English Chess Forum

Paul Cooksey wrote: ↑

Sun May 02, 2021 2:01 pm

I'd agree Fischer had an aptitude for chess far greater than most people.

How are we to identify and measure this

I think your idea that Fischer's talent needs to be identified has left us speechless, Justin!

The question isn't how well he played. The question is about his "aptitude", or his "innate ability".

Two words. Donald Byrne. Is that enough?

I would recommend you submit that as a paper to a scientific journal and see how you get on

In some subjects it would nowadays be more than sufficient.

I wouldn't oveplay the infuence of a couple of spoofs, however embarraassing they might be to the people concerned.

JustinHorton wrote: ↑

Sun May 02, 2021 4:27 pm

Paul Cooksey wrote: ↑

Sun May 02, 2021 2:01 pm

I'd agree Fischer had an aptitude for chess far greater than most people.

How are we to identify and measure this

Well Professor Elo gave us some help. I take the point talent is hard quantify, but using such a strong player as Fischer to start such a discussion seems a bit odd. Most people who have devoted their life to chess have not achieved his standard of play. How good, say, Richard Borcherds, could have been if he had enjoyed playing is unknown. But whether Fischer had great talent seems to me proven by his great playing strength, unless Justin is making an argument there is some other factor that explains it. It would be an extraordinarily lucky pen if that was the explanation.

Paul Cooksey wrote: ↑

Sun May 02, 2021 8:19 pm

Well Professor Elo gave us some help.

So genius does just mean being very good at something?

Paul Cooksey wrote: ↑

Sun May 02, 2021 8:19 pm

But whether Fischer had great talent seems to me proven by his great playing strength, unless Justin is making an argument there is some other factor that explains it

Well no, the problem is that we don't seem to have identified that concepts like talent, or aptitude, or innate ability, necessarily have any substance or any meaning. We simply don't know why some people develop great skills in this area or that, while others don't. So we need to use these terms with some caution.

(One item among many - what is, say, "an aptitude for chess"? What do we mean when we use such a term? Chess in its present form has only existed for a few centuries - did people a thousand or five thousand years ago have such an aptitude? If we answer yes, surely we mean an aptitude for other, more general things, that may be well-suited to chess, but are not actually an aptitude for chess per se.)

JustinHorton wrote: ↑

Sun May 02, 2021 7:22 pm

The question isn't how well he played. The question is about his "aptitude", or his "innate ability".

I remember once being given a "Knight's tour" exercise to complete - I was timed. I was told that such an exercise was used by the Soviets to assess inherent chess ability in children.

I guess that you could teach someone the moves, and then give them a series of exercises to complete - this may serve as a measure of "innate ability" before practice and memory and suchlike spoil things.

Presumably those who teach beginners quickly form an opinion as to who has an aptitude and who hasn't. Would anyone care to share stories of how they identified (or failed to identify) a future GM at 5 years of age?

Perhaps geniuses are just more standard deviations away from the norm in some respect, than "very bright". Or are we saying there is a meaningful divide?

I would be entirely comfortable with the idea that Basman might be a genius and Kasparov not, irrespective of their Elo ratings.

Alistair Campbell wrote: ↑

Sun May 02, 2021 9:21 pm

JustinHorton wrote: ↑

Sun May 02, 2021 7:22 pm

The question isn't how well he played. The question is about his "aptitude", or his "innate ability".

I remember once being given a "Knight's tour" exercise to complete - I was timed. I was told that such an exercise was used by the Soviets to assess inherent chess ability in children.

I think austensibly this is about pattern recognition. It is a good test because you are developing the patterns yourself, so you are not just regurgitating what you have been taught. The first time a player attempts it, a 2500 will be quicker than a 2000, who will be quicker than a 1500. The speed you complete the task then may well be a good gauge of chess ability, but for me the real genius would probably take the longest because they were considering whether it could be completed more quickly if Knights moved in a different vector.

Among top players in recent times, Ivanchuk and Morozevich get my votes for genius. Maybe Grischuk, I defer judgement on Carlsen.

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Sun May 02, 2021 8:33 pm

So genius does just mean being very good at something?

The dictionary says:

very great and rare natural ability or skill

To me that means not just being very good at something, but also being noticeably better than the best people at the activity usually are.