This sort of posting which does not volunteer the basis for any decision,
nor cite facts, but which recommends 'treatment' for those who do, or who
could do, might have been written in Germany in 1938. It was a typical
remonstration.

Lets us not confuse what we now know of these methods with that which we
know at the cost of so much blood, with what constitutes fair discussion in
the West, 2006.

Brennan says Kingston's idea of eugenics was 'clearly expressed'. Will the
gentlemen make themselves clearer than those who did so in '38?

Phil Innes

"The Historian" wrote in message
oups.com...

help bot wrote:

As for Kingston-Brennan, their stuff is peeee-ti-full.



Has anyone else noticed the fact that such assessments
by Larry Parr are always followed up with oddly blank lines,
rather than substantiation? :D

I don't think there is any substantiation Parr can provide. All I wrote
was that it was a waste of time to discuss chess history with Innes,
and that Kingston's point was clearly expressed. How Parr decided that
I share Mr. Kingston's opinion I don't know. Mr. Parr should seek
treatment.

2722 wrote:
"help bot" wrote in message
oups.com...
My view is that IM Innes is and has been asking TK
for clarification regarding his choice of the phrase
"natural talent", which TK has now answered only in part
by ruling out the idea of a "chess gene". The question
remains: what exactly is "natural" talent, as opposed to
any other kind of talent in chess?

Sure. But stop telling people I am an IM, or you lose credibility for more
sober reflections. I never said I was an IM, only close to it for a few
seasons a quarter century ago.

How many IM norms did you have?


--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Nov 11, 8:45 pm, "help bot" wrote:
My view is that IM Innes is and has been asking TK
for clarification regarding his choice of the phrase
"natural talent", which TK has now answered only in part
by ruling out the idea of a "chess gene".

Well, Greg, I'm glad that you at least understand that, even if Innes
does not.

The question
remains: what exactly is "natural" talent, as opposed to
any other kind of talent in chess?

I thought I had made that clear, but here goes again. By natural
talent, I mean simply potential ability which is inborn, rather than
acquired skill. Just as different genetic endowments produce giants and
midgets, baritones and sopranos, body types ranging from wispy
ballerinas to massive sumo wrestlers, and other significant
differences, so too, I believe, can genetic endowment make it easier or
harder for a person to excel at chess. I may be wrong, but this seems
to me the best explanation for the likes of Morphy, Capablanca,
Reshevsky and other chess prodigies.
This is not to discount the importance of environmental factors.
Morphy and Capablanca were born into family situations and environments
that favored development of chess skills. But so are many other people,
and yet we get very few Morphys and Capablancas. I believe differences
in innate ability account for this, at least to some extent.
No amount of training will ever suffice even to teach a chimpanzee
how the pieces move, let alone play well. Similarly, I think that some
people can never be very good at chess, even with much training, any
more than training can enable a congenitally color-blind person to see
red, blue and green. Yet given the same training, others will excel.
Natural talent is an important factor in this, I believe.
However, I have no idea what genetic/neurological/biological factors
may produce this talent; I am only inferring its existence. Maybe it
does not exist any more than, say, phlogiston or interstellar ether.
Maybe if by a hospital error the newborn J.R. Capablanca had been
switched with another baby, that baby would have become world champion.
If a scientific experiment were to be done, in which, say, a thousand
randomly selected children of the same age were all given the exact
same chess training for the same length of time, and at the end of that
time they all had the same Elo rating, that would argue strongly
against my opinion.

I shouldn't be surprised that some posters here don't follow your
argument, Taylor, but I am. The 'talent vs hard work' debate is
eternal. I thought everyone would have been familiar with it, even if
they didn't agree with your position. A web search turns up any number
of online discussions about talent vs hard work, including a recent one
at Susan Polgar's website.

My favorite example of talent trumping hard work alone is Mozart.
Vienna had several capable composers, including Salieri, a fine
composer in his own right. Mozart's music has lived with us for more
than two centuries now, while that of his hard-working rivals is dead
on the page. Even if you never listen to Mozart's music, haven't you
seen Amadeus, folks? (Note: please don't take everything that's shown
on screen in this film as historical fact.)

I *am* surprised that Innes trotted out his vile racist theories. I'm
not surprised he had such views, mind you, only that he made them
public.

Innes: Lasker came 8th at Hastings in 1935,

Kingston: Lasker never finished sole 8th in any tournament ever. The
only time he played in any Hastings tournament was in 1895.

Innes: ROFL! ... Taylor Kingston has assumed I meant the Premier
tournament,

Phil, have you gone even more nuts than usual? The plain fact is that
Emanuel Lasker never played in any Hastings tournament, in any section,
Premier or otherwise, except in 1895. That's it. That date is *40
years* removed from 1935.
So you can "ROFL" all you like, but the plain fact is you're totally
wrong to say that "Lasker came 8th at Hastings in 1935." Or were you
referring to Hastings-of-the-Andes?

