The wrong confession...perhaps?

[Joey Stewart]

I suppose with Fischer the attraction goes beyond simply the games themselves and more the man himself managing to defeat a the corrupt Russian regime which had long dominated chess single handed then his later life betrayal by the USA and descent into madness makes for a gripping (and somewhat tragic) story.

[Matt Mackenzie]

Plus that during his peak - even if it was brief - he towered above his contemporaries in a way maybe never seen before or after.

(since Philidor and Morphy, anyway)

[MJMcCready]

Yes that's true. It's his character more than anything that puts me off tbh. He had many issues that guy.

[NickFaulks]

managing to defeat a the corrupt Russian regime which had long dominated chess

One version, I suppose. Another is that Botvinnik, Smyslov, Tal, Petrosian and Spassky were all pretty good at chess ( though only three of them were Russian ).

[Jonathan Bryant]

It's the patterns as well. There was a televised test on Nigel Short once. If they showed him a position for teconds, he could recall it provided it was a plausible game position. Place pieces and pawns at random on the board and he couldn't. Arguably that's because you see familar structures, so there's a lot less to remember. With random placing you have to remember the whereabouts of up to 32 items or the contents of 64 squares.

I remember a similar TV test involving Susan Polgar. She was sitting in some cafe and a van drove past with a chess position on the side of it. The test was to see if she could reconstruct the position accurately.

Which she could - no doubt helped by the fact that it was a theoretical position from a line of the Zaitsev that Karpov had liked to play quite a bit in the years before the programme was made.

I do remember reference to serious research on this topic though - in my psychology textbook from the course I took in my first year at university. If memory serves it was part of the de groot series. Various people shown positions for a very limited time then asked to reconstruct what they had seen.

Anyway the results - of the actual proper controlled experiment - were that stronger chess were better than weaker ones. Weaker players were better than non-players. All of this was from positions from actual games. Random placement - everybody equally good/bad. Chess skill didn't matter.

All of which strikes me as not particularly surprising - but the myth of top chess players somehow having super special memory persists. Even amongst chess players.

[Mick Norris]

I do remember reference to serious research on this topic though - in my psychology textbook from the course I took in my first year at university. If memory serves it was part of the de groot series. Various people shown positions for a very limited time then asked to reconstruct what they had seen.

My daughter's just started Psychology at Hull; today they have been doing Chess Expertise, with reference to DeGroot (1865) and Chase&Simon (1973)

They have been told it takes 3,000 hours to become an expert, and 30,000 to be a chess master so about 10 years

She's then asked me how long I have been playing

[Christopher Kreuzer]

De Groot (1965)!

I'd never actually seen a picture of him before:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adriaan_de_Groot

Came across this interesting wiki:

https://www.chessprogramming.org/William_Chase
https://www.chessprogramming.org/Herbert_Simon

https://www.chessprogramming.org/Chunking
https://www.chessprogramming.org/Pattern_Recognition

Of course, never use wikis for any assignments!!

[Ian Thompson]

My daughter's just started Psychology at Hull; today they have been doing Chess Expertise, with reference to DeGroot (1865) and Chase&Simon (1973)

They have been told it takes 3,000 hours to become an expert, and 30,000 to be a chess master so about 10 years

Did she question what she was being told? 30,000 hours in 10 years is an average of about 57 hours per week or, if you prefer, 8 hours per day every day for 10 years. Who has sufficient free time to do that, never mind the motivation?

[Roger de Coverly]

Did she question what she was being told? 30,000 hours in 10 years is an average of about 57 hours per week or, if you prefer, 8 hours per day every day for 10 years. Who has sufficient free time to do that, never mind the motivation?

At around the time in the late 1960s or early 1970s, it used to be quoted that Portisch of Hungary was putting in the daily hours quoted. This was cited as an explanation as to why contemporary British players didn't make it to world elite. Not being full time professional players, they didn't have that amount of time available. That was an opinion overtaken by events not so many years later.

But either more effective learning methods have been devised, or the 30000 hours fails to allow for genius or natural talent, as I do not think that many of the several thousand titled players of the fifty years since the De Groot paper have put in those kind of hours. You can wonder how much of what is taught in Universities is actually reliable in practice,

[Kevin Thurlow]

"She's then asked me how long I have been playing "

Brilliant!

At Guernsey one year, Bruno Carlier was being interviewed by one of the Guernsey radio stations (ok there are only two I think) and he was asked how much he studied chess, and he replied along the lines of, "8 hours a day, like a normal job".

[Mark Howitt]

Yeah I've read various things about the time it takes to get good at something...

2 key factors are talent and deliberate practice.

[Mark Howitt]

All depends what you're talking about of course...

With physical things everyone gets slower more or less as they get older no matter how much talent u have...

I'm never going to be to do 100m in 14 secs again which is annoying but doesn't stop me walking...

For mental things though I think to an extent you can get better with age. You certainly do get more of a reputation and body of work...

[Mark Howitt]

My daughter's just started Psychology at Hull; today they have been doing Chess Expertise, with reference to DeGroot (1865) and Chase&Simon (1973)

They have been told it takes 3,000 hours to become an expert, and 30,000 to be a chess master so about 10 years

Did she question what she was being told? 30,000 hours in 10 years is an average of about 57 hours per week or, if you prefer, 8 hours per day every day for 10 years. Who has sufficient free time to do that, never mind the motivation?

People at unis often don't have a clue (about chess at least) Mick- letting u know this for free as u seem nice guy

[Mick Norris]

"She's then asked me how long I have been playing "

Brilliant!

At Guernsey one year, Bruno Carlier was being interviewed by one of the Guernsey radio stations (ok there are only two I think) and he was asked how much he studied chess, and he replied along the lines of, "8 hours a day, like a normal job".

Cheers Kevin, she's not necessarily implying that I should be better than I am

I told her 50 years, I would say she can work it out, but maybe her A level maths teachers would not be sure

[Mick Norris]

My daughter's just started Psychology at Hull; today they have been doing Chess Expertise, with reference to DeGroot (1865) and Chase&Simon (1973)

They have been told it takes 3,000 hours to become an expert, and 30,000 to be a chess master so about 10 years

Did she question what she was being told? 30,000 hours in 10 years is an average of about 57 hours per week or, if you prefer, 8 hours per day every day for 10 years. Who has sufficient free time to do that, never mind the motivation?

Yes Ian, that's why she took a photo of the slide and sent it to me and asked me

I think Boris Gelfand would have clocked up the hours, but I agree it's more complex than that