"Old School" Poker Argument Brought to Chess
If you rounded up all the 2400s between 20 and 30 and they were to do nothing but study chess all day with the help of t
Okay so since you are now both insisting on this strange narrative that he 1)got better positions in every single game and 2)did some (major?) theoretical breakthrough in the Italian let me look at those games. When exactly was this tournament played again?
It's not strange but I also wouldn't make it so strong. Rather than some "major breakthrough" he breathed a bunch of new life into the Italian and it's been a mainstay in top level chess again since then.
Also, I doubt he got better positions in every single game. But he did in many. I think in most of those exhibition events he plays he demonstrates he would be a very strong player if he came back. He couldn't compete for the title, though.
I'm not that into chess, so I may show some of ignorance here, but natural abilities like intuition, spotting patterns, good memory, etc. can be developed, but they can't be taught. My guess is that Bobby was miles ahead of pretty much everyone in most of these categories.
Great poker players are better at picking up on subtle tells, reading ranges and understanding their opponents. It's impossible to play perfect GTO, but a super genius will pretty much do that (as much as a human can) but with more information than HUD stats. Both games are so complicated that the human element is always a factor.
11:30. Hard to get good at this sort of thing with the help of a computer. You may get better, but practice with only get you so far. There's probably someone out there that can do 1000 piece jigsaw puzzles in twenty minutes. Teach that!
I'm not that into chess, so I may show some of ignorance here, but natural abilities like intuition, spotting patterns, good memory, etc. can be developed, but they can't be taught. My guess is that Bobby was miles ahead of pretty much everyone in most of these categories. Great poker players are better at picking up on subtle tells, reading ranges and understanding their oppon
This might help .
Most titled chess players are taught chess as a language, essentially. They are taught to understand chess in a certain pattern-matching way that kids are really good at. It's why young chess players have a reputation for being all about complex tactical positions. Because that's what they're best at: tactics, tactics, tactics.
You really drill a kid openings, tactics, and basic endgames, and that kid can become an FM and beat most people on Earth.
Carlsen is right. What separates the BEST players is the ability to get past that into evaluations. "Positional" chess. The ability to bang out an h3 to destroy everyone's "theoretical" prep and play straight up chess, one on one.
2 years is not enough, I would say maybe 2-3%. Add 5 more years for a total of 7 years and that percentage jumps to something like 60-70%. You have to remember that there is so little money in chess that even most 2650-2700 players can't afford to spend anything close to even a basic "full-time job" amount of time on improving their own chess level (as opposed to working an unrelated job, giving lessons to relative beginners, giving away their best ideas in their role as seconds for higher rated players, looking for side income opportunities, dealing with the mundane logistics/paperwork of being a "challenger tour" pro, etc), never mind an amount of time representing serious dedication (let's say 70 hours a week or more). The average amount of time a mere 2400 spends on chess is probably well under 10 hours a week, and for most of these 20-something "were promising juniors but are now on their way out of chess" players, there was probably NEVER a time in their life when they were doing even 30 hours a week.
That said, you better not have them "study chess all day" - they also need a rigorous physical fitness regimen, at minimum (not even getting into nutrition, sports psychology, and the like). Physical fitness was a(nother) major advantage that Fischer had over most of his opponents.
I'm not that into chess, so I may show some of ignorance here, but natural abilities like intuition, spotting patterns, good memory, etc. can be developed, but they can't be taught. My guess is that Bobby was miles ahead of pretty much everyone in most of these categories. Great poker players are better at picking up on subtle tells, reading ranges and understanding their oppon
Yeah, totally get what you mean. Some of that stuff just can’t really be taught — you can train your brain to spot patterns faster or make better decisions under pressure, but there’s always that extra gear a few people are just born with.
