Talent in Chess (Second Part)

Rereading my previous article about talent, I realize that many people probably thought I sounded like a child throwing a tantrum, trying to prove my points through volume alone and not through evidence [Not anymore; I have posted links in the other articles to resources in the web about the theme we are discussing here; CP]. I hope most of my readers know me better than that. Here I will talk briefly (I´ll try!) about the different definitions of talent, aptitude, skill and genius. I do not intend to make this a theoretical treatise on the psychology of chess and/or learning. I just aim to inspire those who have given up on improving their chess, to try to convince them that “talent” does not exist in chess and that their hard work will pay off.

 Genetic inheritance and aptitudes

 Chess is artificial; it was invented by humans. Chess skill is not a natural quality that is determined by someone’s genetic makeup; unlike body height, eye color, or physical/athletic prowess, children cannot inherit chess skill from their parents or grandparents.

How many of us know someone super-tall, someone who is supposed to excel on a basketball court? First, we don’t think that “he’s a talented basketball player,” but that “he has the potential to become a good basketball player”. And second, when you ask Mr.-Very-tall if he has tried this sport, you’ll probably get one of two responses:

A: “Ah, I don´t like it.”

B: “Ah, I already tried it, but I was really bad.”

It’s the same with chess. I don’t know any strong players whose children are also exceptionally strong. Even if there are one or two parent-child pairs of grandmasters, it’s certainly not a trend – here, the exception would only prove the rule.

It’s also important to realize that chess skill is not correlated with intelligence (which may well depend on genetics). When you meet someone very intelligent, someone that excels in any number of activities that require mental labor, you would never say: “oh, you must have talent for chess!”. Older chess players know what I mean: haven’t you seen how many “brainless” players have extraordinary chess skills, while others whose intelligence is beyond doubt can’t survive a round against an average club player?

What is talent, then?

 Talent is the ability to perform some activity well, and is defined as a potential (which may be developed) rather than an innate ability (meaning you are born with it).

Abilities/skills can be acquired through learning. In short, you can be good with numbers, but that does not mean that you will be a rocket scientist. However, you could be a rocket scientist if you were willing to put in the necessary time and effort to study advanced mathematics and physics.

 I can see you shaking your head, still uncertain:

“But there are geniuses! Mozart, for example, or Reshevsky and Pomar in chess. And Einstein! He was also a genius, right? “

We’ll get to the child prodigies; geniality is a category that exists, and the difference with talent is well marked:

• Talent, as a quality non-exclusive (that anyone can have it), is simply defined as being better than most people at some activity. It can be developed or improved through hard work.
• Genius, on the other hand, consists of inventing a new activity or method that others do not understand. Einstein’s discovery of relativity, for example, involved finding entirely new ways to think about problems in physics.

“So, Bobby Fischer and Garry Kasparov are not geniuses?” -You ask me.

No, they are not. They are normal people with strong characteristics such as perseverance, will power, and of course, general intelligence. They are dedicated, heart and soul, to their favorite activity.

“But you will not even admit that they are talented?”- You persevere.

Of course they are! They developed their talent for chess through years of devoted study, and reached their full potential.

“But they were also good as children! Also, consider Capablanca, Reshevsky, Pomar … how much time could they have devoted to chess, being so young?” – (Gee, you are insistent!)

Well, without knowing it, you asked about the other side of the coin. The issue here is not “talent” as such, but rather human cognitive development. We will consider the example par excellence of development in infants and adults:

Language

After we are born, we are constantly bombarded with language. Given all the speech we constantly hear around us, we learn to speak “by hearsay” due to the developing brain’s ability to capture and relate to everything it encounters at this early stage of life. If any child is placed in a multilingual environment (two or more languages), then he or she will easily learn all the languages of that environment without an accent.

However, older children who are exposed to another language will not learn it flawlessly. They will pick up most of the language’s vocabulary and grammatical patterns, but they will make some mistakes, and they may have a subtle but noticeable accent. Of course, the degree which these irregularities appear depends on the individual’s environment and cognitive development.

After 15 years of life (some studies say 18), a young adult will “suffer” a little more while trying to learn a new language, and if they master it (they are no longer able to absorb the language passively as children do), they will certainly have an accent and make significant grammatical errors.

An adult (25+) will find it difficult to master a new language. In an overwhelming percent of cases, adults will have an accent, make repeated grammatical mistakes, and understand the language far better than they can speak it. When talking, they will be aware of their need to first formulate a response in their native language and then translate it into the new language. Only after extensive practice will their speech become automatic, but the grammatical errors and the accent will never disappear in most cases.

Why do I bring up this? Because it has been demonstrated that the learning patterns for chess and music are the same as those for language. Early exposure to chess or music (or any other art/game not listed here that does not involve life experience, such as literature) increases the chances that children will excel in those activities.

This is what happened to those child prodigies mentioned earlier: exposure to chess at a young age, combined with extensive subsequent chess practice, yields very strong young players.

But beware: this never meant that children excelled in other areas. Though Reshevsky was taken through Europe to offer simuls at the age of 8, his normal development was damaged. Several studies have shown that Reshevsky did not know as much as other 8-year-olds about other subjects, and he was socially isolated.

Chess as language

Richard Reti made ​​a comparison (maybe as a metaphor) between language and chess, writing about Rubinstein (who learned to play at 16) and Capablanca (at 4). Since I don’t have the text at hand, I’ll paraphrase:

Reti argued that Capablanca made no serious blunders in his games because he learned to play at such a young age. However, Rubinstein (a high-level player who learned later in life) sometimes committed serious positional mistakes despite being a world-renowned grandmaster. Reti called this “playing chess with an accent.”

But how many of us strive to play at just a fourth of Rubinstein’s level? He was a top-class player, possibly even the best player who never became world champion.

Children always will have advantages over adults:

1. Their cognitive development makes it far easier for them to learn, as discussed above.
2. Unlike with adults, it’s not considered strange if a child devotes all his time to studying chess.
3. Children don’t have to make a living; they can spend years improving before they need to think about whether they can support themselves through chess.

Teenagers have lost some of the natural advantages that children have, and they have age-specific disadvantages – hormones (if you know what I mean). However, they still have an advantage over adults, and can develop a high level of expertise, with little or no “accent”.

Adults, however, have a tough road ahead. This is not because they lack talent, but because their ability to learn has deteriorated. It’s time to be frank: it will be quite difficult for a 30-year-old to become a master, and let´s not talk about becoming a grandmaster. It has been done in the past (and is still possible today), but only at the expense of great personal sacrifice, and only through the best methods of studying and training chess.

It is my personal mission, here on Chess for Real, to show every one of you the best way to develop your potential as a chess player, whether you are a teenager or an adult.

And Finally!

Because this has gone on too long, I’ll save my thoughts on how chess skills are developed and trained for later. (Believe me, this article is very important and will be very useful for you). I also left several things unsaid about chess as a language, but that’s for another time as well.

If this article was very long and perhaps boring, believe me: it was not my intention, nor will it be the norm (in fact, I think opening this website with a couple of articles like this may have been a mistake, maybe it scared a few readers off). My goal in building this site is to provide resources for serious chess training, but I also aim to have entertaining content.

The next article? It will be about how you can get free lessons from chess masters! Completely free, not a penny for those “suckers”. (just an inside joke)

See you next time!

Ad Majorem Caissa Gloriam!