Kenneth Sloan wrote:
2722 wrote:
"help bot" wrote in message
oups.com...
My view is that IM Innes is and has been asking TK
for clarification regarding his choice of the phrase
"natural talent", which TK has now answered only in part
by ruling out the idea of a "chess gene". The question
remains: what exactly is "natural" talent, as opposed to
any other kind of talent in chess?

Sure. But stop telling people I am an IM, or you lose credibility for more
sober reflections. I never said I was an IM, only close to it for a few
seasons a quarter century ago.

How many IM norms did you have?

And when did he get that rating of 2450 he mentioned?

"Kenneth Sloan" wrote in message
...

Sure. But stop telling people I am an IM, or you lose credibility for
more sober reflections. I never said I was an IM, only close to it for a
few seasons a quarter century ago.

How many IM norms did you have?

Three things;

(1) How many threads can you initiate with your bizarre posting method of
titles unrelated to the previous tpic, and entirely non-decriptive?

(2) You don't understand what I wrote above to make your usual idiotic and
/always/ insulting inquiry based on an obvious and evident missaprehension.
You are merely content to advertise your ineptitude both as 'Computer and
Information Scientist' and as someone with the available wit to respond
either in a civil manner, or indeed, intelligently.

--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473

(3) Not a boast!

Neither of competency, decency, or logic.

Phil Innes



Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

3041 wrote:
"Kenneth Sloan" wrote in message
...

Sure. But stop telling people I am an IM, or you lose credibility for
more sober reflections. I never said I was an IM, only close to it for a
few seasons a quarter century ago.
How many IM norms did you have?

Three things;

(1) How many threads can you initiate with your bizarre posting method of
titles unrelated to the previous tpic, and entirely non-decriptive?

(2) You don't understand what I wrote above to make your usual idiotic and
/always/ insulting inquiry based on an obvious and evident missaprehension.
You are merely content to advertise your ineptitude both as 'Computer and
Information Scientist' and as someone with the available wit to respond
either in a civil manner, or indeed, intelligently.

--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473

(3) Not a boast!

Neither of competency, decency, or logic.

Phil Innes



Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/



so...I take it that the answer is: 0?


--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

On Nov 12, 6:02 pm, Kenneth Sloan wrote:
How many IM norms did you have?

Three things;

(1) How many threads can you initiate with your bizarre posting method of
titles unrelated to the previous tpic, and entirely non-decriptive?

(2) You don't understand what I wrote above to make your usual idiotic and
/always/ insulting inquiry based on an obvious and evident missaprehension.
You are merely content to advertise your ineptitude both as 'Computer and
Information Scientist' and as someone with the available wit to respond
either in a civil manner, or indeed, intelligently.

--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473

(3) Not a boast!

Neither of competency, decency, or logic.

Phil Innes

I take it that the answer is: 0?

--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170

Bravo, Ken. "Brevity is the soul of wit" and all that.

"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
oups.com...


On Nov 11, 8:45 pm, "help bot" wrote:
My view is that IM Innes is and has been asking TK
for clarification regarding his choice of the phrase
"natural talent", which TK has now answered only in part
by ruling out the idea of a "chess gene".

Well, Greg, I'm glad that you at least understand that, even if Innes
does not.

The question
remains: what exactly is "natural" talent, as opposed to
any other kind of talent in chess?

I thought I had made that clear, but here goes again. By natural
talent, I mean simply potential ability which is inborn, rather than
acquired skill. Just as different genetic endowments produce giants and
midgets, baritones and sopranos, body types ranging from wispy
ballerinas to massive sumo wrestlers, and other significant
differences, so too, I believe, can genetic endowment make it easier or
harder for a person to excel at chess. I may be wrong, but this seems
to me the best explanation for the likes of Morphy, Capablanca,
Reshevsky and other chess prodigies.
This is not to discount the importance of environmental factors.

ROFL

At least Kingston admits that 'environmental factors' are also in play with
his, own words, chess gene - which seems not to be an analogy any more! He
does not indicate to what degree they are important, but then again, this is
a mere hypothesis, not pretending to be factual - nevermind he calls people
names for not understanding him.

Morphy and Capablanca were born into family situations and environments
that favored development of chess skills. But so are many other people,
and yet we get very few Morphys and Capablancas. I believe differences
in innate ability account for this, at least to some extent.
No amount of training will ever suffice even to teach a chimpanzee
how the pieces move, let alone play well. Similarly, I think that some
people can never be very good at chess, even with much training, any
more than training can enable a congenitally color-blind person to see
red, blue and green. Yet given the same training, others will excel.
Natural talent is an important factor in this, I believe.
However, I have no idea what genetic/neurological/biological factors
may produce this talent; I am only inferring its existence.

Or to what degree this putative gene or -natural factor- is causal compared
with environmental factors or other psychological factors - or even
opportunity, which is a sociology.

Maybe it
does not exist any more than, say, phlogiston or interstellar ether.
Maybe if by a hospital error the newborn J.R. Capablanca had been
switched with another baby, that baby would have become world champion.

And there we go, back to Californian speculations, this time the 'switched
at birth analogy' 'B' movie.

If a scientific experiment were to be done, in which, say, a thousand
randomly selected children of the same age were all given the exact
same chess training for the same length of time, and at the end of that
time they all had the same Elo rating, that would argue strongly
against my opinion.

Kingston should read de Groot or Gardner or Ornstien. Then he would discover
that without the need for eugenic ideas, there is differentiation among
chess players. Then he should offer his opinions, but not to why - just that
he knows there is a difference! And what other professional people-observers
already studied, and what they concluded, is yet unknown to him well enough
to argue in public, but some reference point for his views.

Phil Innes

On Nov 12, 6:58 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in ooglegroups.com...
On Nov 11, 8:45 pm, "help bot" wrote:
My view is that IM Innes is and has been asking TK
for clarification regarding his choice of the phrase
"natural talent", which TK has now answered only in part
by ruling out the idea of a "chess gene".

Well, Greg, I'm glad that you at least understand that, even if Innes
does not.

The question
remains: what exactly is "natural" talent, as opposed to
any other kind of talent in chess?

I thought I had made that clear, but here goes again. By natural
talent, I mean simply potential ability which is inborn, rather than
acquired skill. Just as different genetic endowments produce giants and
midgets, baritones and sopranos, body types ranging from wispy
ballerinas to massive sumo wrestlers, and other significant
differences, so too, I believe, can genetic endowment make it easier or
harder for a person to excel at chess. I may be wrong, but this seems
to me the best explanation for the likes of Morphy, Capablanca,
Reshevsky and other chess prodigies.
This is not to discount the importance of environmental factors.

ROFL
At least Kingston admits that 'environmental factors' are also in play with
his, own words, chess gene

Phil Innes introduced the idea of a "chess gene" to this thread, yet
he keeps trying to attribute it to me. Bizarre, and completely
dishonest, yet typical for Phil.

- which seems not to be an analogy any more! He
does not indicate to what degree they are important, but then again, this is
a mere hypothesis, not pretending to be factual - nevermind he calls people
names for not understanding him.

Oh no, Phil -- I call you a liar for misrepresenting people.

Morphy and Capablanca were born into family situations and environments
that favored development of chess skills. But so are many other people,
and yet we get very few Morphys and Capablancas. I believe differences
in innate ability account for this, at least to some extent.
No amount of training will ever suffice even to teach a chimpanzee
how the pieces move, let alone play well. Similarly, I think that some
people can never be very good at chess, even with much training, any
more than training can enable a congenitally color-blind person to see
red, blue and green. Yet given the same training, others will excel.
Natural talent is an important factor in this, I believe.
However, I have no idea what genetic/neurological/biological factors
may produce this talent; I am only inferring its existence.
Or to what degree this putative gene or -natural factor- is causal compared
with environmental factors or other psychological factors - or even
opportunity, which is a sociology.

"_A_ sociology"? Hmmm, when I got my degree in sociology, we just
referred to it as "sociology," with no preceding article, indefinite or
otherwise. And while "opportunity" was definitely a factor to be
considered in certain sociological situations, it did not itself
constitute "a sociology."
I think Phil knows as much about sociology as he does about Spanish,
or "Andean" as he calls it.

Maybe it
does not exist any more than, say, phlogiston or interstellar ether.
Maybe if by a hospital error the newborn J.R. Capablanca had been
switched with another baby, that baby would have become world champion.
And there we go, back to Californian speculations, this time the 'switched
at birth analogy' 'B' movie.

If a scientific experiment were to be done, in which, say, a thousand
randomly selected children of the same age were all given the exact
same chess training for the same length of time, and at the end of that
time they all had the same Elo rating, that would argue strongly
against my opinion.

Kingston should read de Groot or Gardner or Ornstien. Then he would discover
that without the need for eugenic ideas,

Phil, no one but you has used the word "eugenic" in this thread.

there is differentiation among
chess players. Then he should offer his opinions, but not to why - just that
he knows there is a difference! And what other professional people-observers
already studied, and what they concluded, is yet unknown to him well enough
to argue in public, but some reference point for his views.

Greg, do you still have that Innes-speak translator you were using a
few months back? Can you make any sense of this?