What's the Difference Between a Strong Amateur Versus a GM?
Sort:
Oldest
Post you the answer tommorow! Watch out!
A couple hundred rating points?
You can't argue with that.
lol. You are like comparing a local boxing champ to a battle-hardened boxing champ who have travelled across many countries facing various opponents.
The first difference is in the experience level. GMs have a lot of experience participating in strong tournaments facing strong opponents who may have prepared specifically to face the GMs. On the other hand, amateurs generally face random opponents who most likely make no specific preparation for the game. That alone makes a vast difference. When asked about a certain position, GMs generally can recall games with similar position and can tell you what idea works and what does not. Amateurs on the other hand do not have the luxury of this "internal database", and rely on their inexperience to find out the outcome of their moves.
The second difference is the environment. GMs generally hang out with other GMs, Masters, or other professional chess players. They often discuss and exchange ideas about chess. Most amateurs do not have access into these elite chess circles. As a result, amateurs are often left behind in terms of catching up with the latest trends and ideas in chess.
The last difference is in the level of devotion. Amateurs do not earn their living from playing chess. They generally devote less time into chess study. Professional chess players devote more time studying their own games and their opponents' games. As a result, their improvement is more rapid than the amateurs'.
Well, it looks like everyone here is having fun spamming the thread. So let's paartaay!!
hankas wrote:
lol. You are like comparing a local boxing champ to a battle-hardened boxing champ who have travelled across many countries facing various opponents.
The first difference is in the experience level. GMs have a lot of experience participating in strong tournaments facing strong opponents who may have prepared specifically to face the GMs. On the other hand, amateurs generally face random opponents who most likely make no specific preparation for the game. That alone makes a vast difference. When asked about a certain position, GMs generally can recall games with similar position and can tell you what idea works and what does not. Amateurs on the other hand do not have the luxury of this "internal database", and rely on their inexperience to find out the outcome of their moves.
The second difference is the environment. GMs generally hang out with other GMs, Masters, or other professional chess players. They often discuss and exchange ideas about chess. Most amateurs do not have access into these elite chess circles. As a result, amateurs are often left behind in terms of catching up with the latest trends and ideas in chess.
The last difference is in the level of devotion. Amateurs do not earn their living from playing chess. They generally devote less time into chess study. Professional chess players devote more time studying their own games and their opponents' games. As a result, their improvement is more rapid than the amateurs'.
What an eye opener mr. hankas. you are certainly right. But shouldn't we recognise also the studying patterns between amatuers and GMs? There's a big difference to that too, you know.
don't feed the troll..
Mar 15, 2012
0
#14
LisaV wrote:
Ugh, couldn't make it past 25 seconds of the dry-heaving Santorum song.
Anyway, the difference between a GM and a strong amateur is that a GM is stronger.
It's just like Federer is more than just a Feder, therefore Federer is a better tennis player.
Watch out for his son, Roger Federerer, and grandson, Roger Federererer.
Hilarious!
The lyrics to the Santorum song are hysterical!
LisaV wrote:
Ugh, couldn't make it past 25 seconds of the dry-heaving Santorum song.
Anyway, the difference between a GM and a strong amateur is that a GM is stronger.
It's just like Federer is more than just a Feder, therefore Federer is a better tennis player.
Watch out for his son, Roger Federerer, and grandson, Roger Federererer.
I listened to the whole thing! I thought it was pretty damned funny! "God gave us the bill of rights!" That was great. And reagan "dragonkiller" just about had me rollin' on the floor.
The damned guitarist who was too lazy to lift his pads off the strings to change tune was really irritating, though.
bigpoison wrote:
"God gave us the bill of rights!" That was great.
Actually, that idea is strangely consistent with our founding fathers' belief in a Natural or Common Law, which Justice Oliver Wendell Homes Jr. sarcastically referred to as a "Brooding Omnipresence in the sky". It wasn't until 1938 that the Supreme Court finally moved away from the idea of a Natural Law in Erie R.R. v. Tompkins.
The difference between a GM and an amateur is whether you have to play against them or they will beat themselves for you.
You mean in the eyes of the law or something?
POST COMMENTS NOW!