What makes a chessplayer Is it inherited

[matt_ward]

Hello again, I can't get away from this forum it's definitely a addiction; I am curious to know people's views of what the essentials of becoming a great chess player, I know this is a "Old chessnut" but would like any comments on what it takes to become a grandmaster or any title.

People say chess is not inherited but I ask the question because other scientific modifications of the body are inherited from one of your parents! So why would chess not be inherited because the chances are someone in the family encouraged you to play chess.

Although I know people that have parents that are both titled, and they are no where to there standard is this because they are not as motivated, or they are lacking discipline and patience, who knows? I mean I started chess when I was 15 to 16 so I have been playing maybe 3 years If I am lucky and hitting about 170 or over.

I studied chess abit but not that much because if I am honest I don't like the effort of studying something which I don't think or I KNOW! I can't make a living at. And Chess is a extremely badly paid occupation, although it's something you enjoy it's certainly lacking money, I would preferably play poker!

Matt.

[Alex Holowczak]

There was a segment of a Horizon programme titled "What Makes a Genius?" a few months back.

Simon Williams and Stuart Conquest played a game of chess, and their brain activity was compared. Apparently, their brains work in very different ways to how a non-GM would play. The scientist who conducted the experiment - a frustrated chessplayer who couldn't be a GM despite putting in massive amounts of effort - concluded that from his experiments around the world, chess players are born, not made.

[matt_ward]

So you believe that you even are born with it or your not!, I find this hard to believe because some IM's never become GM's or, young players improve rapidly however I guess that's because they have the ability there in the first place.

matt.

[Arshad Ali]

Simon Williams and Stuart Conquest played a game of chess, and their brain activity was compared. Apparently, their brains work in very different ways to how a non-GM would play. The scientist who conducted the experiment - a frustrated chessplayer who couldn't be a GM despite putting in massive amounts of effort - concluded that from his experiments around the world, chess players are born, not made.

That's why speed chess is taken as the litmus test of innate chess ability. Of course the innate ability isn't enough -- it has to be honed and supplemented with study of endings, openings, positional play, and so on. But without that innate ability, a player won't go far.

[Richard James]

The latest research is leaning towards nurture being more important than nature, although, of course, you need both, which, I guess, is good news for all chess teachers.

Recent popular books by the likes of Geoff Colvin and Daniel Coyle have drawn our attention to the 10 year 10000 hour rule, which is based on 30 years of research by the Swedish psychologist Anders Ericsson. This states that to achieve expertise in a domain such as sport, music, maths or chess requires 10000 hours of 'deep practice' over 10 years. However, Coyle, in The Talent Code, rather shoots himself in the foot by claiming that 'Bobby Fischer put in nine hard years before achieving his grandmaster status at age seventeen'!

'Deep practice' or 'deliberate practice' (let's just call it DP) involves, according to Ericsson, working on technique, seeking constant critical feedback, and focussing ruthlessly on shoring up weaknesses. And this, I guess, was very much what Laszlo Polgar was doing with his daughters.

10000 hours over 10 years is about 20 hours a week, which is why Karel and Merijn van Delft, in their book Developing Chess Talent (essential reading for anyone involved in junior chess in any way) talk about ambitious young players needing to spend 10-20 hours a week on the game.

[Keith Arkell]

It's inate - full stop. Chess coaching is just a gimmick designed to employ coaches.I'm good at chess,reasoning,logic,hand/eye co-ordination stuff(useful for eg table tennis,table football,putting...);but equally I'm hopeless at drawing,dancing,public speaking,singing,learning boring things,languages,etc etc,and any amount of coaching won't alter these basic facts..There is nothing more painful to see than a kid who is hopeless at chess receiving coaching becauses it's parents demand it.

[matt_ward]

So Keith you only believe coaching is employed for people to make money, I must admit I wouldn't get coaching at my age 18 now; I simply wouldn't see it as beneficial and therefore wouldn't invest in it. I am totally with you on that.

" There is nothing more painful to see than a kid who is hopeless at chess receiving coaching becauses it's parents demand it."

I guess they just think well if we get a top GM, or IM or whatever then they will become a "genius" people seem to be deluded by this, I mean I personally think you'll either have it or you want; I also guess people have a different concept of what is defined as "Talented", and "Good" I mean how do you judge to be fair who has talent and is worth getting a coach or who is "Good". I mean if a parent asked someone who gives coaching of cause they are just going to be naive and say "well yeah he would definitely be good and if he had a coach.

To some extent I believe coaching is a good contributing factor I mean no one would refuse coaching for lets say Gary Kasparov, for example and however bad at chess you would improve to some degree. But I think there in general if your a ameteur then and you don't believe you have the ability there then I agree with you keith that their is probably nothing with some books and dvd's that you couldn't coach yourself independently and become quiet good.

Lastly a final point is Robert James Fischer has proven this he worked pretty much alone for all his life and was obsessed with chess, possibly a contributing factor of his behaviour and his anti social remarks towards the jews and the americans.

Although he did in fairness get alot of stick from them.

Matt.

[matt_ward]

Richard that is an interesting rule, although I don't tend to believe that's always the "rule of thumb", I mean for example most of the youngesters, in chess that are world class international GM's probably havn't spent 10,000 hours on chess yet in there life have they. For example Anish Giri, Ray Roberston, although to be fair I notice you said to "achieve expertise in a domain." I guess again it's determined on what you call "Good standard"

I assume that 10,000 hours of becoming an expert in a domain is the maximum it should take you although depending on how much time you spend daily on your domain this would then depend on how many hours in total it would take you to become a expert.

