chess puzzles

Chess Puzzles

Share and you will find!
Quirky name, real hobbies
[ Sign up | Log in | Guest ] (beta)
lordnguyenvo 22 ( +1 | -1 )
How did the youngsters(in age) could possibly win the title GM.What factor makes it possible?I personally think that experience is an important factor to be a GM but since they are young,I have no idea.I would like to know opinions from everybody.
bluebabygirl 47 ( +1 | -1 )
to the lord did you not know that genius knows no age limits!! the new young great players have advantage of past player's games and all this computer stored knowledge with easy access to all. look at Reshevsky a boy wunderkind . how much faster and further he might have went if given the same opourtunity!! I say there will be many younger players in future to achieve fantastic results at young age just for this reason. yours bluebabygirl
lordnguyenvo 48 ( +1 | -1 )
There are a lot of young GMs out there and I dont think they are all geniuses. I agree about the larger and easier-to-reach database,it really helps a lot.But if you just give them a load of games to watch without explanations or teaching then they still get whipped by experienced players.Maybe there are some combo lead to this great success like good mentor+database+spend a great deal of time to study chess,etc.
More: Chess
verticalchess 23 ( +1 | -1 )
Well... some children have a natural gift for chess - that coupled with practice, knowledge, experience, etc = obvious success. All others must work that much harder to acheive the same results!
chesstickle 25 ( +1 | -1 )
teached training must be much better with much greater access to vast databases. software with top analysis, better food etc. The early great players had none of this, and thats why they were rubbish at chess.
tulkos 12 ( +1 | -1 )
Well, They had a natural talent to begin with, their parents spent a lot of time money and energy on them, etc.
chess_champion 43 ( +1 | -1 )
LOL at what chesstickle said... that just made me crack up... the statement about early great players being rubbish at chess... this is not the first thread hes posted at in which he states early players being bad. im not saying i agree with it or not but newer players have more chess material available to them then the old greats and that's what makes modern chessplayers better...
bogg 68 ( +1 | -1 )
Training I have read form two different sources comparisons between learning chess and learning a language. They disagreed on the number of tokens of information necessary to be fluent in chess, one said 50,000 the other thought it was closer to 100,00. The trick is to spend your time learning the necessary and not to spend your time redundantly. Everything I have ever read states that it is far easier to learn a language when you are very young and here the comparison to chess definitely holds. Very few people have become strong players after taking up chess late in their life.
Also talent and access to information helps greatly!
buddy2 41 ( +1 | -1 )
chess and language Bogg has a point. Read about the Polgar sisters and how their father home-schooled them with a heavy dose of chess, chess, chess. These girls are intellingent, but calling them geniuses begs the question. He would claim it's training. Like language, it has to begin early or it won't work. That's why starting to learn French or Spanish in high school is ridiculous.
buddy2 43 ( +1 | -1 )
early players I agree with chess_champion. Early players, like Anderssen or Morphy or Steintz would give the best today a real tussle. I just played through a few games of the Anderssen-Kolisch match, with analysis by Boden, Lowenthal, and Staunton, played in 1861 and was astounded and the strategic and tactical insights of all concerned. Maybe that's why Fischer rated Howard Staunton one of the greatest players of all time.
leaddog 14 ( +1 | -1 )
Gifts Some are given gifts at early ages. Mozart was compoing music at age 5.... At age 5 most children can't comprehend yet here was one writing... Gifts
silverwolfwsc 78 ( +1 | -1 )
chess and language thats interesting, I am very good at picking up a new language. In high school, i took spanish 1, skipped 2, took 3, skipped 4 and took 5. And i found it fairly easy to do so.

In chess, i am , well...., not quite as good at it. I think i have done acceptably well since i only started playing seriously early this year, but still, i dont know if the correlation still sticks if you are older.

Maybe though, give me a few years, and we will see if it comes as easily as a language did.

(P.S. Even though i know a lot ABOUT spanish from taking the classes, i still cant talk to anyone without sounding like a book, and i cant understand anyone who DOESNT sound like a book very well. Learning a language out of books is rediculous.)