Yes some people are just not as good. I have the same number of games as you and cannot break 700. I don’t study or do many lessons though; perhaps I should. My goal is 1000. It’s tough to improve in 10 minute games.
... Do you guys think some people are naturally bad, or is it possible to get to any rating with enough dedication?
Surprisingly, this is a controversial question. I think many agree that there is something that one might call chess-talent, making it somewhat easier for some to learn chess stuff. I think just about everyone agrees that one's chess-improvement is greatly influenced by how much one studies, how one studies, and how one plays. I am not aware of any experiments to explore the limits of chess dedicatiom.
Yeah, as a psychologist and teacher who is certainly sympathetic to the idea that social factors are extremely important, it is crazy to me that some people regard it as controversial that there is such a thing as innate talents. Of course there is - we can witness it everywhere. We see it in all sports. I have students who learn super easily with a minimum of effort, while others work hard and barely get anywhere. It is a fact of life.
Of course. Everything indicates that I'm naturally bad. I view chess as a hobby and a personal challenge.
With my IQ is nothing wrong,with my game however...
I trie to study , think and watch video's but i have a lot of fun just playing.
I think it is completely based on how much a person wants to learn. I have been playing consistently for about a year, I learned some basic principles but that was it. I hovered around 875-915 the whole time. I thought If I played enough games with similarly rated players my rating would rise, but that isn't the case. I started doing tactics and playing stronger players and now my rating jumped to 1030 in 1 month. Wasn't even that hard. I want to be 1500 by my birthday in April. Wish me luck.
So I've been playing for about 3 months and my rating is stuck at 1300, according to the thing, this is in the 75% percentile. However, I've seen people with over 10 times the amount of games I've played, with over 1000 lessons done on the site with premium accounts who are a couple hundred rating points below me. Do you guys think some people are naturally bad, or is it possible to get to any rating with enough dedication?
I knew a guy that played chess for something like 50 years, and never peaked higher than a USCF 1300 player. I can also tell you that no one had more passion, or love for the game than he did.
I play 28 years and still am bad.
The gameof chess is attractive because it is fun, so fine, if you play for fun. If you want to excel, find that which your unique mind is actually made to be best at. That will be what you love having tried it, unlike chess which looks like great fun but turns out to be a mathematical grind if you want to win.
Having said that, I think anyone of average intelligence can easily go beyond 1000 with just a little study provided you find a good book, such as Chess Made Simple by Milton Hanauer or My System by Nimzowitsch, although I have to warn you that I came across an edition of the former book that was the worst hack job of any book that I have ever seen, so be careful what edition of Chess Made Simple you buy, or just go with Nimzowitsch.
One can get some idea of the lasting scope of the respect for My System by looking at:
https://www.chess.com/article/view/the-best-chess-books-ever
Still, it might be noted that My System apparently did not occur to GM Yasser Seirawan as something to include in his list of personal favorites, and Aaron Nimzowitsch was not identified by the GM as a very worthy author.
https://www.chess.com/blog/GMYAZ/open-letter-response-user-radovics-letter-to-me
My System has accumulated some direct negative commentary over the years.
"... I found [the books of Aaron Nimzowitsch to be] very difficult to read or understand. ... [Nimzowitsch: A Reappraisal by Raymond Keene explains his] thinking and influence on the modern game in a far more lucid and accessible way. ... The books that are most highly thought of are not necessarily the most useful. Go with those that you find to be readable; ..." - GM Nigel Davies (2010)
In 2016, IM pfren wrote:
"My System is an iconoclastic book. A lot of things in there is sheer provocation, and it does need an expereienced player to know what exactly must be taken at its face value.
I love 'My System', and I have read it cover to cover one dozen times, but suggesting it to a class player is an entirely different matter."
Also: "[Some things] ARE wrong, and it's not easy for a non-advanced player to discover those wrong claims.
Nigel Short has claimed that 'My System' should be banned. Stratos Grivas says that the book is very bad. I don't share their opinion, but I am pretty sure that there are more useful reads for class players out there."
Although he is a fan of My System, IM John Watson similarly acknowledged (2013) that:
"... Not everything in it has stood the test of time, ..."
http://theweekinchess.com/john-watson-reviews/john-watson-book-review-108-of-eplus-books-part-2-nimzowitsch-classics
One last point to keep in mind is that, even if My System would eventually help a player, it might not necessarily be helpful to a player now.
"... Just because a book contains lots of information that you don’t know, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it will be extremely helpful in making you better at this point in your chess development. ..." - Dan Heisman (2001)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140626180930/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman06.pdf
A My System sample can be seen at:
https://www.qualitychess.co.uk/ebooks/MySystem-excerpt.pdf
A Chess Praxis sample can be seen at:
https://www.qualitychess.co.uk/ebooks/ChessPraxis-excerpt.pdf
Various samples:
https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/9027.pdf
Hi guys, bellow, a little thesis / essay / hypothesis:
I’m not sure about other people, but for me improving in chess is a train and study matter TOGETHER MENTAL STAMINA.
The only biological factor that interferes with chess is mental energy. Carlsen, for example, does not know more about chess than Karjakin. Give karjakin the double of time and he could analyze more, better, and more deeply all the variants he could find, and Carlsen would have trouble analyzing the same amount of lines. So what do we see here?
Obviously an apparently biological difference between Carlsen and Karjakin (a very minimal one, I must say).
This mental energy can be increased, but genetics tends to favor some individuals and others no. For example, anyone can train hard, but even though I train as hard as Bolt, he has a genetic advantage and will be, with both traning equally, a step forward.
The point is that the genetic influence on intelligence is not very well defined, but as we can see, chess has a step beyond intelligence, because it is a sport and depends on speed and precision. In other words, the intelligence of any player above the 2700 is essentially the same, everyone can understand the same positions and, each in his time, can find the same moves in the same positions: the cleverness is the same.
However, player A finds a solution in X time and player B finds in Y time, to increase the speed with which we find the solution we can to use some resources: previous knowledge, previous preparation, mental exercises, etc. etc.
Again, some people have genetics that invite to evolution. We depend on the notion of effort-reward.
I learned the movement of pieces in a single explanation, but I have already tried to teach the rules of the game to people who had serious difficulties in memorizing the knight's movement. For me it was too simple understand: The knight moves like this: END. What do you have to understand about this?
But to my amazement, some people have difficulties in this. These people may eventually learn but they will continue their difficulties again and again every time they receive new information, in that half time, they study and learn others arts, and the effort-reward limit chess interest in favor of others activity.
Summarizing: Intelligence, mental energy, good social receptivity (effort-reward ratio), opportunity, study material.
(With globalization and the internet, almost everyone seems to have equal opportunities and the same amount of study, so I did not mention this technical part in my little thesis / essay / hypothesis).
I'm thinking... Can mental stamina be increased with good social acceptance?
Let's look at a hypothetical situation. The guy is 4 years old, so he looks at a board and the person he loves the most (father, mother, uncle, brother ...) says: FANTASTIC, YOU LOOKED AT THE BOARD!
So the process of false but convincing motivation extends over and over again and again ... Does not the individual have a brain-building process guided to play chess?
I do not quite understand how the brain modifies in adult person, but I think that working the brain of a four-year-old is highly productive because, as we all know, we are born prematurely, most mental building process are still happening,according to science, until near the age of 21. Here I am referring to the biological and not to the knowledge, evolution that can be observed in the laboratory just as we can compare the height of a child of 4 years with the height of this child with 10 years ...
Yes, of course some people are naturally bad at chess. There are some people who are naturally bad at math or sex also.
There are some people who are naturally bad at math or sex also.
Especially when combined.
Yes some people are just not as good. I have the same number of games as you and cannot break 700. I don’t study or do many lessons though; perhaps I should. My goal is 1000. It’s tough to improve in 10 minute games.