with reaching the desired goal- lets say a GM title. The reason you hardly see any GMs, that start chess later in life, is because most adults at age 16 or more don't have the time to practice/study because of school, work, travel, etc. Now, if you start MUCH later, lets say 26, then you start factoring in cognitive decline...which is not a fair comparison. Studies have shown that chess performance increases rapidly until the early 20s, plateaus around age 35, and then begins to decline after 45.

Experience is far more important than talent. A ten year experience gap is impossible to catch up to even with all the talent in the world if you do not train more. Complaining about something you can't change is useless. Just because someone was born with more money than you is that enough of an excuse to not be successful? It seems far more satisfying to me knowing that everything you have was earned yourself.

@mullerrj said in #17: > Not sure what 'matters more' means. And, not sure what 'starting early' means. You need to define it. Having said that, if you start playing early at age 6 (and have little to no talent) and I start later at age 16 (and have talent), and we have the same chess coaches and put in the same time practicing, and all other things being equal, there's no doubt in my mind I'd achieve GM before you do. In fact, you may never reach GM since you may not have the requisite talent or any talent for that matter. So, starting early (age 6 vs 16) has nothing to do with reaching the desired goal- lets say a GM title. The reason you hardly see any GMs, that start chess later in life, is because most adults at age 16 or more don't have the time to practice/study because of school, work, travel, etc. Now, if you start MUCH later, lets say 26, then you start factoring in cognitive decline...which is not a fair comparison. Studies have shown that chess performance increases rapidly until the early 20s, plateaus around age 35, and then begins to decline after 45. Experience is far more important than talent. A ten year experience gap is impossible to catch up to even with all the talent in the world if you do not train more. Complaining about something you can't change is useless. Just because someone was born with more money than you is that enough of an excuse to not be successful? It seems far more satisfying to me knowing that everything you have was earned yourself.

@secondavenue said in #18:

Experience is far more important than talent. A ten year experience gap is impossible to catch up to even with all the talent in the world if you do not train more. Complaining about something you can't change is useless. Just because someone was born with more money than you is that enough of an excuse to not be successful? It seems far more satisfying to me knowing that everything you have was earned yourself.

Experience doesn't guarantee competence or achievement. I've seen talented kids with just 2 yrs. experience beat older less talented players with 20+ yrs. experience all the time. Just come to my local Monday night chess club. What does 'far more important mean' anyway? And, who is 'complaining about something you can't change'? Seems like you're trying to justify why you've never reached GM (or your desired title) despite countless years of study/practice/experience- which may have been your goal.

@secondavenue said in #18: > Experience is far more important than talent. A ten year experience gap is impossible to catch up to even with all the talent in the world if you do not train more. Complaining about something you can't change is useless. Just because someone was born with more money than you is that enough of an excuse to not be successful? It seems far more satisfying to me knowing that everything you have was earned yourself. Experience doesn't guarantee competence or achievement. I've seen talented kids with just 2 yrs. experience beat older less talented players with 20+ yrs. experience all the time. Just come to my local Monday night chess club. What does 'far more important mean' anyway? And, who is 'complaining about something you can't change'? Seems like you're trying to justify why you've never reached GM (or your desired title) despite countless years of study/practice/experience- which may have been your goal.

@mullerrj said in #19:

Experience doesn't guarantee competence or achievement. I've seen talented kids with just 2 yrs. experience beat older less talented players with 20+ yrs. experience all the time. Just come to my local Monday night chess club. What does 'far more important mean' anyway? And, who is 'complaining about something you can't change'? Seems like you're trying to justify why you've never reached GM (or your desired title) despite countless years of study/practice/experience- which may have been your goal.

Your example was quite literally having the same chess coaches and put in the same time practicing, and all other things being equal. That means that those older players did not train as hard or as efficient. As for me not being a gm I am thirteen years old. I have played in numerous big open events and I am still currently doing my best. I am not trying to insult you but I just do not agree with your point of view.

@mullerrj said in #19: > Experience doesn't guarantee competence or achievement. I've seen talented kids with just 2 yrs. experience beat older less talented players with 20+ yrs. experience all the time. Just come to my local Monday night chess club. What does 'far more important mean' anyway? And, who is 'complaining about something you can't change'? Seems like you're trying to justify why you've never reached GM (or your desired title) despite countless years of study/practice/experience- which may have been your goal. Your example was quite literally having the same chess coaches and put in the same time practicing, and all other things being equal. That means that those older players did not train as hard or as efficient. As for me not being a gm I am thirteen years old. I have played in numerous big open events and I am still currently doing my best. I am not trying to insult you but I just do not agree with your point of view.