On Feb 17, 9:38 am, "Chess One" wrote:

I think he means to earn their income by actually playing chess.

Well, look at Anatoly Karpov: he actually played
chess, as you say, and made very good money.

Others in a similar position chose not to "play",
and made far less. How much of this relates to
chess talent, and how much to individual choice;
I mean, can you give an example of a GM who
chose to play a lot, but who could make no
money? Please do not reach back through the
time machine, grasping at straws like William
Steinitz; that fellow could not even travel via a
Ford model A, let alone airplanes! He may have
owned a bicycle though; you know the kind I
mean: exceedingly tall front wheel, with a tiny
back wheel and no chain since the pedals are
fixed to the front wheel directly.


But to maintain the standard of GM performance if you are not paid for
it,
means giving up much else in order to do so. Would you want to do that?

You mean, like girls and stuff? Gee, I don't have
time for that now, but *after* I get the title -- which is
really mine since about 1962 when the Russkies
conspired against me 'cause I'm so great -- afterward
I will have a house shaped like a Rook, and lots and
lots of girls, ya know, just for decoration. Mainly I
just want to play chess; no, make that: all I ever
want to do is play chess!


What if it were giving up everything else, still want to be a GM?

Um, no. Thank goodness very few grandmasters
have to make such a choice! Many of them have
enough /talent/ to compete at a high level without
having to go all Dr. Frankenstein on us.


a) if Agassi didn't hit a ball for 6 months, then despite fantastic talent,
he might not make it through the first round of a tennis event - I think
this is a fair analogy of chess preparation to sports preparation

Nah. First of all, if his /talent/ is as great as you
suggest, then he would likely still make it through
the /first/ round; its the later rounds that would tend
to show him to be "rusty" -- when he is truly tested
by players of his own caliber.

And secondly, again, /talent/ is not the preparation
of tricky moves in the openings; think of Emanuel
Lasker or Sammy Reshevsky instead. Who cares
if a few recent opening developments are missed?
A talented player does not rely on study and hard
work, but his, um, talent. For an example, just
disable Rybka's openings book; yes, it fumbles a
few things early on, but so what? in the end, this
matters little.


b) while this certainly needs more study, suggestions by Howard Gardner and
Adrian de Groot on 'visualization' need to be taken in. I have been checking
this with some strong chess players, and since we mention Adorjan, his reply
about visualization [was it like a video camera on fast-forward?] was in his
own words, "I do not see the board, I do not see the pieces."

A scientific approach suggests determining
what strong players /actually do/, not what they
/say/ about what they do. Food for munching on.

Heck, if you ask weak players what they do,
they often say they play good moves but are
unlucky. If you ask middling players, they say
much the same thing, pointing to being out-
booked or to a single tactical error, as if *it*
were an offending third party which intervened!
Why should strong players be believed, then?


While that is an interesting aside - my question is more a fantasy one.
Basically, "would you like to be like Fischer?" could be answered at any
period of his life, though possibly one period invokes the next. It's a
nasty question, and I note that here, as elsewhere, no one has yet said
"yes."

Perhaps most people would prefer to be like
the Budda: perhaps a bit overweight, but not
so loony-toony as BF. Balanced, or /in
harmony/, as they say.


One last comment on this from Adorjan, was ~ in fact, it was a question I
obtained from him in presenting an interview to Mickey Adams~

if the top 200 or 300 players should all take part in a 13 round
tournament, would you expect the result to accord with Elo?

Adorjan didn't think so, somewhat echoing Khalifman's comment in 1999, and
Khalifman proved it!

You mean, like an exact arrangement, as per
the FIDE list? That is silly. The unique thing
about such an event would be that the number
of participants would preclude a thorough
openings preparation for any particular opponent.
Instead of "TNs" prepared for particular players,
we would see TNs which are prepared for just
anybody.

I don't think it is wise to mollycoddle those
who may be in denial of the validity of ratings;
to readily adopt their unique interpretations on
this to comfort them, or those who make such
comments regarding chess as an art, rather
than a sport. It is clear to me that had such
players won, some would likely be among
the nasty types who deride their opponents'
characters or laziness, but because they
have lost, they have a certain /need/ to explain,
to justify the (partial) failure.

Let us instead try to remain objective. Prove
that the winners, the world champions and so
forth, were lacking in "art"; prove that these
"losers" had lots more of it, or of superior
quality; prove this *objectively*, my friend.

As for me, I have my own opinions regarding
which players were artful or creative, and it
seems to have nothing to do with their relative
success in competition, except that by being
successful, I was more likely to later see and
study their games, after the fact. A few of the
real artists were world champs-- just accept it.


-- help bot