Does a player have his limit?
Re: Does a player have his limit?
Sure, there will be slight differences between healthy children, but the point of the experiment is that these differences are very small. The results show that well because yes, even 2 children from the same parents are genetically very different.
It's a shame he didn't end up adopting children from the third world and raising them in the same way, too. Apparently his wife talked him out of it, saying there's more to life than chess. Which is fair enough, lol.
It's a shame he didn't end up adopting children from the third world and raising them in the same way, too. Apparently his wife talked him out of it, saying there's more to life than chess. Which is fair enough, lol.
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 13004
- Joined: Apr 28, 2020
Re: Does a player have his limit?
Goodspeed wrote:Sure, there will be slight differences between healthy children, but the point of the experiment is that these differences are very small. The results show that well because yes, even 2 children from the same parents are genetically very different.
It's a shame he didn't end up adopting children from the third world and raising them in the same way, too. Apparently his wife talked him out of it, saying there's more to life than chess. Which is fair enough, lol.
Yes, but the experiment, and most likely any similar experiment as long as we fail to properly understand genes etc, has too many unknown variables to draw any conclusion about the (non)existence of talent. Had he consistently achieved similar results with more children of other parents/cultures, then sure, it would've made a strong case. Right now, all it does is just raise more question about this subject.
Re: Does a player have his limit?
Goodspeed wrote:There is no field where learning it is not connected to the input of the teachers. That's how learning works. You are given input in order to gain a specific ability.
Self-taught people? Several great chess players learnt chess rules and chess theory by themselves.
Re: Does a player have his limit?
Sure, but thats not relevant here. This experiment is all about the teacher. Its not very effective to sit around fingers crossed hoping a kid chooses to study chess with that much focus on its own. The theory is that a prodigy can be made from any healthy child.
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 13004
- Joined: Apr 28, 2020
Re: Does a player have his limit?
this does start to raise questions about where the threshold for healthy lies. Ok, let's disregard Down, but what about Asperger, autism?
Re: Does a player have his limit?
You guys just keep debating. I'm quitting aoe3 now
Re: Does a player have his limit?
fei123456 wrote:You guys just keep debating. I'm quitting aoe3 now
:(
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 14364
- Joined: Mar 26, 2015
Re: Does a player have his limit?
I'm quite confident we have several savants in the PR 35+ range.
Re: Does a player have his limit?
Healthy as in no mental disorders, I suppose. And yes, mental disorders are often misdiagnosed. On the other hand I guess they are also often developed in (early) childhood or even in adulthood in some cases, rather than genetic.umeu wrote:this does start to raise questions about where the threshold for healthy lies. Ok, let's disregard Down, but what about Asperger, autism?
Re: Does a player have his limit?
Goodspeed wrote:Sure, but thats not relevant here. This experiment is all about the teacher. Its not very effective to sit around fingers crossed hoping a kid chooses to study chess with that much focus on its own. The theory is that a prodigy can be made from any healthy child.
Well we were making a bigger argument of nature vs nurture. Anyway, the definition of prodigy or gifted child implies things such as learning by themselves. Prodigy is strictly correlated to talent and innate charateristics. I wouldnt define as a prodigy someone "made".
Re: Does a player have his limit?
Ronnie O Sullivan is a good example of incredible talent, yet a relatively low iq.
[Sith] - Baphomet
Re: Does a player have his limit?
Until 2012 I drove my maximum elo 2489 and PR 35.2
Some people insist on say that I was otto lamme or india rush..
My mechanics were sinister, but my playing knowledge was very low ..
After 2 years of being unemployed, I returned to study the game a lot, I feel much better than before, but with little time for evolution ..
Some people insist on say that I was otto lamme or india rush..
My mechanics were sinister, but my playing knowledge was very low ..
After 2 years of being unemployed, I returned to study the game a lot, I feel much better than before, but with little time for evolution ..
Kaiser sucks
Garja Noob
grunt the best
Kickass God
BSOP OP
Garja Noob
grunt the best
Kickass God
BSOP OP
Re: Does a player have his limit?
Detail, garja was cattle for slaughter in my hands.
Kaiser sucks
Garja Noob
grunt the best
Kickass God
BSOP OP
Garja Noob
grunt the best
Kickass God
BSOP OP
-
- Pro Player
- Posts: 10282
- Joined: Jun 6, 2015
- Location: Paris
- GameRanger ID: 5529322
Re: Does a player have his limit?
look wrote:Detail, garja was cattle for slaughter in my hands.
LoOk_tOm wrote:I have something in particular against Kaisar (GERMANY NOOB mercenary LAMME FOREVER) And the other people (noobs) like suck kaiser ... just this ..
Re: Does a player have his limit?
You wouldn't, but the definition of the word certainly doesn't leave out the possibility. And that guy did "make" 3 prodigies.Garja wrote:Goodspeed wrote:Sure, but thats not relevant here. This experiment is all about the teacher. Its not very effective to sit around fingers crossed hoping a kid chooses to study chess with that much focus on its own. The theory is that a prodigy can be made from any healthy child.
Well we were making a bigger argument of nature vs nurture. Anyway, the definition of prodigy or gifted child implies things such as learning by themselves. Prodigy is strictly correlated to talent and innate charateristics. I wouldnt define as a prodigy someone "made".
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 13004
- Joined: Apr 28, 2020
Re: Does a player have his limit?
Goodspeed wrote:Healthy as in no mental disorders, I suppose. And yes, mental disorders are often misdiagnosed. On the other hand I guess they are also often developed in (early) childhood or even in adulthood in some cases, rather than genetic.umeu wrote:this does start to raise questions about where the threshold for healthy lies. Ok, let's disregard Down, but what about Asperger, autism?
OK, lets take this to the field of sports, why is Messi the best player of this era (lets forget ronaldo exists for a moment, but could use him instead as well)? Is it because he worked harder than others, and/or because he had better teachers? Do you think that anyone who wouldve worked as hard as him, with the same or similar level teachers, would be as good as he is? What about all those other players who train hard since youth, sacrifice so much, yet do not reach the top, what went wrong? It's not that theyre less talented, talent doesnt exist. Unless its due to i jury, its not really physical either, mamy players are as, if not more physically impressive than messi. So what is it? What about players from the past who neither had as much past experience or modern technology to draw from, yet some of them attained levels most modern athletes can still only dream of. If there is no talent, how would you explain this? Specially when known that some of those players were only like part time athletes.
- lemmings121
- Jaeger
- Posts: 2673
- Joined: Mar 15, 2015
- ESO: lemmings121
Re: Does a player have his limit?
im not sure what look tom meant there, but thats gold
Re: Does a player have his limit?
Anyone with the same physical capabilities, sure.umeu wrote:OK, lets take this to the field of sports, why is Messi the best player of this era (lets forget ronaldo exists for a moment, but could use him instead as well)? Is it because he worked harder than others, and/or because he had better teachers? Do you think that anyone who wouldve worked as hard as him, with the same or similar level teachers, would be as good as he is?Goodspeed wrote:Healthy as in no mental disorders, I suppose. And yes, mental disorders are often misdiagnosed. On the other hand I guess they are also often developed in (early) childhood or even in adulthood in some cases, rather than genetic.umeu wrote:this does start to raise questions about where the threshold for healthy lies. Ok, let's disregard Down, but what about Asperger, autism?
Talent exists, and is a bigger deal in physical sports. This includes mechanical RTS, where mouse control and reflexes are as if not more important than decision making. This as opposed to fields of science and games like chess, where physical ability is irrelevant. Of course talent still exists, but it's much less of a factor. So much less, that a person without any predisposition to be good at chess could likely still be a chess prodigy with the right teacher and the right amount of focus.
In physical sports the "talent" or physical ability factor can set a very low ceiling. A short person for example will never be a top basketball player no matter how hard he tries. But in fields where physical ability is not a factor, while predisposition still sets a ceiling it can't be low. At least, not for a healthy child. And, once again, that's just the theory. Experiment is by no means conclusive. On the other hand there is no evidence towards the opposite either.
Re: Does a player have his limit?
Goodspeed wrote:Anyone with the same physical capabilities, sure.
Talent exists, and is a bigger deal in physical sports. This includes mechanical RTS, where mouse control and reflexes are as if not more important than decision making. This as opposed to fields of science and games like chess, where physical ability is irrelevant. Of course talent still exists, but it's much less of a factor. So much less, that a person without any predisposition to be good at chess could likely still be a chess prodigy with the right teacher and the right amount of focus.
In physical sports the "talent" or physical ability factor can set a very low ceiling. A short person for example will never be a top basketball player no matter how hard he tries. But in fields where physical ability is not a factor, while predisposition still sets a ceiling it can't be low. At least, not for a healthy child. And, once again, that's just the theory. Experiment is by no means conclusive. On the other hand there is no evidence towards the opposite either.
I dont think you can call all those top level chess players prodigies. The only prodigies are like the world champions or those who showed to be prodigies at young age (this does define a prodigy). However current top players are certainly very high iq individuals and that is a sort of talent in chess. Just like the short guy in basketball, an average intelligent person will never be a top chess player.
Re: Does a player have his limit?
Yes that is what defines a prodigy, and that is exactly what all 3 of his daughters were. Judit Polgar is undisputably the strongest female chess player of all time. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judit_PolgárI dont think you can call all those top level chess players prodigies. The only prodigies are like the world champions or those who showed to be prodigies at young age (this does define a prodigy).
Do you think a high iq is something you are born with? A brain can be trained, and I would say playing chess from an early age is an excellent way to train it. In other words, I think you have cause and effect the wrong way around there.However current top players are certainly very high iq individuals and that is a sort of talent in chess. Just like the short guy in basketball, an average intelligent person will never be a top chess player.
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 13004
- Joined: Apr 28, 2020
Re: Does a player have his limit?
