What
are the characteristics of a chess genius?
What does it take to become a chess genuis?
Probably the easiest way of dealing with this issue is to break it up into various components by tackling the question: 'what does it take to become a chess genius?'. This is the sort of question that seasoned chess professionals get asked all the time by ravishing blondes at parties. Should you stumble into such an onerous situation yourself, my advice - and this is clearly the most useful advice in the book - is not to give a straight answer. The straight answer is a little too technical and boring. Alternatively, the following might help:
Intelligence (High IQ)
In many fields it seems from the empirical evidence that creative achievement is not well correlated with IQ. To be more accurate, researchers have found that above a certain level (IQ about 120), there is no firm relation between higher IQ and higher measures of creative performance. IQ 120 has been regarded as corresponding to the level of general skill at which people are able to manage their particular ability effectively.
Interestingly, these results did not hold for mathematicians for whom it was found that there was a stronger correlation between IQ and creative performance, even above the 120-level. I suspect the same would hold for chess. Different fields have quite widely varying average IQs for their acknowledged leading geniuses. Cox (1926) gives the following figures (the number in brackets is the number in the sample considered):
Philosophers (22) average IQ 173; Scientists (39) 164; Fiction writers (53) 163; Statesmen (43) 159; Musicians (11) 153; Artists (13) 150; Soldiers (27) 133.
In my opinion (as you will see later) the top chess-players would be up there with the philosophers! They may even cohabit the same ivory towers.
Looking at the question from the opposite direction, there are many examples of very bright people who are not creatively productive. Creativity depends on the direction as well as the level of IQ and high IQ is not a sufficient condition for achievement. It should be remembered that all of this research depends on quantifying 'creative achievement', something which is easier to do in chess than practically any other field I know.
Hard Work
Unfortunately, there seems no alternative to this component of chess genius. If you take chess seriously then you are generally working hardest when you play. The brain is at its most intense, which may explain why ideas seen in books are not remembered as well as ideas seen in play. If you insist on not getting a good balance between study and play, then it is best to err on the side of playing too much! Nobody ever 'got good' without playing.
Motivation and Values
To do all this
hard work, one has to be motivated. Persistent, long-term, internal
motivation is needed, not just a desire to win trophies, money or
glory. Typically, achievers are greatly concerned about their
creative performance, often to the exclusion of other, more normal
(commonly held) life-goals. Their own creative development is their
highest goal and, consequently, their values are different from
those prevalent in the society around them. Given these objectives,
it should not be surprising if their behaviour appears (to the
outside world) neurotic or even maladjusted.
'He who cares wins.'
Good Teaching
Is it
necessary to have a great teacher to become a great
player?
The strict
answer to this question is 'no', but it certainly can help. Many
strong players have emerged from the 'Botvinnik school', or under
the tutorage of the renowned trainer, Mark Dvoretsky. In science
Ernest Rutherford and J.J. Thompson trained, between them, no less
than 17 Nobel laureates. Six of Enrico Fermi's pupils also won the
Nobel Prize. This shows just how useful a great
teacher can be.
Still, there
are a number of players who have 'made it' without a personal
coach, so clearly it is possible. They can pick it up from books,
or, as Miles once said, from their opponents. Getting a teacher is
strongly recommended, however, since it can make the learning
process that much more efficient. The great advantage of a great
teacher is that much time can be saved. Failing that, follow the
advice of the mathematician, Abel: 'study the masters, not
their pupils'.
Concentration
Alekhine: 'One
trait more than any other determines one's strength at chess:
unshakeable concentration, which has to cut a player off completely
from the outside world.'
Kasparov: 'The
ability to concentrate is the basis for everything else…
Botvinnik: 'I
only think clearly when my mind is calm'.
Character
and Background
Other aspects
of character and background are difficult to be specific about and
the following thoughts are all subject to the usual provisos about
false generalisations. The typical chess genius, though one should
avoid clichés like the plague, would be a slightly neurotic,
Russian, Jewish male from a broken home. Is there anything in this?
Some of the statistical evidence supporting these
stereotypes is quite striking so it is worth
looking for possible reasons why.
Emotional
turbulence
Relatively few
top players come from 'normal' family backgrounds - divorce or
early death of a parent is much more prevalent amongst the chess
greats than in the general population. In fact, this applies to
other fields too and creative (and also psychologically disturbed)
types are three times as likely to have lost a parent before the
age of sixteen. Winston Churchill once wrote that:
'Solitary trees, if they grow at all, grow strong.'
It seems
emotional turbulence is likely either to do real damage and/or make
a child tougher.
Male
dominance
Male dominance
of the chess world is almost absolute. Of the sixty-five players
above 2600 on the January 1996 list, Judit Polgar (tenth with 2675)
is the only woman. I will not attempt to explain the lack of
creative women here, since others have tried elsewhere and it is
too peripheral to the subject of this book. On a positive note,
Judit clearly demonstrates (for the first time) that it is possible
for a woman to be megatalented at chess. Women's chess is
definitely improving.
The
Jewish
Disproportionately
many creative people in general, and chess players in particular,
are indeed Jewish. This has a lot to do with the sort of values
typical of the Jewish home environment, with emphasis on learning
and intellectual skill. Similar reasons could explain the large
proportion of successful players from middle-class backgrounds.
There is no need for explanations based on genetic advantage,
although there is also no (logical) reason for ruling out this
possibility. It is clear that 'you don't have to be Jewish' to
succeed!
The
Russians
Another old chestnut, perhaps, but the statistics are again hard to
ignore. Plato wrote that:
'what is honoured in a country will be cultivated there'
...and chess culture was certainly way ahead in the former Soviet Union. The absence of other forms of 'culture', in particular the escapism of American 'Starsky and Hutch' style television, may also have contributed to the more pragmatic and down-to-earth qualities (such as willingness to work) useful to chess success. It is also clear that, with other avenues blocked, a higher percentage of the intellectual elite turned to chess in Russia.
Worrying
Some people think too much (neurotic), some people think too little (intellectually lazy). Top achievers usually come from the neurotic side of the balance point, but not as far as the more extreme point of being incapable of dealing with stress. They are born worriers. I was struck by Alexei Shirov's enormous capacity for worrying - he seems to carry concerns around with him for a long time and is constantly bothered by something or other. Kasparov is hardly the laid back type, either. There are very few exceptions. Michael Adams seems distinctly unneurotic, but I find it hard to think of others. Competitive advantage often comes from spotting something that the opponent misses and you are more likely to do this if you soak yourself in concerns about the position and keep on worrying about them. Worrying is closely related to having a good sense of danger.
A
final note…
There are many
other traits that could be considered in this 'profile' of the
typical chess genius. Confidence, coping with failure and the
ability to overcome unconscious blocks are all important aspects in
the fruition of talent but for which there would be an even larger
number of 2600+ players. If you do not fit the sort of image coming
across, do not worry (not too much anyhow). There are plenty of
exceptions and this is little more than opinionated speculation! I
will finish this section with just one more common characteristic:
independence. Hating being told what to do, a habit of doing
intellectual work alone for long periods (are women as happy as men
about doing this?), self-reliance… Fischer is, as usual, a good
source for a quote:
'I like to do what I want to do and not what other people want me to do. This is what life is all about, I think.'
Reference: Jonathan Levitt
Images: Cleopold, Cyanocorax, Newsday
Post Comments