Training by itself can’t trump genius
Shelby Lyman
What are we to think of the strikingly anti-elitist 1926 declaration by Emanuel Lasker, who reigned as world chess champion for almost 27 years?
“Take any boy,” he said, “any boy fairly intelligent and fairly healthy, and you can make a chess prodigy of him – or any other sort of prodigy.”
In more recent years, a similar point of view was expounded by Hungarian pedagogue Laszlo Polgar: Let children follow their natural interests, he said, and their possibilities are unlimited.
An astonishing result is the achievement of his three daughters, the chess-playing Polgar sisters: Judit, for years ranked among the top 10 in the world; Susan, a former women’s world champion; and Sofia, an International Master.
My view is that Lasker and Polgar describe an essential of achievement but fail to encompass the sometimes critical role of DNA or genius.
I can think of several children whom I’ve observed who immediately towered among their peers. Their innate grasp of the game was astonishing.
The inimitable precociousness of Paul Morphy, Jose Capablanca and Samuel Reshevsky, among others, reminds us that genius – though rare – is a real phenomenon.
Source: http://www.dispatch.com
Agree or disagree?
That’s easy
Training “CAN” trump genius, doesn’t always tho..
I’d rather avoid a nature/nurture discussion, but I do know that highly gifted individuals often agree with Lasker and see their accomplishments as achievable by anyone willing to put in the work.
Two kinds of people make it in this world.
The ones with Talent who work hard,,,and the ones who work hard.
People are All capable in excelling..the trick is to find out what they like..then push it.
Mike Magnan
One’s early days are formative. Most people stick to something they have found for themselves during the years. Some find nothing special and end as “mediocre” (the backbone of every nation).
In the orientation phase, children can surely be directed. To chess for example …
But real genius is singular: all world champions in chess are examples. They made it, the others didn’t. And for a good reason: they all worked hard, their opponents too, but they excelled — and not the others.
In the field of mathematics it’s the same. There are Newton, Leibnitz, Euler and Gauss for example. They excelled, contemporaries didn’t.
That everybody can make it, is nonsense. At least if you mean ‘it’ to be the highest level.
But of course our society needs the others too. Someone has to cook for the genius …
Genes matter too. I agree.
Actually Lasker said that learning chess does NOT need a lot of work. 200 hrs with a “normal” youngster will make him/her a master.
What is needed is studying right things (like his “Manual”). According to Lasker most of the chess teachings, of his time, were failures.
I agree with Mr. Magnan.
I disagree about genes. There is no such thing as a chess gene.
I have seen chess masters create some of the biggest genetic disasters possible.
Find a kid willing to train 8 hours a day and that kid will become World Champion. Just look at Fabiano Carauna. He is on his way to greatness because he trained hard and had GM Polgar as an early coach.
My experience is that some people have an affinity for anything that brings them a feeling of success and accomplishment. Bobby Fischer enjoyed the fact that he could dominate people much older than he, and so he put in the time and effort to make sure that he could do this over and over. Joshua Waitzkin enjoyed chess, but invested a good deal of his childhold to master it. Then went on to master martial arts. Obviously, genius has played a role in his learning, but genius without the discipline of training is simply wasted potential.