12 ms·

The point is it exponentially harder to break the 2500 / 2600/ 2700 barriers . It is hard work. The reason it is hard work is because beyond a point the prepar

The point is it exponentially harder to break the 2500 / 2600/ 2700 barriers . It is hard work. The reason it is hard work is because beyond a point the preparation is a lot about memorizing and remembering a lot of lines variations not improving on your understanding or theory. That's also why older you grow it is harder to be at the top, understanding is not diminished at 40+, however memorizing abilities are. You will have to understand Paul morphy story to understand to why he said something like that. He was the world best by a good distance and he quit playing at 22. He had struggles and was consumed by it. After spending most of your formative years and not finding the meaning in the life despite having won pretty much everything can be life altering. He is known as the pride and sorrow of chess with good reason.

leto_ii 5y ago
It's true I didn't know about Morphy when I made my comment, I read on Wikipedia afterwards. In context the quote has different connotations. However, having taken it at face value, I stand by my comment. Nothing in the Morphy quote explicitly addresses the technicalities of becoming a world class chess player. In general playing chess well means something else to the general public than to a GM level player. My comment was made having the former interpretation in mind - Morphy was obviously talking from his (very different) point of view.
- me_me_me 5y ago
  You took a quote out of context, then admitted it later. And yet you still claim that your point is correct if quote is taken out of context. Its shifting goalpost fallacy.
  - leto_ii 5y ago
    I didn't take a quote out of context, the context was not provided. There is no a priori expectation that somebody should read a Wikipedia page to find out the missing context behind a quote. > Its shifting goalpost fallacy. There's no fallacy here. I have my opinion, I stand by it regardless of the quote's context. I understand that Morphy didn't mean what I thought he meant. It's just that my opinion on the usefulness of chess is still the same.
- manquer 5y ago
  Yes, without knowing the world of chess or morphy it is difficult to understand the quote. In his defense I don't think morphy intended for people outside the chess world as a general statement.
  - leto_ii 5y ago
    Indeed. I didn't mean to attack Morphy, I just interpreted the quote on its own, thinking it was made by some random person (in different places in the thread people had quoted various writers etc. not necessarily great chess players).
bsder 5y ago
> That's also why older you grow it is harder to be at the top, understanding is not diminished at 40+, however memorizing abilities are. I'd like to see some evidence of that. However, what does decrease with age is physical stamina. And classical chess tournaments, oddly, take a lot more physical stamina than you might think. Counterintuitively, the whole faster/blitz chess systems have been good for older chess players.
- manquer 5y ago
  There is evidence of decreasing memory with age, many brain function related diseases like Alzheimer higher risk for older people. Senility and memory loss are commonly related. Also certain types of information is more easier learnt when you are younger like multiple languages. I believe there is research on learning pedagogies for senior citizens having different approaches than children factoring in the ability to learn quickly. Most mathematicans and many other scientists achieve the peek before 40, while there are exceptions like Euler or gauss it is not common. Even in tech you find a lot more younger workers than other more stable technical fields as the learning curve is recurring and steeper than in other fields I wouldn't disagree there is more physical stamina required for tournaments, however I doubt it so difficult for players in their 40s/50s cannot manage it without loosing competitive advantage.
huachimingo 5y ago
Tangentially related but in physics, see Ettoe Majorana's case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ettore_Majorana https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ettore_Majorana (see also italian version for a complete bio) From physics genius to dissapearing one day with no known fate.

leto_ii 5y ago

It's true I didn't know about Morphy when I made my comment, I read on Wikipedia afterwards. In context the quote has different connotations. However, having taken it at face value, I stand by my comment. Nothing in the Morphy quote explicitly addresses the technicalities of becoming a world class chess player. In general playing chess well means something else to the general public than to a GM level player. My comment was made having the former interpretation in mind - Morphy was obviously talking from his (very different) point of view.

me_me_me 5y ago
You took a quote out of context, then admitted it later. And yet you still claim that your point is correct if quote is taken out of context. Its shifting goalpost fallacy.
- leto_ii 5y ago
  I didn't take a quote out of context, the context was not provided. There is no a priori expectation that somebody should read a Wikipedia page to find out the missing context behind a quote. > Its shifting goalpost fallacy. There's no fallacy here. I have my opinion, I stand by it regardless of the quote's context. I understand that Morphy didn't mean what I thought he meant. It's just that my opinion on the usefulness of chess is still the same.
manquer 5y ago
Yes, without knowing the world of chess or morphy it is difficult to understand the quote. In his defense I don't think morphy intended for people outside the chess world as a general statement.
- leto_ii 5y ago
  Indeed. I didn't mean to attack Morphy, I just interpreted the quote on its own, thinking it was made by some random person (in different places in the thread people had quoted various writers etc. not necessarily great chess players).

bsder 5y ago

> That's also why older you grow it is harder to be at the top, understanding is not diminished at 40+, however memorizing abilities are. I'd like to see some evidence of that. However, what does decrease with age is physical stamina. And classical chess tournaments, oddly, take a lot more physical stamina than you might think. Counterintuitively, the whole faster/blitz chess systems have been good for older chess players.

manquer 5y ago
There is evidence of decreasing memory with age, many brain function related diseases like Alzheimer higher risk for older people. Senility and memory loss are commonly related. Also certain types of information is more easier learnt when you are younger like multiple languages. I believe there is research on learning pedagogies for senior citizens having different approaches than children factoring in the ability to learn quickly. Most mathematicans and many other scientists achieve the peek before 40, while there are exceptions like Euler or gauss it is not common. Even in tech you find a lot more younger workers than other more stable technical fields as the learning curve is recurring and steeper than in other fields I wouldn't disagree there is more physical stamina required for tournaments, however I doubt it so difficult for players in their 40s/50s cannot manage it without loosing competitive advantage.

huachimingo 5y ago

Tangentially related but in physics, see Ettoe Majorana's case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ettore_Majorana https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ettore_Majorana (see also italian version for a complete bio) From physics genius to dissapearing one day with no known fate.