Not really a well-controlled experiment, though, because Laszlo (their father) was himself a professional chess player. Maybe the Polgar sisters are great chess players because they were taught well, or maybe they’re great chess players because they inherited the “chess genes” from their father. Or more likely a combination of both, but how much of each?
Has IQ really gone that much out of vogue that it’s not even mentioned in this thread? Seems like a pretty safe conclusion to say that Magnus Carlsen certainly has high IQ, and that this will make it easier for him to succeed in other fields where a high IQ is a benifit.
Fine, it’s not perfect, but it’s still strong evidence. And despite my belief that this theory holds for all superstars in all disciplines, this thread is about chess, so let me present some more GQ evidence.
Here’s a chart of World Chess Champions (WCCs). Look at the countries between 1948 and 2000. Was there something in the Soviet water or perhaps the Russian gene pool? For 52 years? Or did this have something to do with it?
At least with chess (but probably everything else, too), geniuses are made, not born.
All that shows is that you can help to make geniuses. But there certainly was born enough geniuses in the USSR, that this could be a necessary requirement too.
You can think of them as entertainers, same as actors and musicians. And some ( many) go on to other careers in which they make great contributions to society, i.e. teachers, politicians, business persons, etc.
Without a specific musician (if we assume he is a composer), there wouldn’t be a specific piece of music. Without the specific sports player, the games would still be there. Just not played by him specifically, but by some other guy. But that doesn’t seem to me to be of high importance.
I’m not saying that no people who have ever been in the sport world ever do anything useful. I’m just saying that I think it’s a waste to use your skills and energy solely on sports. You are not using your skills to create a better world.
This doesn’t actually prove anything. Many talents and skills are known to have a genetic component.
If he were able to do the same for 3 randomly selected girls rather than his own daughters, it might be closer to a valid test. But this experiment only seems to demonstrate that genetic predisposition can be exploited.
You need to remove selection bias before you can draw that conclusion.
We don’t hear about many great Russian baseball players because they don’t play the game from an early age. Americans dominate the list of best baseball players. Not all of them received extensive personal training (though many do these days). It’s just that most little boys play the game and some will naturally be identified as having talent.
If you have a wide pool of potential high-achievers and pluck out the best of them and train them further in a specialized setting, of course, they will perform at a consistently high level.
It’s the Top Gun effect. The idea is not to train everybody but to take the candidates who already show considerable aptitude and make them better. Chess is basically a national game in Russia. So, of course, many children will be playing it from a young age and, of course, those displaying some natural talent will be identified early.
What am I? Chopped liver? What about the suggestion that a chess grandmaster could find work as a financial analyst?
“Geniuses are made, not born” is Polgar’s thesis. His children don’t prove that, and none of them are currently described as geniuses or prodigies as adults.
I believe my first statement was specifically that great chess players are NOT geniuses…they’ve just practiced a lot. The whole “chess=smart” thing is mythology. But if you want to call successful intellectuals “geniuses,” then yes, the Polgars are currently described as geniuses and prodigies. Unless you define prodigies to only be children, in which case, I don’t know what to tell you.
I have gone through my games.
I’ve never played the Sveshnikov (nor any open Sicilian) either as White or Black.
I’ve never played a King’s Indian, either as White or Black.
(I’ve never played a Ruy Lopez, either as White or Black.)
I’m an avid reader. I’ve read the same books many, many times.
That’s probably part of being a top chess player - you have a drive to learn everything you can from something.
Yes, ‘natural’ is different from ‘easy’!
No doubt Carlsen has natural abilities to:
- concentrate
- recognise patterns on the chess board
- absorb information
- cope with pressure
He still works extremely hard.
He certainly doesn’t flip ‘through 10,000 famous chess games in his head, in a few moments.’
- Chess is not about memorising previous games, but understanding them.
- It can take hours to fully analyse one game.
- Flipping through 10,000 games with an average of 40 moves per game in say 10 minutes is over 600 moves per second. :smack:
That’s one piece of evidence.
I know of children who have received similarly intensive training and who have not gone on to be successful.
I know of identical twins who turned out to be wildly different in strength, despite having the same coaching.
Indeed for decades the Soviet Union specialised in discovering many thousands of young chess players, putting them into specialist chess schools with top coaches, with the prospect of a very lucrative living (at least by Soviet standards 
) if they made grandmaster.
The vast majority failed.
From the evidence above, your theory is demonstrably wrong.
What you should have concluded is that the ones who do make it to the top in chess do start early, but that they have innate talent - which separates them from those who just get lots of coaching.
In fact, Magnus Carlsen himself didn’t start that early.
But that’s also largely because “smart” isn’t a very meaningful term.
Of course great chess players don’t fall from the womb as Grandmasters. But trying to argue that every individual is equally capable of acheiving greatness in any intellectual discipline is…simply wrong.
Skill is a combination of talent, passion, and practice. The balance can very, but greatness is generally found in those with all three.
In the first quote you finish by saying geniuses are made, not born. Then you add that it’s all practice.
That doesn’t explain Magnus Carlsen. There are thousands and thousands of kids around the word playing chess like crazy but very few will ever display Magnus’ abilities.
Glee:
Well, you can watch the interviews with Carlsen yourself. He has 10,000 games in his head. What exactly that means, I don’t know. He got bored with Kasparov at speed chess. From the same program:
Lazy? He hasn’t really worked yet? Practice is nice, but doesn’t explain Magnus.
No, sorry! I did see your post, and I think it will be interesting to see what happens. It’s too soon to tell if the guy turns out to be a finance prodigy.
That last line in the previous post, “practice is nice, but doesn’t explain Magnus” should be directed at Chessic Sense.
Also, glee mentioned that a grandmaster such as Carlsen would have to be able to concentrate, recognize patterns on the chess board, absorb information and cope with pressure. So aside from financial analysis work (or working as an equities or bond trader), these skills might enable one to succeed in analytics or data mining.
Thanks for posting the interviews.
Sure Carlsen has is the memory of 10,00 games in his head. (I’ve probably got 100 or so.)
He can’t flip through them all in moments (as I demonstrated.)
What he can do is remember an interesting feature (a new opening move or a different strategy in a well-known position etc.)