at chess if they train from an early age…
magnus became a Grandmaster at age 13, impressive but he was also trained by a GM as well…
im sure alot of people in america are able to become grandmasters at that age as well, with the proper training
would you guys agree
No. It is the same as any other skill at the extreme far end of the bell curve. It requires rare innate talent as well as good training. I am not sure what you mean by ‘a lot of people’ in America could have done the same thing. If you mean 5, then possibly. If you mean tens of thousands or more, then no.
That applies to music, math, sports, and mental games like chess. To assume otherwise is an insult to all those people who have had good training and did not make it to anyway near the same level. If it was just about the training, Russia would be filled with very young Grandmasters and the U.S. would have more than a few as well. The reason young people are able to train with the top people in the first place is almost always because they demonstrate an unusual talent for the pursuit. Grandmasters don’t just take anyone at random.
I don’t know. I’ve been a casual player for going on 30 years, and I’m terrible. MHO is that chess requires some sort of innate talent, and if you don’t have it, then there’s no amount of training that will bring you up to the top levels.
I could, but I have an IQ of 198.
You overestimate how picky GMs are. The top player in the U.S. makes about $80,000/yr from all of his chess ventures. All pro players are desperate for money, and they’ll take any student with a checkbook. If you were a student, you might not be able to hire the coach of your choice because he may be preparing for tournament play or he might be booked solid, but I guarantee you could get a GM coach. Easy. Hell, PM me and I’ll hook you up by Monday.
The key words in the OP though are “with the proper training”. So that means any amount of training required to make a person a grandmaster by age 13. For some people, that would be the amount of training that the kid in the OP got. For most others, it would be a lot more. I’m sure that kid got a lot of chess training, but he didn’t completely live chess and only chess 24/7, from birth.
What percent of the population would become grandmasters (so, equivalent in skill to the current top 1200 or so in the world) if they received total chess immersion training from birth,(a key element to the equation-- this would not be a normally raised human child, but essentially a chess robot. Chess is the only thing in their world. )
Certainly not everyone, as it still requires a base level intelligence. But I would wager the number is much higher than most here think.
Is sponsorship a big thing in chess? That is, has a player ever gone to a tournament decked out in a uniform of Bud Light and Home Depot logos, like NASCAR? Does any player get money just to let a certain brand of chess clock (or anything else) be their official product-of-choice?
Surely this is just another example of the Nature vs Nurture debate? The OP posits that nurture alone can produce Grandmasters by 13, and the rest of us doubt that.
Having said that a look at the wikipedia Grandmaster pageshows that the title isn’t as exclusive as it used to be: