If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Lasker, Russell, & Gladwell
While one certainly does not need to be a 'master' or 'expert' to teach chess (i.e be it a 200, 2000, or 10,000 hour dedicated time requirement), I wouldn't feel too comfortable re the quality of chess teachers produced from a one week programme designed to make "PETs" qualified chess teachers (:
Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Lasker, Russell, & Gladwell
Yes Jack, there is quite the discrepancy among the experts you mentioned on how many hours it takes to become a master of your field.
Lasker was quite a smart guy, he really looked at chess from both a scientific and philosophical level. If you read his books Lasker's Manual and Struggle, you will get some good insight into just how much he studied and thought about the game.
With Lasker being your teacher, it very well might have been possible to attain this level, since not only are you getting quality lessons, he is also filtering out all of the not so useful stuff that a lot of people end up studying which was already mentioned in a previous post.
To add to your list there is also Earl Nightingale who said you can become a master in your field from
1 hour a day of study, for 3 years which equates to 1095 hours. Nightingale's theory assumes that you are the only one who is doing the studying
So If you were to add taking lessons with a coach then it will probably be way less than 1000 hours of studying.
As for playing, for myself it took me around 500 tournament games before I achieved a 2200 rating, but during a lot of that time I had no coach.
I believe 10,000 hours is way too much. Russell seems to me, to be the most accurate with his 2000 hours estimate.
Based on my own experience I think for the average person, 2000-4000 hours of both studying and playing combined is a reasonable estimate.
Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Lasker, Russell, & Gladwell
For the record, Bertrand Russell was primarily a philosopher, not a mathematician. He was quite strong in mathematics, though, and in fact strong in a number of other areas as well. I believe his book - The ABC's of Relativity - was the first attempt in English to give a layman's explanation of Relativity Theory - a theory very, very poorly understood when it first came out.
His most important work - Principia Mathematica - was co-authored with Alfred North Whitehead - a real mathematician. This "important" work is particularly difficult to read, even today. The joke in philosophy classes is that only three people actually ever read the entire book - Russell; Whitehead; and their editor. If there were typesetting errors, no one would know. Incidentally, in those days such works were written on giant pages of paper (4 pages to a sheet I believe) with hand - and fear of something damaging happening could be overwhelming.
Incidentally, the goal of Principia Mathematica was to "reduce" mathematics to the principles of symbolic logic. They believed they had succeeded. Kurt Gödel proved otherwise. (Interesting this site correctly added the umlaut for me!)
Last point - part of the problem in this exercise is in deciding what expertise actually is in the first place. Russell had two major contributions to mathematics: 1) the refutation of a set theory thesis by the mathematician Gottlob Frege (which was sublime); and Principia Mathematica - a stunningly enormous project which ends objectively in failure, although enormously influential. Is this expertise? Probably not. Certainly in physics, he knew much more than an ordinary person would know at the time; but again, he was certainly not an expert. At best, he understood the significance of what the real experts of the time were thinking.
You shoud do a poll of how many of us have devoted 200 hours or 2000 hours or even 10000 hours to the game without reaching anything approaching mastery.:)
Exactly. Talent is by far the most important factor when it comes to getting good at anything. The more talent you have the less time it will take. Without talent you could spend a lifetime and not get any good. Theories about time required are almost ridiculous.
I did Anders Ericsson a great disservice by citing Gladwell rather than Ericsson in the title of this thread. Here's Ericsson in his own words, defending his "deliberate practice" (n.b. not just practice) theory that Ericsson says Gladwell certainly misrepresented in his bestseller, 'Outliers'. Despite Ericsson's arguments, I remain steadfastly in the Hambrick camp. (:
Tweet
Comment