English Chess Forum

Prompted by various thoughts in other threads (such as comparing different generations of chess players, and the 'Road to a GM' thread), I thought this BBC article would be of interest:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12140064

The article is called 'Is there a genius in all of us?'

The most relevant bits:

"The same dynamic applies to talent. This explains why today's top runners, swimmers, bicyclists, chess players, violinists and on and on, are so much more skilful than in previous generations. All of these abilities are dependent on a slow, incremental process which various micro-cultures have figured out how to improve. Until recently, the nature of this improvement was merely intuitive and all but invisible to scientists and other observers."

"Our abilities are not set in genetic stone. They are soft and sculptable, far into adulthood. With humility, with hope, and with extraordinary determination, greatness is something to which any kid - of any age - can aspire."

So if the genetic predisposition exists to play great chess, it seems it can be brought out in adulthood as well. Maybe there is hope after all, though not for everyone!

On the other hand, this might be cause for despair. If, as a group, chess-players are much more skilful today than in previous generations, won't there be some (or many) within the group that won't become GMs despite attaining an "absolute standard" that previously may have been sufficient to be a GM? I suspect this sort of thing has been discussed before on this forum...

Geoff Marchant wrote:On the other hand, this might be cause for despair. If, as a group, chess-players are much more skilful today than in previous generations, won't there be some (or many) within the group that won't become GMs despite attaining an "absolute standard" that previously may have been sufficient to be a GM? I suspect this sort of thing has been discussed before on this forum...

Cue Keith Arkell

Is there a GM in all of us? Well, it may be advisable to select your norm opportunities very carefully ...

By chance, I was recently browsing some tough looking tournaments that didn't even make category 10 and stumbled on this one :-

1988 Nov. 56th ch-URS sf. Klaipeda URS (Cat. 9) - Dolmatov, Gelfand 10.5/16, Psakhis 10, Balashov 9.5, Oll, Smirin, Aseev 9, Dokhoian 8, Rozentalis, A Mikhalchishin, Ionov 7.5, Kholmov, Shirov 7, Goldin, Lukin, Magerramov 6.5, Guseinov 4.5 (17).

The GM norm was set at 12 points, meaning you'd have needed to outscore Dolmatov and Gelfand by 1.5 points! Now obviously some of those guys weren't quite the players then that they later became, but even so ... would anyone have fancied their chances?

Colin Patterson wrote:Is there a GM in all of us? Well, it may be advisable to select your norm opportunities very carefully ...

By chance, I was recently browsing some tough looking tournaments that didn't even make category 10 and stumbled on this one :-

1988 Nov. 56th ch-URS sf. Klaipeda URS (Cat. 9) - Dolmatov, Gelfand 10.5/16, Psakhis 10, Balashov 9.5, Oll, Smirin, Aseev 9, Dokhoian 8, Rozentalis, A Mikhalchishin, Ionov 7.5, Kholmov, Shirov 7, Goldin, Lukin, Magerramov 6.5, Guseinov 4.5 (17).

The GM norm was set at 12 points, meaning you'd have needed to outscore Dolmatov and Gelfand by 1.5 points! Now obviously some of those guys weren't quite the players then that they later became, but even so ... would anyone have fancied their chances?

Kholmov, Rozentalis, Oll were also terrifyingly strong players (I met Oll, incidentally, in Tallinn in 1994), and I've heard of Goldin and Lukin as well. The norm is ridiculously high. Though in partial mitigation, I think being a GM meant a bit more 23 years ago than today.

Klaipeda is in Latvia (I think). I played in a tournament in Riga in 1995 -- three losses, three draws, and one win. And this against amateurs. My first piece of advice to anyone wanting a FIDE title is to live and play in Eastern Europe or Russia. It will be painful but it will involve ascending a steep learning curve. No pain, no gain.

Correction: Klaipeda is in Lithuania.

And Magerramov was, of course, Gazza's sparring partner in his childhood days

Sean Hewitt wrote: Cue Keith Arkell

"The same dynamic applies to talent. This explains why today's top runners, swimmers, bicyclists, chess players, violinists and on and on, are so much more skilful than in previous generations. All of these abilities are dependent on a slow, incremental process which various micro-cultures have figured out how to improve. Until recently, the nature of this improvement was merely intuitive and all but invisible to scientists and other observers."

haha - the programme is simply stating the bleeding obvious if we look around us,so 'nuf said!

Arshad Avni: ''I think being a GM meant a bit more 23 years ago than today''. Err no Arshad - assuming that the above is true then the average GM today is more skillful than the average GM 23 years ago,and the same goes for 150s and 100s...

Arshad Ali wrote:[My first piece of advice to anyone wanting a FIDE title is to live and play in Eastern Europe or Russia. It will be painful but it will involve ascending a steep learning curve. No pain, no gain.

Surely that would be the most difficult way of getting a FIDE title. If the sole aim is to get a title then you should transfer to a country with hardly any titled players and play in Olympiad, zonals etc where you will be awarded a title for relatively little. Note the number of low rated players with titles from these countries. Otherwise you should play in all-play-alls where you have a guaranteed norm opportunity to avoid the frustration of playing unrateds or not enough titled players etc

LozCooper wrote:

Arshad Ali wrote:[My first piece of advice to anyone wanting a FIDE title is to live and play in Eastern Europe or Russia. It will be painful but it will involve ascending a steep learning curve. No pain, no gain.

Surely that would be the most difficult way of getting a FIDE title. If the sole aim is to get a title then you should transfer to a country with hardly any titled players and play in Olympiad, zonals etc where you will be awarded a title for relatively little. Note the number of low rated players with titles from these countries. Otherwise you should play in all-play-alls where you have a guaranteed norm opportunity to avoid the frustration of playing unrateds or not enough titled players etc

You are right. I should have said, "If you want to become a legimately strong player who actually deserves a FIDE title." IMs from backwater countries often have playing strength in the 2200s and 2300s.

With regard to a point Keith made, I'm not sure that a 2600 player is stronger than a 2600 player of 25 years ago. My feeling is some rating inflation has taken place (though the general standard of play is higher without taking ratings into account). World-class players like Gligoric were 2605 at the peak of their strength, and players like Portisch and Pachman were probably also not rated any higher. It was consequently more difficult to get GM norms in those days.

I also think that some of us are just not made to be GMs. I got to a certain level in chess and realised my temperament was basically unsuitable. I totally lacked the killer instinct (remember Nigel Short - Trap. Dominate. F-ck). Just don't have it in me. And my nerves got to me. I had the chess yips - I was scared to take my hand off the piece and play the move in case it was wrong.

Arshad Ali wrote: With regard to a point Keith made, I'm not sure that a 2600 player is stronger than a 2600 player of 25 years ago. My feeling is some rating inflation has taken place (though the general standard of play is higher without taking ratings into account). World-class players like Gligoric were 2605 at the peak of their strength, and players like Portisch and Pachman were probably also not rated any higher. It was consequently more difficult to get GM norms in those days.

I agree with you Ali that it was a more impressive achievement to perform at 2600 23 years ago than it is to do so today. This is clearly true because back then you would have had to perform at the level of someone inside the world's top 50; whereas today you only have to perform at the level of someone ranked about number 200,and it is only fair to compare players with their contemporaries (and incidentally,regarding GM norms I think FIDE tried to adjust to inflation by increasing the required performance level for Gm norms from 2550 to 2600 a few decades ago).

I don't want people to misunderstand what I'm saying here,and have banged on about on numerous other threads. It is only because of the general continuous rise in the standard of chessplaying at all levels that I say that a 2600 today,despite inflation,is stronger than a 2600 player from eg 23 years ago. This involves no judgement of the players concerned,but is instead simply a reflection of which period,in the worldwide development of chess,the player happened to be active during.

Sarah de Lisle wrote:I also think that some of us are just not made to be GMs. I got to a certain level in chess and realised my temperament was basically unsuitable. I totally lacked the killer instinct (remember Nigel Short - Trap. Dominate. F-ck). Just don't have it in me. And my nerves got to me. I had the chess yips - I was scared to take my hand off the piece and play the move in case it was wrong.

I Know what you mean about the killer instinct thing Sarah. I have always particularly hated having to play to win against friends,and people I like.I stumbled over the line in the end,but that ruthless aspect has always been uncomfortable for me.I'd rather team up with my opponent and try and solve the puzzle together!

There was a certain amount of inflation in the chess ratings in the 1980s and 1990s. There is very little evidence this century of rating inflation. There has certainly been a rise in ability.
It is easier today to get a greater understanding of chess more rapidly. A hour ago I kibbitzed in Gibraltar at the Caleta Hotel a strong GM coaching a 2200+ player. This is much more common than 20 years ago. The diaspora of strong players after the split-up of the Soviet Union had a large effect. There are more international events. Game databases are valuable. Computers can be used to aid analysis. The literature is even richer.
What was impressive years ago is that players could reach tremendously high standards despite not having the tools available today.

I have known many players work tremendously hard at their chess and yet hit a ceiling. I am sure there isn't a grandmaster in all of us. I am sure many people have special skills which they may never have found out they possessed.

Stewart Reuben

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:'Is there a GM in all of us?'

If there is, would someone be kind enough to point out where mine is please?

Just a Deep Rybka away Michael.

Thank you Andrew, I'll just give my friendly local brain surgeon a call to enquire about implanting one in my head.