Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili ( Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.
This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.
[http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl...]
Click here to search for discussions with Omgili discussions search engine.
 |
ChessPub Forum - Just How Rare and Special are Good Chess Players?
Hi all,
As many of you already know, IM Semkov, myself and others have been having a conversation about whether anyone can attain a certain rating.
I think we've already established that it is extremely rare for a player to make 2400 elo.
However, IM Semkov argues (and please correct me if misstate your perspective, Semko) that anyone, given the right training, right culture, and right atmosphere, can become a 2400 rated player.
Here are some statistics to consider:
There are about 38800 chess players with FIDE ratings over 2000.
That is almost exactly the same number of professional soccer players registered with FIFA.
There are currently about 2000 players in the world ranked 2400 or higher.
This equates to about .5% of the top 1.5% of all rated chess players.
The Elo system was designed to ascribe ratings to past performance (it is in no way a predictor of future performance).
It uses information about groups of people to work out just how good a player is.
Every 200 rating points is supposed to equate to one standard deviation from the norm.
The norm right now is about 1500 elo, so anyone with a stats sheet can figure out that 2400 equates to a population percentile ranking of: 99.99366 divided by 2 (because you're only interested in the top group that's 4 standard deviations from the norm).
In other words, the likelihood of bumping into a 2400 rated player in a town full of chess players, is nearly 1/5000!
IM Semkov (rated 2450) argues that my statistics are superfluous because he's talking about the talent level, not the actual rating level.
He's used the Polgar Sisters as a case in point.
Rather than present my arguments in full right now, I just want to present the arguments, and get the ball rolling.
So, what do you think?
How special are these 2400 rated players?
Could you have become a 2400 rated player in the right circumstances, or does talent actually determine your peak ability?
|
|
|
"does talent actually determine your peak ability?"
Yes.
Examples like the Polgar sisters and Castlerock's kids only confirm this.
"anyone, given the right training, right culture, and right atmosphere, can become a 2400 rated player."
I'd really like to see a random trainer trying this with a pupil who has an IQ of 80.
Remember, according to formal logics, I only need to find one counterexample to prove this statement not true.
|
|
I think Jesus's parable of the talents answers this question very well.
The one with more will always obtain more than the one with less.
As far as the favourable surrounding factors/circumstances are concerned they only help to maximise what is already available at hand.
So even the servant with one talent will maximise his one talent if bothered to work at it tho he would never attain what the servant with 10 had.
But if no one wishes to put in effort at it despite the favorable surrounding circumstances, the servant with 10 talents will be no different from the servant with 1 in the parable.
He might even 'lose' all that he has.
|
|
And acording to philosphy i could drive you insane with questions about your answer Which i might do.
I beleave that the progress i have made in the 2.5 years i have been playing is pretty good.
I went from the weekest fish and now i as a crazy tactician i give the guys at the club an amazing fight one point is the club expert hes around 2035 uscf him and i were playing a game where he played a sicilian defense.
I didnt yet play the smith morra like i do now but around move 15 or so i sacrificed a knight with out clear compinsation.
He didnt hesitate to take it and it wasnt till about 10 moves later that things started to get hairy.
In the end we were both in time pressure and my flag fell first.
My conditions for chess development have not been ideal.
I lack a coach now that i am out of high school and now teach my self every thing.
The end game i learn from devoretsky and the openings from the starting out series and the Play the...
Series.
With college and work and my girlfriend i dont know it i will ever get to 2400 but i do know it is possible and if i had a gm or im coach i think i could attain it or come close.
This is an interesting topic though
|
|
I posted this in the other thread and I need to copy it here.
Let me try to understand.
This is more of a loud thinking.
Chess is a marginal activity as far as life is concerned.
More like taking the dog for a walk or spending two hours a day in the garden in front of the house every sunny day.
That I am passionate about chess is not going to make it any less marginal.
At best it is a marginal, intellectual pursuit.
It cannot be a vocation for vast majority.
You cannot be rich playing chess, unless your first name is Anand or your Surname is Topalov.
You cant even make a living out of chess unless you are among top 50.
But that requires very special talent.
Other so called pros have to short sell themselves over the wire to make a living.
On the contrary graduation is a time tested way to make a living.
Not the only way, surely.
But most important way for survival.
As a result of this training methods have evolved over time and universities are on their never ending journey towards perfection.
Now a student can go on to become a Nobel laureate (It requires a gift and talen) but to become a graduate and make a living out of that fact doesnt require any special talent.
