Duruing the early 'nineties I had periods of unemployment. Recently I read opinions that the young masters now predominating needed something like 10,000 hours of intense work in order to develop their masterly and grandmasterly skills. Maybe I could have ignored my familial obligations sufficiently to spend four to six thousand hours on chess, and maybe I could have made Master. Maybe.
Anyway, I was wondering, because of the troublesome economic climate, if there are people developing their chess skills for want of anything better to do with their free time.
Researchers propose that it takes at least 10 years of intensive experience to become an expert in any domain (“The Psychology of Concentration in Sport Performers: A Cognitive Analysis” by Moran, 1996:18), and similarly it takes around 10 years of intensive training to become a chess grandmaster. Ten years times fifty weeks times twenty hours per week equals 10,000 hours. And so it is estimated that it takes most grandmasters, like any other top-class athlete or musician, at least 10,000 hours to reach their skill level (“Developing Chess Talent” by Delft & Delft, 2010:17). And Michael de la Maza estimates that it takes 2,400 hours to become an expert (“Rapid Chess Improvement”), which on the surface appears to be consistent with the 10,000 hour figure. But it is not merely the time needed to become a strong chess player, but also a certain amount of innate ability along with quality intensive training.
I once took the aptitude tests offered by Human Engineering Laboratory / Johnson O’Connor Foundation. I scored well in Memory for Design. I would not be surprised if this is one such innate ability, probably akin to pattern recognition
Two things are needed in order to become a strong chess player: (a) a developed subconscious intuition whereby one recognizes tactical and strategic chess patterns; and (b) an ability to focus one’s concentration so to calculate, visualize, and be critical of one’s intuition. One’s intuition is developed by intense practice, whereby one’s subconscious absorbs and assimilates chess knowledge. It is also hurt by playing bughouse or other chess variants, since they distort one’s subconscious pattern recognition. One’s ability to calculate is limited by one’s ability to correctly visualize complex positions. On the other hand, being able to see one correct move ahead can be more important than seeing three meaningless moves ahead. Thus there is a didactic relationship between intuition and calculation, one informs the other. Exactly how much “innate ability” is needed in order to become a strong chess player is difficult to quantify. But most people, with the proper training, should be able to reach Expert level (or close to it). More often than not, it is not a lack of “innate ability” which prevents one from becoming a stronger player, but rather it is the lack of proper training and time needed to devote to training, which prevents further improvement.
Something strange I’ve noticed about innate ability, those who work harder and longer at something, starting from when they were a kid, tend to have more of it.
I see it differently. I agree with G.Kasparov who believes it is folly to separate a person’s “capacity for work” at chess from their geometric and other chess skills.
I believe that some people spend more time studying chess because they experience rewards for doing so (B.F.Skinner might agree). More of what they learn from studying chess sticks with them longer. Victories and other rewards feed back into the cycle for more study, followed by more victories.
The success of his study-reward cycles make study more enjoyable for him, thus increasing his capacity for this particular kind of work.
Meanwhile, another student who studied and learned how to use rooks effectively in the endgame becomes frustrated when, two weeks later in his live endgame, he realizes he has forgotten much of what he learned two weeks earlier. He loses and is not rewarded, he concludes studying chess is not what his mind is best tuned to do. Thus he deemphasizes chess in his life.
So, at some level, the ability to work harder at chess is innate.
.
I wonder if you have seen the PBS biographical program on him. As soon as he was apprenticed (to a cameo maker, I believe), he produced commercially salable work.
My work comes and goes (the nature of the industry), but I don’t do much more when I’m off than working, except maybe spend a little more time on Fics. Chess for fun! Study is boring!
I haven’t seen this PBS program, but Wikipedia writes: [He was] “Born in Dublin to a French father and an Irish mother, Saint-Gaudens was raised in New York, after his parents immigrated to America when he was six months of age. He was apprenticed to a cameo-cutter but also took art classes at the Cooper Union and the National Academy of Design. At 19, his apprenticeship completed, he traveled to Paris where he studied in the atelier of François Jouffroy at the École des Beaux-Arts. In 1870, he left Paris for Rome, to study art and architecture, and worked on his first commissions.”
In my opinion, it is only common sense that someone needs a period of study or pactice before he or she becomes an elite practitioner of any skill.
time.