Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihlpf.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ihlpf!bithead
From: bithead@ihlpf.UUCP (P. Stein)
Newsgroups: net.games.chess
Subject: The Secret of being a Chess Master
Message-ID: <269@ihlpf.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 6-Jan-86 11:08:13 EST
Article-I.D.: ihlpf.269
Posted: Mon Jan  6 11:08:13 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 7-Jan-86 04:24:43 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 47
Keywords: Drink Dr. Pepper!

>[ How does one improve at chess ]
>
>I have been told that postal chess will help.  People I know who 
>have played in postal tournements say they find that their 
>over-the-board rating goes up quite a bit after a postal 
>tournement.
>
>In article <840@spp2.UUCP> kovalsky@spp2.UUCP (Bruce Kovalsky) writes:
>>
>> Becoming a chess master is no easy task, even if you spend hours
>> and hours studying the game.  I believe that you must have quite
>> a bit of innate ability in order to reach a Master's rating,
>> something which not many people have.
>
>This could be an intersting topic for discussion here:  How good should
>one be able to get at chess without any innate chess skill?
>
>Opinions I have heard range from "Any reasonably intellegent person can
>reach World Championship level if he/she tries hard enough" to "you should
>be able to reach expert, but to get past that you have to be special"
>
>Reply to the net.
>-- 
>Tim Smith  

Bobby Fisher once claimed that he could turn anyone with an above average
IQ into an IM. To my recollection nobody ever disputed this claim. I think
the phrase "innate chess skill" is a grievous misnomer. People are not
born with skills, with predispositions perhaps, but not with skills.
The one common denominator among masters is motivation. Of course some
masters have made tremendous achievments due to their predisposition for
the game. Boris Spassky, who many times has been described as a great
"natural player" comes to mind. Generally though, I think the difference
between masters and non-masters is motivation. Masters are more willing
to make the sacrifices necessary to achieve chess excellence. No I don't
mean rook or bishop sacs, but sacrifices in your personal life to further
chess skill. While the non-master is bar-hopping the master is probably
studying the latest innovation in the Sicilian Dragon.

Postal chess at reasonable limits is highly recomended. I found it
extremely useful in testing new opening variations. I can't attribute
much of my playing strength to postal though, since the constraints
of over-the-board were absent. 
 
                                   Pete Stein

-- He's a master, she's a master, wouldn't you like to be a master too? --