Stylistic bias in computer chess programs

[Aser Huerga]

10000-hours rule comes to mind: http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/10000-hour-rule

In chess I would say it works for an average player to become a Master, but not for a GM, except for those who are specially talented.

[Uri Blass]

I have heard a lot of people downplay talent and claim anyone can be a master with enough study. Oddly enough, very few of them have spent much time giving chess lessons. For every story about some 1400 that worked hard and became a master there are a thousand stories about 1400's that worked hard and never broke 1600.

talent AND hard work are needed to excel in my opinion, and I always find it confusing that anyone could think differently as that principle is considered an obvious truth in almost everything else. The idea that the main difference between Anand and my Aunt Helga is study time is just silly.

-Sam

I agree with you that the main difference between the top players and other players is not only study time but I did not read about thousand of stories about 1400's who worked and never broke 1600

I would like to read at least one story about 1400 who worked hard to improve in chess without success.

I believe that in that case he(she) simply had not the right teacher because I believe that practically every 1400 player can improve to at least 1800 with the right teacher(assuming that we do not talk about some old man with memory problems who cannot learn new things).

[Joerg Oster]

Hello Don,

may I propose Paul Keres?
Though never World Champion, he was one of the strongest players of his time.

Joerg

[Don]

I have heard a lot of people downplay talent and claim anyone can be a master with enough study. Oddly enough, very few of them have spent much time giving chess lessons. For every story about some 1400 that worked hard and became a master there are a thousand stories about 1400's that worked hard and never broke 1600.

talent AND hard work are needed to excel in my opinion, and I always find it confusing that anyone could think differently as that principle is considered an obvious truth in almost everything else. The idea that the main difference between Anand and my Aunt Helga is study time is just silly.

-Sam

I believe talent has some bearing, but it's my assertion that any reasonably intelligent person could (in theory) become at least a low level master and probably much higher if they start young. However the key is to define "hard work" which has a different meaning for everyone. A lot of people do not really know how to study properly and think spending enormous time at it is the equivalent of hard work. So I seriously doubt that anyone who has really worked "hard" at chess for years and has not improved is doing it right.

I have known players at the local club who have come faithfully for years and never break 1600 USCF ELO. They love chess and play over games of the masters and skittle all night long playing speed chess, but they are not really doing anything I would call serious study or training. In Virginia I was told by a master friend of mine about such a player who remained at the 1300 level for many many years despite playing an enormous amount of chess, playing in all the tournaments, etc. But almost overnight (it was probably 2 or 3 years) he was suddenly a 2350 player - the difference was that he suddenly got serious and applied a lot of discipline and study. It took several years for the strong players to believe what had happened, so this player was viewed as over-rated and "lucky" for a long time until people had time to adjust their thinking, he had to hold this rating for a quite a while to convince people it was real.

I cannot explain it, but intense concentration is required to reach high levels at almost anything. Some people are natural at this but it can be learned. It has nothing to with spending enormous amounts of time or "taking lessons" - although a good teacher can be a powerful motivating factor. A teacher can really shortcut the process a lot if he is a good one, but the student still has to be the one to do the actual "learning."

[Uri Blass]

I have heard a lot of people downplay talent and claim anyone can be a master with enough study. Oddly enough, very few of them have spent much time giving chess lessons. For every story about some 1400 that worked hard and became a master there are a thousand stories about 1400's that worked hard and never broke 1600.

talent AND hard work are needed to excel in my opinion, and I always find it confusing that anyone could think differently as that principle is considered an obvious truth in almost everything else. The idea that the main difference between Anand and my Aunt Helga is study time is just silly.

-Sam

I believe talent has some bearing, but it's my assertion that any reasonably intelligent person could (in theory) become at least a low level master and probably much higher if they start young. However the key is to define "hard work" which has a different meaning for everyone. A lot of people do not really know how to study properly and think spending enormous time at it is the equivalent of hard work. So I seriously doubt that anyone who has really worked "hard" at chess for years and has not improved is doing it right.

I have known players at the local club who have come faithfully for years and never break 1600 USCF ELO. They love chess and play over games of the masters and skittle all night long playing speed chess, but they are not really doing anything I would call serious study or training. In Virginia I was told by a master friend of mine about such a player who remained at the 1300 level for many many years despite playing an enormous amount of chess, playing in all the tournaments, etc. But almost overnight (it was probably 2 or 3 years) he was suddenly a 2350 player - the difference was that he suddenly got serious and applied a lot of discipline and study. It took several years for the strong players to believe what had happened, so this player was viewed as over-rated and "lucky" for a long time until people had time to adjust their thinking, he had to hold this rating for a quite a while to convince people it was real.

I cannot explain it, but intense concentration is required to reach high levels at almost anything. Some people are natural at this but it can be learned. It has nothing to with spending enormous amounts of time or "taking lessons" - although a good teacher can be a powerful motivating factor. A teacher can really shortcut the process a lot if he is a good one, but the student still has to be the one to do the actual "learning."

Of course the student is the one that has to do the learning but without a teacher the student may not know how to improve.
I thought about people who want to improve and are ready to do what the teacher tell them to do in order to improve.

I also do not consider people who only play chess games as people who work hard to improve and people who work hard to improve basically need to do what the good teacher tell them to do.

Improving from 1300 to 2350 in 2-3 years seems to me a very good achievement and I do not know about a single 1300 player who could do it so fast.

I believe that even the best GM's improved clearly slower when they started.
I could suspect cheating if I see an improvement that is so fast.

[ZirconiumX]

Well, some very typically styled players are:

- Petrossian (defense!)
- Shirov (attack!)
- Nimzovitch (logical but unnatural)
- Capablanca (natural talent: only smooth moves)
- Alekhine (ancient attacking style, very sharp but still positional sound)
- Kasparov (like Alekhine, but even more positional).

And I don't think players like Anand or Carlsen have so personal style... But Fischer and Karpov do.

Also, the measurement should only take place in the middle game, not the opening nor the endings (too technical, no place for style).

+1^Kasparov (Say it out loud)

Matthew:out

[BubbaTough]

I believe talent has some bearing, but it's my assertion that any reasonably intelligent person could (in theory) become at least a low level master and probably much higher if they start young.

I don't think this is true, at least for my definition of "reasonably intelligent". Problem solving in chess requires calculation / visualization, and "feel", which is kind of general pattern recognition that lets you come to the right answer (or at least the right moves to consider) without calculation, or even understanding why. Funnily enough, problem solving in most other fields requires a blend of these two things as well, but often not in the same ratio. People that are very very good in one area, but awful in another, often excel at a number of intellectual tasks and are considered very intelligent but are not likely to ever become a chess master even with hardwork (in my opinion).

This may be one of those areas of discussion where without new data, no one is likely to change their mind. I am guessing if you spend a few years giving lessons and working chess camps and such you would be more swayed than any degree of logic I could muster.

-Sam

p.s. I consider the ability to work hard to the degree necessary for even a "talented" person to become a strong chess player a talent unto itself, by the way. Possibly the most important. Not everyone is able to concentrate for long periods of time and continue learning as much in hour 12 as the first hour, and those that can must thank nature as much as nurture.

[Don]

I believe talent has some bearing, but it's my assertion that any reasonably intelligent person could (in theory) become at least a low level master and probably much higher if they start young.

I don't think this is true, at least for my definition of "reasonably intelligent".

There is no need to debate it, I think there is disagreement on this issue even by psychologists who know more about these things that we do.

Problem solving in chess requires calculation / visualization, and "feel", which is kind of general pattern recognition that lets you come to the right answer (or at least the right moves to consider) without calculation, or even understanding why. Funnily enough, problem solving in most other fields requires a blend of these two things as well, but often not in the same ratio. People that are very very good in one area, but awful in another, often excel at a number of intellectual tasks and are considered very intelligent but are not likely to ever become a chess master even with hardwork (in my opinion).

This may be one of those areas of discussion where without new data, no one is likely to change their mind. I am guessing if you spend a few years giving lessons and working chess camps and such you would be more swayed than any degree of logic I could muster.

-Sam

p.s. I consider the ability to work hard to the degree necessary for even a "talented" person to become a strong chess player a talent unto itself, by the way. Possibly the most important. Not everyone is able to concentrate for long periods of time and continue learning as much in hour 12 as the first hour, and those that can must thank nature as much as nurture.

