I dont think it's easier to be a GM nowadays because everyone has access to the above mentioned programs. As a result, there are a heck of a lot more people playing chess, and only the ones that got a certain amount of talent make it to the top.
Tony is correct. It is easier to become really really good, and its easier to become really really good at a really really young age...but if "top" is defined as something like "top 50" it is clearly harder to become top the more people are in the pool of people trying to excel at chess, and the more energy those people expend trying to succeed. Thus, by that measure, it is much harder now to become a "top GM" (even though it is much easier to become really really good at chess).
Sam Hamilton wrote:Tony is correct. It is easier to become really really good, and its easier to become really really good at a really really young age...but if "top" is defined as something like "top 50" it is clearly harder to become top the more people are in the pool of people trying to excel at chess, and the more energy those people expend trying to succeed. Thus, by that measure, it is much harder now to become a "top GM" (even though it is much easier to become really really good at chess).
-Sam
True but still chess is much better understood today than it was in the time of Steinitz and Morphy. GMs play much more informed and accurate chess nowadays than they did back in the time of Steinitz, Morphy and later Nimzowitsch who was born 2 years after Morphy died. Back in the times of Steinitz and Nimzowitsch there were no chess programs to assist you in the calculation.
Also chess talent is not innate. It is mostly acquired by a lot of teaching, reading, practice and good nutrition. Kasparov for example had some of the best chess teachers, that's why he was so good.
Uri wrote:Also chess talent is not innate. It is mostly acquired by a lot of teaching, reading, practice and good nutrition. Kasparov for example had some of the best chess teachers, that's why he was so good.
Botvinnink....may he rest in peace
_No one can hit as hard as life.But it ain’t about how hard you can hit.It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.How much you can take and keep moving forward….
Uri wrote:Also chess talent is not innate. It is mostly acquired by a lot of teaching, reading, practice and good nutrition. Kasparov for example had some of the best chess teachers, that's why he was so good.
I disagree with that. See Karpov or Capablanca. Born talent. Reshevsky too.
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz
Uri wrote:Also chess talent is not innate. It is mostly acquired by a lot of teaching, reading, practice and good nutrition. Kasparov for example had some of the best chess teachers, that's why he was so good.
I do not agree, the talent might not be 100% innate, but some seem to be better than others even as beginners...
Uri wrote:Also chess talent is not innate. It is mostly acquired by a lot of teaching, reading, practice and good nutrition. Kasparov for example had some of the best chess teachers, that's why he was so good.
I do not agree, the talent might not be 100% innate, but some seem to be better than others even as beginners...
maybe Some seem to be better than others as beginners, there are lots of factors, but once they start playing at higher level, coaching and extensive training is definite elo booster, and thats the only way, there would almost be no such thing as innate qualities seen at higher level.
Uri wrote:Also chess talent is not innate. It is mostly acquired by a lot of teaching, reading, practice and good nutrition. Kasparov for example had some of the best chess teachers, that's why he was so good.
I do not agree, the talent might not be 100% innate, but some seem to be better than others even as beginners...
maybe Some seem to be better than others as beginners, there are lots of factors, but once they start playing at higher level, coaching and extensive training is definite elo booster, and thats the only way, there would almost be no such thing as innate qualities seen at higher level.
I agree but it does not mean that talent is not innate.
I do not talk about talent to do relatively well as a beginner but about
talent to take advantage of training more than other people.
Uri wrote:Also chess talent is not innate. It is mostly acquired by a lot of teaching, reading, practice and good nutrition. Kasparov for example had some of the best chess teachers, that's why he was so good.
I do not agree, the talent might not be 100% innate, but some seem to be better than others even as beginners...
maybe Some seem to be better than others as beginners, there are lots of factors, but once they start playing at higher level, coaching and extensive training is definite elo booster, and thats the only way, there would almost be no such thing as innate qualities seen at higher level.
I agree but it does not mean that talent is not innate.
I do not talk about talent to do relatively well as a beginner but about
talent to take advantage of training more than other people.