I mean it's seems relative to self opinion, I mean what " I call a expert in a domain might be different to what you call it". But it's a definitely interesting point. I will have to take a read at that book definitely seems worth it, I assume you have read it.

Regarding what you said Richard, to my best knowledge Please correct me if I am wrong which I have no doubt you will, Didn't Robert James Fischer become a GM at 15 1/2 because I remember he was the youngest candidate to take a shot at the World championship at that time.

Matt.

[Richard James]

Matt

You're quite right: Fischer became a GM at 15 years 6 months 1 day. That's why I said that Coyle shot himself in the foot by claiming that he became a GM at 17. Clearly some outstandingly talented individuals can reach the top in less than 10 years.

[Matthew Turner]

We have talked about the 10,000 hour rule quite a bit at School and the general concensus is that it is not too far wide of the mark. Bobby Fischer might have become a GM at 15 and a half, but I would suggest that he often spent more than 20 hours a week on chess, so it is perfectly consistent that he would reach the top in under ten years.
If we think about today's examples, like Ray Robson, imagine he is playing a serious tournament with a game a day. Each game might last an average of four hours, but there will probably be an hour of preparation and hour of analysis so that is six hours a day, 42 hours a week. Of course, Ray Robson will have some weeks 'off', but If you accept Ericsson theory then a chess player might be able to reach the top in 5 years.
I think this is a useful way of thinking about training and development, but I do find it worrying when there are certain sports where competitors reach the top at a very young age. Can they really be having a balanced upbringing?

[Arshad Ali]

We have talked about the 10,000 hour rule quite a bit at School and the general concensus is that it is not too far wide of the mark.

And I would agree. But that doesn't mean talent isn't a central factor. Every promising player has to learn a lot of material. Magnus Carlsen (or any number of other GMs and IMs) know automatically what to do in, say, R+4P vs. R+3P endings: they'll have spent scores of hours just studying those. The book learning hones and supplements their natural ability. But my spending the same time doesn't yield the same mastery. Or I study an opening (say the Sveshnikov) but I can't remember the lines exactly. Strong players remember faster and with more accuracy. Or I go over a master game -- but I can't recall it later except in broad themes and outlines. Strong players can recall the game perfectly weeks later. I can't play a single blindfold game without blundering. Others can play three or five or ten games blindfold without blundering. In passing, I recall Jon Levitt wrote a book some years back, titled "Genius in Chess," where he examines this question of intrinsic ability in more depth. In particular, I also recall he examines the difference between himself (a 2500 player) and 2700 players.

I recall an incident in Somerset Maugham's semi-autobiographical novel, "Of Human Bondage." The protagonist, Philip Carey, has just been showing his sketches to an art teacher and asking whether he has any talent. The teacher shrugs and says that Carey shows some basic aptitude and that he sketches better than hundreds -- but that hundreds sketch better than him. That's what it means to be mediocre. Hard, disciplined work will move one up the ladder a bit -- maybe a fair bit -- but the pinnacles will forever remain out of reach.

[Ben Purton]

Is it therefore bad that ive put in less than 400 hours work on my chess.

Does ICC count as work?

Ben

[Louise Sinclair]

The makings of a first class chess player employ the same values as other forms of success. Persistence, self discipline, talent, killer instinct, mental stamina,practice, a memory for patterns, agility and the ability to rise above personal circumstances.

[Alexander Hardwick]

Believe it or not, three months ago I wrote an entire extended essay on the subject "Are Chess Grandmasters Born or Made". (And yes, I do know that it is just a glorified nature vs nurture essay applied!)

Conclusion was that GMs are definitely made (so there is still hope!) Surprisingly enough, looking at the evidence, not only chess training/practice/theory learning has an effect - it can also help to perform generic brain/memory training exercises.

As I discovered, the main talent that the chess "stars" have developed is in fact pattern recognition. One key piece of evidence for this was a study performed by Dutch psychologist Adriaan de Groot (I think it was him, I'll check later) who collected 3 groups of chess players - masters, experts, and average-players. He showed each group two different sets of chess board positions - one set composed of logical positions/motifs that might well be reached during a real game, and the other set made up of random, illogical chess positions, sometimes with the pieces placed illegally. All the groups of players scored around 50% on the random positions, but on the logical positions the masters performed markedly better than the experts and averagers. This suggests that the ability to recognise key patterns and motifs - even if these have not been specifically "memorised" beforehand. It is presumed that successful recognition is the key to correct reaction, and thus playing a better game and, well, winning.

Best wishes,

Alexander.

[Joey Stewart]

I have wondered to myself whether it is simply the way each player approaches the position, and their ability to break it down into workable segments, that defines how good they are at the game.
After reading think like a grandmaster by alexander kotov I finally realised what people were on about when they said I never had a plan (I always thought it was just a snide comment that most strong players use to demean their weaker opponents before that) and how the position can be worked on one bit at a time to examine each element present at that moment and then build up some sort of coordinated approach to winning - this certainly had an impact back then, and moved me from the realms of 120 quite quickly up to 150 - not that I think I am a 'natrual' player whatsoever, hence the reason I will never go all that far in the grand scheme of things, but I do believe that the process of calculating can be taught by somebody who really understands it to a lesser player.