Assuming chess has universities and training methodologies AND future as a vocation, I think becoming Anand is like becoming a Nobel laureate and becoming an IM is like becoming a graduate.
It looks like Semkov expresses the same thing.
Where are we going wrong?
|
|
[Quote: author=castlerock link=1127170665/0#4 date=1127178543]
Assuming chess has universities and training methodologies AND future as a vocation, I think becoming Anand is like becoming a Nobel laureate and becoming an IM is like becoming a graduate.
It looks like Semkov expresses the same thing.
Where are we going wrong?
[/Quote: ]
As someone else pointed out, the analogy between chess and education doesn't really hold up well.
BUT...
Remembering that statistics bit shows us something interesting where you might be going wrong.
A high school diploma in chess is worth about 1600 elo.
That is, someone who is average.
By that standard, a college degree would be one standard deviation above that, 1800.
One standard deviation above that, is someone who has gone to grad school: 2000.
Someone who has a Ph.D degree and is using it: 2200.
That is, a chess master is as rare as a PH.D.
In a popular field.
In reality, a chess master is more rare than a Ph.D.!
So anyone who breaks 2400 would be the equivalent of an acknowledged expert in the field, the sort who tends to write college text books that other professors use.
Hmmm, now the analogy begins to have true parallels.
It also means that a truly gifted professor who writes a great text is about as rare as, say, an IM/GM in chess.
That makes sense to me.
Again, the analogy between chess and education is tenuous.
But at least if we place the level of understanding at the right place (about 400 elo points lower than either you or Semkov place it) we can indeed make some positive correlations.
|
|
[Quote: author=MNb link=1127170665/0#1 date=1127172351]"does talent actually determine your peak ability?"
Yes.
[/Quote: ]
Nobody disputes it.
What is subject to debate is what is the talent level we are looking at to reach 2400 elo.
It is here I am with Semkov and TopNotch where as MNb Symslov_Fan and the rest feel otherwise.
Our argument is that IMs appear to be talented simply because chess is a marginal activity.
An average school graduate doesnt appear to be (and if fact, he is not) talented because, education is a major activity.
I dont think someone with an IQ of 80 can become an IM but someone with 110-115 IQ (Smyslov_Fans average college graduate) can become an IM with 6-8 hours of work and proper training methods.
|
|
It is all down to personality and conditions.
If you have the ability to focus on a dedicated training program and you have the possibility to do it, I think there is nothing stopping you from reaching 2400, barring some mental disability.
In this respect I think there is little difference with other sports like tennis or even music as I dont see what makes chess different.
Reaching the absolute top requires something extra.
As an example we have this pole-jumper.
The guy had been training every day from 10 years old.
This way he was able to reach the dutch top (which means he or his buddy would win the championship).
However he was never able to reach the absolute top, until very recently when he changed his training approach.
Apparently this gave him that slight little extra to go from good to top and won the world championship.
The opposite is not true btw, if you have huge talent and also enjoy playing you can reach near 2400 quite easily.
|
|
Opening, middlegame & endgame priciples are all the same be they for the beginner or for the super class GM's.
But what seperates the good players from the beginners and the good players & the good players from the GM's are 2 factors: better technique & better penetration into the subtleties of each position.
With a heavy training regime everyone can improve their technique, understanding of the game and analytical abilities.
But what cannot be learnt is the ability to really penetrate into the position as this requires a more or less photographic memory & spatial ability that allows you to really 'see' the position very much deeper, variations & all, clearly as opposed to the rest.
Those qualities are more or less God given.
With this ability the GM would be able to 'see' the better plan & make less miscalculations than the lesser masters or club players.
Hardwork & favourable circumstances help.
An average person may only be able to make it to FM level or a mediocre IM.
It is something much much more to be an 'average' GM.
|
|
How difficult is it to get to 2400 - well I would say if one is prepared to bend the rules by paying for opponents to throw games - this would be a doddle.
There are certain places where this sort of activity is unfortunately not unheard of .
Furthermore, what about the so called 'phantom' tournaments where the players have not played .
If you have enough cash , I suspect 2600 could be achieved without too much difficulty !!
The one thing I am certain of is that you are not necessarily good just by being 2400
May the force be with all of you trying to get there
Obi -Wan
|
|
"becoming an IM is like becoming a graduate."
Not everyone in the world is able to become a graduate, if we restrict ourselves to universities with a decent level.
Even in The Netherlands only 50% of the teenagers visit university.
Many people are simply not capable of reaching that intellectual level, not even in ideal circumstances.
|
|
|
|