Bobby Fischer

[curtains]

There is more to becoming a master than that. I can guarantee you I've worked with plenty of people who will never become a chess master no matter what they do, they simply don't have the required talent.

They all think they can with study and training, but it's really not that easy. Of course some people do have the ability, but for the most part when I hear people say they could become a master if they put the effort into it, they usually don't have the required talent level or mental makeup.

[MicroBob]

I'm not quite as negative on chess as you.

I still like it a lot and would love to get back into it.
but I feel guilty spending my spare-time on chess when I'm such a lousy player and when poker is FAR more profitable.
But when I play chess i thoroughly enjoy it and I don't need any money to be on the game to enjoy looking over a recently played game with a friend trying to determine whether he would have had enough of an attack if he had sacrificied a piece at such-and-such point.


If I get to a point where I don't feel obligated to put in my 30-40 hours a week at poker then I would love to devote some of my spare-time to taking up chess again...even participating in tourneys.

However, I let my ICC membership expire last June and haven't missed it too terribly much. Poker is just fine by me and obviously I'm rather involved in it.

More importantly...I can make a pretty decent income from poker. I probably wouldn't even break-even at chess.


Yes....the FIDE world-championship structure was pretty ridiculous when they did that. That is specifically what I was thinking of when I referred to tourney-formats.

I doubt you will get many GM's to say they actually thought that format was a good idea. Almost everyone was complaining about how stupid it was as I recall.


I don't know all of the politics involved....but Kaspy broke-away from FIDE for quite awhile as you may remember. Formed his own little PCA, etc.


I don't think chess is dead per-se. And, again, I haven't been following it a whole lot of late. Haven't read chess-life or any of the chess internet-sites in FOREVER.

With the retirement of Kaspy (and he's been pretty quiet lately anyway) chess is left without a terribly dynamic star.

Also, without the Soviet Union and the Cold War there isn't the kind of Fischer/Spassky USA vs. USSR dynamic that was so key to the world's interest in the 1972 championship.
It wasn't just about the mostly-nuts yet clean-cut looking lad grabbing the title. It was the Soviets' game and Fischer mowed through everyone in various tournaments and then clobbered Spassky.

Without the Cold War you just can't have that kind of excitement or importance anymore.

I don't even know whether chess is as important in the russian school-system as it once was...or whether the U.S. scholastic tourneys are drawing better or worse than they were previously.


I do think there is hope for chess in this country....and in the world and that it's not exactly completely dead.

for crying out loud....we're all watching a freaking card-game on TV on a fairly regular basis.

But chess is certainly not as popular as it was before. The most recent chess news I knew about before Kaspy's retirement was the Kaspy-Deep Blue matches of a couple years ago.


If fischer were to somehow play another match like he did in 1992 that would be interesting.
If another Judit Polgar were to come along and seriously challenge for the world championship that would be pretty interesting as well.

There are possibilities....but these are the same guys that were trying to implement drug-testing into chess to make it eligible for Olympic consideration.
A pretty silly idea at best that they took pretty seriously for FAR too long.

Again, I don't know of anything happening these days because I've been so out of the chess-loop of late.

Curtains or Dynasty would have a much better idea on where chess stands today in the U.S.

[greygoo]

[ QUOTE ]

There is more to becoming a master than that. I can guarantee you I've worked with plenty of people who will never become a chess master no matter what they do, they simply don't have the required talent.

They all think they can with study and training, but it's really not that easy. Of course some people do have the ability, but for the most part when I hear people say they could become a master if they put the effort into it, they usually don't have the required talent level or mental makeup.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have to disagree. Master level is pretty high, no question about that. But a lot of people are certainly capable of it, given the right environment (Russia =) ). It is only a matter of time and right instruction. Having natural talent sure helps to speed up this process. It is also helps greatly to start studying at the young age.
You maybe right though that many people tend to underestimate the amount of effort that needs to be put in to become a master, especially for adults. However, your claim that master level requies something that most people are incapable of is quite an overstatement.

[curtains]

Let's just say that I know plenty of people who are incapable of becoming a master. There is no doubt in my mind that no matter what these people do they will never be 2200 level in chess. I'd be willing to bet large sums of money against a lot of these people at huge odds, however this is obviously an impractical bet.

Perhaps if they started at a younger age, or learned chess the proper way at a younger age then it would have been possible.

[LargeCents]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's just say that I know plenty of people who are incapable of becoming a master. There is no doubt in my mind that no matter what these people do they will never be 2200 level in chess. I'd be willing to bet large sums of money against a lot of these people at huge odds, however this is obviously an impractical bet.

Perhaps if they started at a younger age, or learned chess the proper way at a younger age then it would have been possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I knew I'd get static for my original claim that I could become a chess master with enough investment of time and effort. I don't claim GM or IM, or even FM. FM is a solid level beyond USCF life master, IMO. I was thinking purely in terms of NM, which isn't really much of a feather in a cap anyway, but I think I could do it. I've played NMs, and beat NMs. They aren't that great. They just think they are. In my personal case, all I am really saying is that I could add 300 or 400 to my chess performance rating, with serious effort. I think most people could increase 400 pts to their chess ability if they put in the work that I suggest. I've never put in the time that I see some others do, and yeah, I get ripped in the opening sometimes, which forces me to use offbeat lines to at least take the book out of some of these guys' hands. I've always been an endgame natural, and would love to learn the endgame properly. The rest falls into place when you sharpen that tactical/positional knife and not much else is needed for NM, IMO.

I agree that most people cannot become chess masters. But most people aren't just 400 pts away either, strength-wise. If anyone wants to bankroll me with just $100 a week to justify my 10 hours of chess study/play, I'd show them a USCF Master certificate in 3 years. Otherwise, I could never justify wasting that much time chasing something that doesn't mean anything anyway.

[curtains]

It's possible, I just don't like the argument of saying you could do something like that without actually doing it or planning to. It discredits those who've actually accomplished it.

[KingDan]

http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?10018820

This should be Harrington. I guess he hasnt play ed in the last 10 years.

I think a big difference in poker versus chess, is you can get someone with some to a respectable level much quicker in poker than chess. I believe there are too many situations in chess where you just need to have a feel for it, and only experience will get it for you.

Something I find pretty interesting is in both, there are ways that attempt to reduce the advantage of the stronger player. An 'allin' or fold preflop strategy can take away the better players ability to outplay them postflop. In chess, certain openings are knwown to be dead equal and take the play out of the position. You see people when playing strong players than themselves often go out of their way to do this.

[curtains]

Yeah Harrington was higher rated than I realized. 2355 is pretty solid.

[Arsene Lupin III]

Could shindou hikaru play poker? O_o