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.
Emanuel Lasker, the longest reigning chess champion (1894 to 1921) the world has ever known or likely ever will, famously opined in his 1925 'Lasker's Manual of Chess' that he could make anyone, starting from scratch, a chess master in just 200 hours of his own rigorous teaching/training.
Bertrand Russell, a contemporary amateur chess player, but much more famous mathematician than Lasker, asserted that anyone could become an expert in any field of their choosing if they truly and totally immersed themself in that field for six full months. Given that equates to roughly 2,000 hours, Russell effectively added a zero to Lasker's number.
In 2008 Malcolm Gladwell increased Russell's number by a factor of five in his best selling non-fiction book, Outliers, in which he introduced his 10,000 hours rule.
There's quite the discrepancy in those three numbers but at least all three of these renown individuals thought pretty much anyone capable of becoming an expert (and Lasker went further with master). Of course capable and attainment are by no means the same things. Lasker's final words re reality vs possibility in the first link continue to ring all too true 87 years later.
In Outliers I don't recall Gladwell mentioning getting training from a world-class tutor. Surely that would cut out a lot of the dead ends. Besides, 200 hours doesn't necessarily mean 200 hours of work. It might mean, for example, one two-hour lesson per week for two years with regular chess games, self-study, etc. in-between. Even nowadays I doubt that someone reading good books couldn't have as much raw knowledge as a 2200 in that period of time. The problem would be understanding how to use this knowledge.
The amount of information readily available in the 1930s would have been minuscule compared to what is available now. Finding books, rather than finding good books, might have been the problem.
Last edited by Tom O'Donnell; Sunday, 30th September, 2012, 10:14 PM.
"Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.
I wonder what Lasker would make of Shakhriyar Mamedyarov? On the one hand, Shakh does seem to emulate Lasker in getting a slightly inferior position out of the opening, perhaps taking too much to heart Lasker's famous quotation that:
"He who has a slight disadvantage plays more attentively, inventively and more boldly than his antagonist who either takes it easy or aspires after too much. Thus a slight disadvantage is very frequently seen to convert into a good, solid advantage."
Today in London Shakh was clearly worse with the White pieces after just 12 moves. I somehow don't think Lasker would approve of Shakh's position though, a complete positional mess that most chess coaches would shudder to show a student. Shakh had pushed pawns on both sides of the board, eschewing any idea of castling, and essentially just created an arrant quagmiry mess, which is his wont. Morozevich may be known as Mr. Excitement but surely Mamedyarov is the King of Crazy.
Hard to argue with Shakh's results of late, however. He's clearly the hottest player on the planet these days, following up his #1 TPR at the Olympiad with a clear 1st ranking in London. He's back in the top 10 again, currently #8 in the live ratings and has been as high as #4. I, for one, being a fan of crazy chess, would love to see him a permanent resident in these upper echelons.
A master in 1910 was a lower standard than today. I'm sure Lasker didn't mean world class. But consider most people didn't read books, and just played tactics and invented openings. To become 99th percentile, you just needed to be taught clear thinking, Steinitz's theory of development and gaining advantages, and that's about it. A player who understood Steinitz could beat the experienced aggressive tactician with just sound play.
200 hours with an elite. I'm sure that wouldn't suffice today as every serious player knows this stuff.
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.:)
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.:)
Regardless of the number of hours devoted to, how you spend them and the name(s) of your coach(es), someone's expectations must be linked with when he starts his journey. Few people learning (or starting to "work" seriously at) chess in their adulthood can expect to reach master level. Which should not discourage anyone in trying to make progress and get as much as he can from the game. Getting to your upper limit or close to it
is a great accomplishment whatever this may be. Progress should always be judged by your own circumstances, not compared to others.
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.:)
This was precisely Lasker's point. It's not so much the quantity of the hours but rather the quality of those hours that is critical.
By way of apposite example, Lasker advocated no more than 10 of his 200 specified hours on the theory of openings. In % terms, that's precisely 5% of one's study time. Yet today most chess players likely exceed that % by a factor of at least 10. Perhaps greater strides might be made to a chess player's improvement if far less time was spent on openings.
In Outliers I don't recall Gladwell mentioning getting training from a world-class tutor. .
Tangentially, Gladwell lost at least a little credibility with one of his other arguments put forth in Outliers. He espoused the idea therein that it was very important to be born early in the year if one wanted to have a fighting chance of ever making it to the NHL.
The Globe and Mail took great exception with that argument in the following Frances Woolley report.
While Gladwell may well have been guilty of hyperbole, he was still partially right. Woolley is clueless statistically and his more January births idea is ludicrous. You would think that a reporter would at least check to see if his own hypothesis holds water. A qucik check at StatsCan live birth numbers shows that just under 24% of Canadian births take place in the first 1/4 of the year, so the 29% figure remains statistically significant (a far cry from Gladwell's 40% however!).
I don't know if anyone has done a similar study of the significance of one's birthday when it comes to chess, but a quick gander at the current 49 members of the 2700 club (live ratings) doesn't seem to vindicate any Gladwell effect - unless it's a contrary effect. There are only 10 2700+ chess players born in the first 1/4 of the year vs 15 born in the last 1/4. Now a sample of but 49 is much too small to be statistically significant but the early returns say being born early in the year may help one's prospective NHL career but not likely one's chess career.
Now a sample of but 49 is much too small to be statistically significant but the early returns say being born early in the year may help one's prospective NHL career but not likely one's chess career.
In hockey, there's definitely a point to be made about being born early in the year - i.e. you will be more physically developed, dominate your age group etc. Minor hockey is organized with very tight age groups. And it's the same for most sports.
In chess, age does not matter as much, or at all. When a kid is ready to play with adults he just goes on. Carlsen playing in the U14 or U16 a few years ago would have been funny, though.
. Carlsen playing in the U14 or U16 a few years ago would have been funny, though.
Mathieu
You might be surprised, Mathieu, by just how many of today's elite GM's are previous WYCC champions. For example, the world's # 2, Levon Aronian, was the U12 WYCC champion in 1994.
Tweet
Comment