I know a lot of children who are not being taught to focus on anything, their parents are not teaching them anything and they are not expected to do anything they don't want to do and I think this is handicapping them for life. For example if you don't learn to read at a young age you are at a disadvantage for the rest of your life.

So I will add to what I've already theorized about that I believe a good upbringing (with respect to education and learning how to apply yourself and discipline yourself) is an important factor. And being exposed to chess young is probably also pretty important.

My master friend believes that the difference in natural talent can be compared to tic-tac-toe, a game even a seriously retarded person can master. The difference he says is that it just takes the retarded person longer to master it, but the results is basically the same - you cannot beat either player.

When I say "reasonably intelligent" I mean with respect to the things that matter for chess. Nobody really knows for sure what intelligence is, it's multi-dimensional and defies measurement, but it's clear that people who might have relatively low "IQ's" can be exceptionally good at calculating with numbers or other tasks that someone considered much more intelligent would have some difficult at.

Anyway, to put this into a nutshell, I think a LOT of factors are mistaken for "natural talent." Or maybe I just believe that the ceiling for how good the "average" person could be given ideal circumstances is much higher than most believe.

[BubbaTough]

Anyway, to put this into a nutshell, I think a LOT of factors are mistaken for "natural talent." Or maybe I just believe that the ceiling for how good the "average" person could be given ideal circumstances is much higher than most believe.

Yes, this is the crux of our different positions. "Natural talent" (which I am translating as things you are born with + environmental factors stemming from your first 5 years of life (basically up until you can think and remember)) I think is responsible for over half of chess success after some minimum amount of games and training (only half if you throw early environmental factors out) and you think much less. Perhaps my bias is from beating too many adults as a 6 year old, which I suspect was less due to my amazing upbringing compared to theirs than to the nefarious "natural talent" thing.

The ceiling for the "average" person seems like another "nature vs. nurture" discussion in disguise. Again, you think nurture (aka. environmental factors like a good childhood and hardwork) dominate, and I thinks its only half.

Obviously, to be the best of the best, or even top 100, in a highly contested arena that draws from a large population base like chess, everyone has to have lots of both since there are too many people that are born with talent, and too many people that have good childhoods and work hard to enable a single factor to completely dominate.

-Sam

[Don]

Anyway, to put this into a nutshell, I think a LOT of factors are mistaken for "natural talent." Or maybe I just believe that the ceiling for how good the "average" person could be given ideal circumstances is much higher than most believe.

Yes, this is the crux of our different positions. "Natural talent" (which I am translating as things you are born with + environmental factors stemming from your first 5 years of life (basically up until you can think and remember)) I think is responsible for over half of chess success after some minimum amount of games and training (only half if you throw early environmental factors out) and you think much less. Perhaps my bias is from beating too many adults as a 6 year old, which I suspect was less due to my amazing upbringing compared to theirs than to the nefarious "natural talent" thing.

The ceiling for the "average" person seems like another "nature vs. nurture" discussion in disguise. Again, you think nurture (aka. environmental factors like a good childhood and hardwork) dominate, and I thinks its only half.

Obviously, to be the best of the best, or even top 100, in a highly contested arena that draws from a large population base like chess, everyone has to have lots of both since there are too many people that are born with talent, and too many people that have good childhoods and work hard to enable a single factor to completely dominate.

-Sam

I don't know where I read this or heard it, but there was a study that showed a very strong correlation between chess playing strength and amount of time spent working at chess (playing and studying) and it was a pretty convincing find to me. If I'm remember this right, it could almost predict the strength of the player because the correlation was so high. I don't know how the study was conducted or how scientific it was or even who did it so maybe it's nonsense. But you do realize that any of the top players train pretty intensively, right? I do not know of any 1700 players who train intensively. Study, yes, but train intensively, no.

But I have heard people from other fields say that hard work is more important than natural ability, even in sports. Maybe that is just a clever sound bite. I doubt that a tennis player without
ANY natural ability could ever get close to the top - so it is indeed wide open to interpretation what we mean when we say stuff like that.