"help bot" wrote in message
...
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.

Volition is not Adorjan's point at all. I think he means that in terms of
available money in the game at any one time, 30 to 50 players can earn it at
chess.



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?

Like normal socialisation.

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

I didn't know the Russkies gave titles for C players? Or is it B?

You sometimes remind me of one of those historiy of the navy fans who use
rather more naval terms than do real sailors.

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's a bit sad Greg, is that maybe you are not aware that you just /may
be/ projecting onto Fischer your own little fantasy?

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.

That is an interesting point of view. Will it stagger you to learn that it
is not Agassi's own? It is not unknown in chess - two examples eg, are
Fischer and more currently Topalov. Both need to play themselves in.

Fischer survived all-play-all and Swiss tournaments because he could come on
strong after playing in. But many modern tournaments are knowck out type,
and best of 3. This would mean he would have lost in the first round to
Spassky, and been eliminated.

And secondly, again, /talent/ is not the preparation
of tricky moves in the openings;

Yes - i don't think it is /all/ preparation and tricks - preparation is also
performance based, which deals with what happens to you OTB. This is often
thought to be the reason for training matches.

think of Emanuel
Lasker or Sammy Reshevsky instead. Who cares
if a few recent opening developments are missed?

Would rather depend how few and how recent. But again, whose opinion is
this? Since I am perhaps considerably stronger than you, I must mediate your
idea from your level of play with seriously hairy great Russian GMs, who do
not agree with you. I am much less sure of these things than you.

An interesting illustration is Tony Miles whose 'outrageous play' brought
down the world's top GMs - even the W. Ch a couple of times.

A talented player does not rely on study and hard
work, but his, um, talent.

Your opinion again Greg? Don't people we call genius, in chess and
generally, often say 10% inspiration, 90% perspiration?

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.

I notice the middle game comes between the opening and the end. Certainly at
Corus I didn't see anyone fumbling the opening and surviving the middle
game. Did you? But the real test is not speculate on Rybka, but to see if
what you say is true or no without books or gimics.

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.

Sure it is. Its easier for people to understand a concrete visual metaphor-
which is probably why that is offered - ["do you get the picture?"] but not
necessarily a representation of what is going 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?

That is a non-sequiter to perception in chess and its representation.

And chess is not usual - it is often as difficult to talk about /what
happens/ as ... music! In fact, in order to make this parallel comment
Adorjan replied with the following question [which is not about playing
chess, but about how we understand stuff]

How does the concert pianist virtuoso [you must imagine him without
sheet-music] know the exact weight to apply to his little finger at the
10,000th note?

One might add to 'weight', speed, timing/tempo, and other factors.

Now consider 3 things:

a) do you /know/ the answer or guess at it?

and if not, would you prefer to ask a

a) concert pianist
b) a cognitive psychologist who studies concert pianists

Phil Innes