Goodspeed wrote:Anyone with the same physical capabilities, sure.umeu wrote: I , lets take this to the field of sports, why is Messi the best player of this era (lets forget ronaldo exists for a moment, but could use him instead as well)? Is it because he worked harder than others, and/or because he had better teachers? Do you think that anyone who wouldve worked as hard as him, with the same or similar level teachers, would be as good as he is?
Talent exists, and is a bigger deal in physical sports. This includes mechanical RTS, where mouse control and reflexes are as if not more important than decision making. This as opposed to fields of science and games like chess, where physical ability is irrelevant. Of course talent still exists, but it's much less of a factor. So much less, that a person without any predisposition to be good at chess could likely still be a chess prodigy with the right teacher and the right amount of focus.
In physical sports the "talent" or physical ability factor can set a very low ceiling. A short person for example will never be a top basketball player no matter how hard he tries. But in fields where physical ability is not a factor, while predisposition still sets a ceiling it can't be low. At least, not for a healthy child. And, once again, that's just the theory. Experiment is by no means conclusive. On the other hand there is no evidence towards the opposite either.
Well, thats the reason i chose messi instead of ronaldo, because while messi is ofcourse a top athlete, his physique is not very impressive compared to many others. Hes not exceptionally tall, strong, big or even that fast. He's agile, which ofcourse one of the crucial qualities for his playstyle, but again, other players with similar agility do not match up to him. So what does he have, or what happened to him to make him so exceptional?
You are right about physical disposition, for example the most famous langlaufing champ from finland could take in abnormal amounts of oxygen, which significantly contributed to him outpacing the the competition.
But it seems weird to me again that you are willing to acknowledge not only its importance for the body, but also that different body types exist, but you dont seem to accept as much for the brain. Which again seems to hint at some dualism. The brain can be trained, and i agree that low iq is most often the result of lack or poor training at a young age. But the body can be trained too, and while a short person may not be a baSketball god, but he can undoubtedly be trained to succeed at another sport for which his body type is suited. I would agree that rigorous training at young age would problaby create a top athlete/player out of any "healthy" child. But the exceptionally greats are set apart still from the merely good top players. And my question is, what accounts for this difference? Merely they worked a little bit harder seems insufficient as explanation
Re: Does a player have his limit?
Perhaps other players with matching physical capabilities didn't focus on the right playstyle, didn't work as hard or had worse teachers. I certainly don't see any evidence to the contrary.umeu wrote:Well, thats the reason i chose messi instead of ronaldo, because while messi is ofcourse a top athlete, his physique is not very impressive compared to many others. Hes not exceptionally tall, strong, big or even that fast. He's agile, which ofcourse one of the crucial qualities for his playstyle, but again, other players with similar agility do not match up to him. So what does he have, or what happened to him to make him so exceptional?
I do accept it for the brain, but to a much lesser extent. So much less, that I think no matter its predispositions a healthy child can be a prodigy in any field as long as they are focused in their studies and have a great teacher.But it seems weird to me again that you are willing to acknowledge not only its importance for the body, but also that different body types exist, but you dont seem to accept as much for the brain. Which again seems to hint at some dualism. The brain can be trained, and i agree that low iq is most often the result of lack or poor training at a young age. But the body can be trained too, and while a short person may not be a basketball god, but he can undoubtedly be trained to succeed at another sport for which his body type is suited.
The brain, after all, is plastic. Very adaptable. The body is not. Your body shape is almost entirely decided by your genes, while the condition of a healthy 18-year old brain is almost entirely decided by its childhood. Tug at it all you want, your penis will never get longer.
To me this explanation is sufficient: they worked harder, had better teachers, focused on the sport their body was best suited for, or any combination of the three.I would agree that rigorous training at young age would problaby create a top athlete/player out of any "healthy" child. But the exceptionally greats are set apart still from the merely good top players. And my question is, what accounts for this difference? Merely they worked a little bit harder seems insufficient as explanation
For the record I am not arguing any healthy child can be the best chess player in the world. Rather I'm arguing any healthy child can be a successful scientist, in any field. And any healthy child can be a 2600+ rated chess player. Any healthy child can be a prodigy. People aren't born stupid, and they aren't born smart. While talent surely exists, it's barely a factor and vastly overrated in any non-physical field.
- Laurence Drake
- Jaeger
- Posts: 2687
- Joined: Dec 25, 2015
Re: Does a player have his limit?
Disagree that talent is overrated. The first step to becoming a prodigy in anything is to have smart parents. Teaching helps, but the top chess players will always be the ones with better genes.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ereditary/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ereditary/
Genes make a substantial difference, but they are not the whole story. They account for about half of all differences in intelligence among people, so half is not caused by genetic differences, which provides strong support for the importance of environmental factors. This estimate of 50 percent reflects the results of twin, adoption and DNA studies. From them, we know, for example, that later in life, children adopted away from their biological parents at birth are just as similar to their biological parents as are children reared by their biological parents. Similarly, we know that adoptive parents and their adopted children do not typically resemble one another in intelligence.
Top quality poster.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests