Why are the Russians so good at chess?(slate.com)
slate.com
Why are the Russians so good at chess?
http://www.slate.com/id/2229515/
75 comments
> If you ever got to being a candidate for, say, a national senior-school physics competition, you'd be transferred to region's best teachers. They would train you like a circus dog [...] but it wouldn't make you any good physicist.
Being one of such people, this is not entirely accurate.
For one thing, there is no practice of transferring students to best teachers, you have to want it get into the better schools. Another thing is that the best teachers are precisely the people who understand and will show you the essence of physics (or whatever your subject is).
Yes, a lot of time is devoted to competitions with repetitive problem set (the olympiads). But then, lots of time is devoted to non-competition topics. There are also competitions with open problems which require lots of imagination and original research on your part (e.g. ТЮФ, ТРИЗ and МАН for those who know). Some of the better schools require each student to complete a research project in his subject of choice.
My point here is that "circus dog training" is not at all correct.
Being one of such people, this is not entirely accurate.
For one thing, there is no practice of transferring students to best teachers, you have to want it get into the better schools. Another thing is that the best teachers are precisely the people who understand and will show you the essence of physics (or whatever your subject is).
Yes, a lot of time is devoted to competitions with repetitive problem set (the olympiads). But then, lots of time is devoted to non-competition topics. There are also competitions with open problems which require lots of imagination and original research on your part (e.g. ТЮФ, ТРИЗ and МАН for those who know). Some of the better schools require each student to complete a research project in his subject of choice.
My point here is that "circus dog training" is not at all correct.
> If you ever got to being a candidate for, say, a national senior-school physics competition, you'd be transferred to region's best teachers.
This is not a bad thing. It is completely the opposite to some Western ideals to ensure that everyone gets the same (bad) education. I think that the motto for a lot of guys on the left is that if everyone is kept behind no-one loses.
What is incredibly interesting to note is that Russia and several eastern bloc countries perform better than the USA in math (school age – according to OECD TIMMS test). Cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trends_in_International_Mathema...
This is quite shocking since the USA spends a lot more on education and is a few times richer.
> Granted you'd know a lot about pulleys and levers and displacement, but it wouldn't make you any good physicist.
In all fairness, the USSR did produce quite a few excellent physicists. Per capita it probably outranks the USA for Nobel Prize winners in Physics.
This is not a bad thing. It is completely the opposite to some Western ideals to ensure that everyone gets the same (bad) education. I think that the motto for a lot of guys on the left is that if everyone is kept behind no-one loses.
What is incredibly interesting to note is that Russia and several eastern bloc countries perform better than the USA in math (school age – according to OECD TIMMS test). Cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trends_in_International_Mathema...
This is quite shocking since the USA spends a lot more on education and is a few times richer.
> Granted you'd know a lot about pulleys and levers and displacement, but it wouldn't make you any good physicist.
In all fairness, the USSR did produce quite a few excellent physicists. Per capita it probably outranks the USA for Nobel Prize winners in Physics.
> It is completely the opposite to some Western ideals to ensure that everyone gets the same (bad) education.
School education is not a good predictor of future performance. I would venture to say that above some (fairly modest) threshold of quality, the difference in schooling is irrelevant.
> What is incredibly interesting to note is that Russia and several eastern bloc countries perform better than the USA in math (school age – according to OECD TIMMS test).
This is not what made the great Russian mathematicians though. You don't get feynmanns and turings by locking up kids to solve monotonous puzzles.
> In all fairness, the USSR did produce quite a few excellent physicists. Per capita it probably outranks the USA for Nobel Prize winners in Physics.
Of course it doesn't. Even the UK is way ahead of USSR on that metric.
There were plenty of great Soviet physicists and champions in other sciences, but bear in mind that at least half of them were product of pre-Soviet, imperial school system.
School education is not a good predictor of future performance. I would venture to say that above some (fairly modest) threshold of quality, the difference in schooling is irrelevant.
> What is incredibly interesting to note is that Russia and several eastern bloc countries perform better than the USA in math (school age – according to OECD TIMMS test).
This is not what made the great Russian mathematicians though. You don't get feynmanns and turings by locking up kids to solve monotonous puzzles.
> In all fairness, the USSR did produce quite a few excellent physicists. Per capita it probably outranks the USA for Nobel Prize winners in Physics.
Of course it doesn't. Even the UK is way ahead of USSR on that metric.
There were plenty of great Soviet physicists and champions in other sciences, but bear in mind that at least half of them were product of pre-Soviet, imperial school system.
> School education is not a good predictor of future performance. I would venture to say that above some (fairly modest) threshold of quality, the difference in schooling is irrelevant.
I beg to differ. School performance in mathematics and science directly impacts on the careers of people. A good example is engineering – it is pretty difficult for someone to study engineering without a good and solid mathematical foundation.
> Of course it doesn't. Even the UK is way ahead of USSR on that metric.
The UK and the USA is per capita twice to three times as rich as Russia/USSR. Britain also has the advantage of drawing out all of the brains out of the Commonwealth. A large percentage of American PhDs came from Europe (either Jews who fled or Germans who came afterwards). A lot of them were not educated in the USA.
I would venture that the Soviet Union/Russia’s scientific accomplishments is pretty spectacular for when all is taken into account.
I beg to differ. School performance in mathematics and science directly impacts on the careers of people. A good example is engineering – it is pretty difficult for someone to study engineering without a good and solid mathematical foundation.
> Of course it doesn't. Even the UK is way ahead of USSR on that metric.
The UK and the USA is per capita twice to three times as rich as Russia/USSR. Britain also has the advantage of drawing out all of the brains out of the Commonwealth. A large percentage of American PhDs came from Europe (either Jews who fled or Germans who came afterwards). A lot of them were not educated in the USA.
I would venture that the Soviet Union/Russia’s scientific accomplishments is pretty spectacular for when all is taken into account.
It's a nice story but it's wrong, Russia has had a strong reputation in Chess since the 1700s several hundred years before Krylenko's chess schools.
Merim Bilalić's team did an extensive study that was published by the Royal Society to find out why there are so few strong female chess players. Their study concluded it was purely statistics, less female players overall meant that there were less female outliers (i.e great players).
I imagine something similar is at play here.
Merim Bilalić's team did an extensive study that was published by the Royal Society to find out why there are so few strong female chess players. Their study concluded it was purely statistics, less female players overall meant that there were less female outliers (i.e great players).
I imagine something similar is at play here.
I used to play chess a little as a kid and what I know is in more agreement with the article than with what you say. Prior to the Soviet chess explosion there used to be great Russian players (Chigorin, Petrov) but also many great players from other countries (Philidor, Anderssen, Morphy, Zukertort.) If you look at the official list of world champions, there was only one Russian champion (Alekhine) before 1948 and only one non-Soviet champion between 1948 and the collapse of the Soviet Union (Bobby Fischer, and I read he learned Russian to have access to first-class chess literature.)
In the SU the chess players enjoyed privileges unavailable to the general population, e.g., they could travel abroad (at least as long as they were winning, I read that Taimanov had his passport confiscated after losing to Fischer in the Candidates Match.) They also were favored at the higher education institutions, i.e., as a successful chess player you didn't have to study much to pass and get a degree.
As an aside, I heard from a guy who knew David Bronstein personally that Bronstein could have easily won the World Championship from Botvinnik in 1951, but it was made clear to him that it was considered undesirable for a Jewish player to beat Botvinnik. Bronstein according to my friend was a broken man after that, became excessively extravagant and never played with the same strength again.
In the SU the chess players enjoyed privileges unavailable to the general population, e.g., they could travel abroad (at least as long as they were winning, I read that Taimanov had his passport confiscated after losing to Fischer in the Candidates Match.) They also were favored at the higher education institutions, i.e., as a successful chess player you didn't have to study much to pass and get a degree.
As an aside, I heard from a guy who knew David Bronstein personally that Bronstein could have easily won the World Championship from Botvinnik in 1951, but it was made clear to him that it was considered undesirable for a Jewish player to beat Botvinnik. Bronstein according to my friend was a broken man after that, became excessively extravagant and never played with the same strength again.
You say: "it was considered undesirable for a Jewish player to beat Botvinnik". What, Botvinnik was not Jewish? That's news to me. I am sure there may have been some pressure, perhaps a lot of pressure, but Jewishness is unlikely to have played a role.
He was? That's news to me but you well may be right. I could have confused the details it's been a while. I remember there was a game in that match which was interrupted till the next day (they used to do it after I believe 40 moves) at the endgame stage and Bronstein made an elementary mistake the next day. Anything's possible but it's hard to believe that a player at this level would have made such mistake after having the whole day to analyze the position.
Just with pure Wikipedia-ing... Mikhail Moiseyevich Botvinnik was an assimilated Jew. Bronstein might have seemed "more Jewish" for all I know and so not have been considered desirable.
Also, terrible mistakes aren't unheard of in this level of play - I remember an account of the Karpov/Korchnoi match mentioning a few. The pressure in such a high level match is intense. Remember, no one has a day to analyze their next move. One player seals their move and it isn't revealed till the next day. True, they each get to think about the position in general but that's harder.
Also, terrible mistakes aren't unheard of in this level of play - I remember an account of the Karpov/Korchnoi match mentioning a few. The pressure in such a high level match is intense. Remember, no one has a day to analyze their next move. One player seals their move and it isn't revealed till the next day. True, they each get to think about the position in general but that's harder.
I think this is politics, not racism. Botvinnik was a stone communist and the party's fair haired boy. That's why the fix was in.
I actually met him in Toronto in 1977.
I actually met him in Toronto in 1977.
Actually, if chess strength is judged by chess champions, the US was stronger than Russia in the 19th century.
Further, a quick look at Wikipedia shows that modern Chess as such did not really even exist in the 1700s. Modern Chess theory, based on position and piece value, originated in Europe and the United States in the late 19th century. Chess strength of any sort before that is irrelevant.
So basically, the article is right.
Further, a quick look at Wikipedia shows that modern Chess as such did not really even exist in the 1700s. Modern Chess theory, based on position and piece value, originated in Europe and the United States in the late 19th century. Chess strength of any sort before that is irrelevant.
So basically, the article is right.
It's farcical to say that without modern chess theory you can't measure chess ability.
Russia had a strong reputation because strong players from other countries played against Russian players and lost. Have a look at Murray's A History of Chess (1913) it mentions a few accounts of Russia's strong chess abilities significantly pre-dating positional/piece value theory.
Russia had a strong reputation because strong players from other countries played against Russian players and lost. Have a look at Murray's A History of Chess (1913) it mentions a few accounts of Russia's strong chess abilities significantly pre-dating positional/piece value theory.
It's not a mystery. Why is country X good at Y? Because Y is popular and has better support/infrastructure there.
My guess is that soccer received more support than chess in the Soviet Union, but the results weren't impressive at all.
Hypothesis: Your country's likelihood of fielding a world-class soccer team is roughly proportional to the number of person-days of access that the average kid has to an unfrozen soccer field.
Isn't this like asking why US colleges north of, say, Virginia have so much trouble recruiting top-class college baseball players, such that the College World Series always seems to be "some team from Florida vs some team from Arizona"? Aspiring players of professional baseball prefer to play for teams whose home field thaws out before April.
Of course, the opposite is also true. Great hockey players are more likely to be hail from Russia, Canada, New York, or Massachusetts than from Brazil, Italy, London, or California.
Isn't this like asking why US colleges north of, say, Virginia have so much trouble recruiting top-class college baseball players, such that the College World Series always seems to be "some team from Florida vs some team from Arizona"? Aspiring players of professional baseball prefer to play for teams whose home field thaws out before April.
Of course, the opposite is also true. Great hockey players are more likely to be hail from Russia, Canada, New York, or Massachusetts than from Brazil, Italy, London, or California.
Dynamo Kiev was pretty much the national team of the USSR :-)
Honestly, I don't understand a point of professional team sports at all. If every team of every country can in principle hire every player from every country, constrained mainly by its budget and negotiating abilities - it becomes mainly a battle of budget, and politics also.
[deleted]
Sometimes it's largely statistics and genetics, and this is so unambiguously well supported that the only reason to disbelieve it is a desire to maintain a certain fantasy about human beings that isn't true but that nonetheless may be valuable or good for social function. (E.g. Kenya / Distance Running, Jamaica / Sprinting.) Of course then this effect becomes amplified by those places getting a better support and infrastructure.
Physical differences are undeniable, but chess is not a physical sport. There's a nice documentary "My Brilliant Brain" that shows how people can get extraordinarily skilled by (surprise surprise) making an extraordinary effort).
In the documentary a guy decides he wants his daughter to become a chess grandmaster, and trains her from a very young age (4 years) for 6 hours a day. The combination of intelligence, aptitude and effort made her one of the first female grandmasters in chess.
If _that_ is the result of dedication, the statistics and genetic factors (if they even exist) must pale in comparison.
In the documentary a guy decides he wants his daughter to become a chess grandmaster, and trains her from a very young age (4 years) for 6 hours a day. The combination of intelligence, aptitude and effort made her one of the first female grandmasters in chess.
If _that_ is the result of dedication, the statistics and genetic factors (if they even exist) must pale in comparison.
> There's a nice documentary "My Brilliant Brain" that shows how people can get extraordinarily skilled by (surprise surprise) making an extraordinary effort).
There is also something called the g-factor that is a measure of intelligence. A significant amount of research shows that the basis for the g-factor is innate (i.e. due to genetics). It also turns out that this has to do with the physiology of the brain.
A good starting point for papers on this subject is Haier et al. You can find some of his papers at :
http://www.pediatrics.uci.edu/faculty/neurology/haier/haier.... http://web.mac.com/rjhaier/iWeb/Haier/Welcome.html
It is somewhat shocking that intelligence may be an innate factor. This is a fairly controversial topic (even without bringing gender or race into the conversation). But have you thought about the repercussions if intelligence is proven to be innate? A good example would be to classify people with a low intelligence as disabled (with the employment equity and disability aid that comes along with it).
There is also something called the g-factor that is a measure of intelligence. A significant amount of research shows that the basis for the g-factor is innate (i.e. due to genetics). It also turns out that this has to do with the physiology of the brain.
A good starting point for papers on this subject is Haier et al. You can find some of his papers at :
http://www.pediatrics.uci.edu/faculty/neurology/haier/haier.... http://web.mac.com/rjhaier/iWeb/Haier/Welcome.html
It is somewhat shocking that intelligence may be an innate factor. This is a fairly controversial topic (even without bringing gender or race into the conversation). But have you thought about the repercussions if intelligence is proven to be innate? A good example would be to classify people with a low intelligence as disabled (with the employment equity and disability aid that comes along with it).
It is somewhat shocking that intelligence may be an innate factor.
It's only become shocking to people in our culture in the last few decades, since it undermines the Truth that everyone is essentially of equivalent ability, and trying hard is the only reason some are better at some things than others.
It's only become shocking to people in our culture in the last few decades, since it undermines the Truth that everyone is essentially of equivalent ability, and trying hard is the only reason some are better at some things than others.
The brain is still a physical object, and its development is a mix of genetics and upbringing, just as height and musculature are. The difference is that chess playing abilities isn't so readily visible as bulging muscles are.
There are some people who have a substantial advantage when they start their training and others who could never be grandmasters with any amount of training. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/3346580/What-makes-us-...
Blind ideology and little else could lead one to believe that genetic factors don't even exist.
There are some people who have a substantial advantage when they start their training and others who could never be grandmasters with any amount of training. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/3346580/What-makes-us-...
Blind ideology and little else could lead one to believe that genetic factors don't even exist.
There are some people who have a substantial advantage when they start their training and others who could never be grandmasters with any amount of training.
Genetic differences are often overstated by comparing one extreme to another.
Instead, consider the personal limits of any given individual to be the best in strength/physique contests, chess competitions, programming contests, time to run a mile, or playing in the NFL.
The brain is still a physical object, and its development is a mix of genetics and upbringing, just as height and musculature are. The difference is that chess playing abilities isn't so readily visible as bulging muscles are.
Such limits are unknown until the given person puts many, many years of work into a particular goal (often at least five years.) That's because limits are not defined by where one starts, but where one plateaus for multiple years following some kind of improvement over the prior five, ten, fifteen years.
Genetics may help push somebody over a plateau they would otherwise have hit sooner (just as having a good coach, training regimen, knowing one's own body, etc, will help as well). But discovering that one is genetically superior (which, for somebody with a given gift, could simply mean that he or she is able to accomplish something one second faster than somebody else with the same training experience in the entire lives--something hard to duplicate) doesn't displace the years of work it took to reach a point where genetics start to be the limiting factor.
For every person a journalist might say has a gift, there are hundreds of other people with the same level of achievement nobody writes about. There are about 2,000 active NFL players. There are many grandmasters. There are many active runners, swimmers, etc who are comparable to the fastest people of 50 years ago, but are slower than the current world record holders. All of these people have to train hard to get to where they are.
For example: it's possible that somebody on Hacker News has the kind of muscle fibers that speed runners dream of. However, that person would never know they are athletically gifted because they never got to the point where this ability mattered; e.g., their cardiovascular system runs out of gas quickly and they never bothered to keep trying, to see how good they could actually be.
Recap: do genetics matter at differentiating the best from the best? Yes. Are people who are not the best in a particular arena missing those genes they need to be Gary Kasparov, Randy Moss, Wayne Gretzky? Very unlikely. It's more likely they are missing the 5, 10, 15 years of exerted effort at that particular mission.
The best in the world are better than those who have tried to do the same professionally for many years. However, there are hundreds of millions of people out there who could be close to the best, who have not even tried (often, for the sake of a career, family, education.) Genetics are really one of the least important differentiators when comparing a professional (anything) to somebody who is doing something else. Therefore, the genetic argument is very, very weak.
Genetic differences are often overstated by comparing one extreme to another.
Instead, consider the personal limits of any given individual to be the best in strength/physique contests, chess competitions, programming contests, time to run a mile, or playing in the NFL.
The brain is still a physical object, and its development is a mix of genetics and upbringing, just as height and musculature are. The difference is that chess playing abilities isn't so readily visible as bulging muscles are.
Such limits are unknown until the given person puts many, many years of work into a particular goal (often at least five years.) That's because limits are not defined by where one starts, but where one plateaus for multiple years following some kind of improvement over the prior five, ten, fifteen years.
Genetics may help push somebody over a plateau they would otherwise have hit sooner (just as having a good coach, training regimen, knowing one's own body, etc, will help as well). But discovering that one is genetically superior (which, for somebody with a given gift, could simply mean that he or she is able to accomplish something one second faster than somebody else with the same training experience in the entire lives--something hard to duplicate) doesn't displace the years of work it took to reach a point where genetics start to be the limiting factor.
For every person a journalist might say has a gift, there are hundreds of other people with the same level of achievement nobody writes about. There are about 2,000 active NFL players. There are many grandmasters. There are many active runners, swimmers, etc who are comparable to the fastest people of 50 years ago, but are slower than the current world record holders. All of these people have to train hard to get to where they are.
For example: it's possible that somebody on Hacker News has the kind of muscle fibers that speed runners dream of. However, that person would never know they are athletically gifted because they never got to the point where this ability mattered; e.g., their cardiovascular system runs out of gas quickly and they never bothered to keep trying, to see how good they could actually be.
Recap: do genetics matter at differentiating the best from the best? Yes. Are people who are not the best in a particular arena missing those genes they need to be Gary Kasparov, Randy Moss, Wayne Gretzky? Very unlikely. It's more likely they are missing the 5, 10, 15 years of exerted effort at that particular mission.
The best in the world are better than those who have tried to do the same professionally for many years. However, there are hundreds of millions of people out there who could be close to the best, who have not even tried (often, for the sake of a career, family, education.) Genetics are really one of the least important differentiators when comparing a professional (anything) to somebody who is doing something else. Therefore, the genetic argument is very, very weak.
>Genetic differences are often overstated by comparing one extreme to another.
Upbringing differences are even more often overstated by comparing one extreme to another. In fact your entire comment was just that.
>Such limits are unknown until the given person puts many, many years of work into a particular goal (often at least five years.) That's because limits are not defined by where one starts, but where one plateaus for multiple years following some kind of improvement over the prior five, ten, fifteen years.
Genetics aren't some sort of magical limit that appear after pushing yourself hard at some pursuit for a decade. They're another variable, along with training, diet, etc. It's difficult to say what anybody's absolute limits are, but ball-park predictions are possible. And no microcephalic is ever going to be an excellent chess player, regardless of training.
In your example of sprinting, the best in the world was noticed and brought into the sport due to his talents. According to wikipedia, "Upon his entry to William Knibb Memorial High School, Bolt continued to focus on other sports, but his cricket coach noticed Bolt's speed on the pitch and urged him to try track and field events." And then, with less than a decade of serious training, he utterly demolished world records in three different events. Two other points that suggest a large genetic component in his success are that he had only recently started training for the 100 when he broke the world record, and that he was the fastest kid in his school while growing up, even before doing an track and field training.
>For example: it's possible that somebody on Hacker News has the kind of muscle fibers that speed runners dream of. However, that person would never know they are athletically gifted because they never got to the point where this ability mattered;
Muscle fibers are only the least of what goes into running talent. Paraplegics typically have a higher percentage of fast-twitch fibers than sprinters. That noted, the premise that someone on a relatively small site such as this might unknowingly have the same level of natural sprinting abilities as a freak of nature like Bolt is ridiculous. Only if one believed that all hereditary dormant was "dormant" until one trained for decades and that the bobcat's leaping power sprang from its upbringing would that be a sensible hypothesis.
There's a mountain of scientific data demonstrating natural differences in abilities between different people. In order to deny the existence of talent, you'd literally have to throw out the last fifty years of psychology, biology and related life sciences. Sadly, quite a few people are willing to do just that! The fact that there's an argument at all about nature and nurture both contributing greatly to life outcomes makes it clear that the influence of nature is severely underestimated. That Gladwell and others who lack any background in life sciences are getting so much play in the media on this topic only serve as further evidence. Here are some scientific findings on the subject of talent:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-gene-for-...
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/musical-talent-genes-16460.ht...
http://www.thepsychologist.org.uk/blog/11/blogpost.cfm?threa...
Upbringing differences are even more often overstated by comparing one extreme to another. In fact your entire comment was just that.
>Such limits are unknown until the given person puts many, many years of work into a particular goal (often at least five years.) That's because limits are not defined by where one starts, but where one plateaus for multiple years following some kind of improvement over the prior five, ten, fifteen years.
Genetics aren't some sort of magical limit that appear after pushing yourself hard at some pursuit for a decade. They're another variable, along with training, diet, etc. It's difficult to say what anybody's absolute limits are, but ball-park predictions are possible. And no microcephalic is ever going to be an excellent chess player, regardless of training.
In your example of sprinting, the best in the world was noticed and brought into the sport due to his talents. According to wikipedia, "Upon his entry to William Knibb Memorial High School, Bolt continued to focus on other sports, but his cricket coach noticed Bolt's speed on the pitch and urged him to try track and field events." And then, with less than a decade of serious training, he utterly demolished world records in three different events. Two other points that suggest a large genetic component in his success are that he had only recently started training for the 100 when he broke the world record, and that he was the fastest kid in his school while growing up, even before doing an track and field training.
>For example: it's possible that somebody on Hacker News has the kind of muscle fibers that speed runners dream of. However, that person would never know they are athletically gifted because they never got to the point where this ability mattered;
Muscle fibers are only the least of what goes into running talent. Paraplegics typically have a higher percentage of fast-twitch fibers than sprinters. That noted, the premise that someone on a relatively small site such as this might unknowingly have the same level of natural sprinting abilities as a freak of nature like Bolt is ridiculous. Only if one believed that all hereditary dormant was "dormant" until one trained for decades and that the bobcat's leaping power sprang from its upbringing would that be a sensible hypothesis.
There's a mountain of scientific data demonstrating natural differences in abilities between different people. In order to deny the existence of talent, you'd literally have to throw out the last fifty years of psychology, biology and related life sciences. Sadly, quite a few people are willing to do just that! The fact that there's an argument at all about nature and nurture both contributing greatly to life outcomes makes it clear that the influence of nature is severely underestimated. That Gladwell and others who lack any background in life sciences are getting so much play in the media on this topic only serve as further evidence. Here are some scientific findings on the subject of talent:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-gene-for-...
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/musical-talent-genes-16460.ht...
http://www.thepsychologist.org.uk/blog/11/blogpost.cfm?threa...
William, I am not disagreeing that genetics may play a dominant role, but I do think it is a very weak argument to compare chess playing aptitude to running. From what I have read, we know a great deal about what physical traits (fast twitch muscles, bone length ratios, and so forth) make someone a fast runner. We know a fair bit about the role genes play in developing these traits.
With chess-playing aptitude we have indirect evidence of genetics gathered statistically. Can we measure a trait like seratonin to dopamine ratios? Can we measure a physical trait like the size of the brain or the pattern of the folds of the neocortex and statistically associate it with chess aptitude? Not to my knowledge.
So while there may be a statistical and indirect argument to make about chess aptitude and genetics, I think it should be made as such rather than making an argument comparing chess aptitude to something like running where (at this time) we know a lot more about the direct traits involved.
With chess-playing aptitude we have indirect evidence of genetics gathered statistically. Can we measure a trait like seratonin to dopamine ratios? Can we measure a physical trait like the size of the brain or the pattern of the folds of the neocortex and statistically associate it with chess aptitude? Not to my knowledge.
So while there may be a statistical and indirect argument to make about chess aptitude and genetics, I think it should be made as such rather than making an argument comparing chess aptitude to something like running where (at this time) we know a lot more about the direct traits involved.
Yes, I agree with you. I was reacting to the common attitude illustrated by the parent post that goes "Why does any group of people excel at something? It's necessarily because of culture and social support and you're stupid for considering anything else."
Postulating variations in the human brain is socially off the table, and perhaps this is the best way for it to be. The evidence people are willing accept as absolute proof that human brains are basically equal is weaker by several orders of magnitude than that which would convince them that there is any statistical difference in the brains of any populations.
One indication of this is that people who think that there is no significant statical pattern in variations of human brains never take that thought further toward interesting scientific questions. (For example, why have all groups of humans had the exact same evolutionary pressures on all kinds of intelligence, or why is intelligence seemingly unable to evolve in different directions, given that however you measure it it seems highly, highly heritable as shown by twin studies and other evidence?)
So basically, I'm just a mood to explore really politically incorrect and dangerous ideas, many of which may also be wrong. However, people who explore these ideas are not stupid, and reactions like "duh, it's the society" aren't really warranted. It may be socially irresponsible to think about ideas like this, and I'm agnostic about whether that's so. It quite possibly could be indicative of a very poor political sensibility too (see James Watson, Larry Summers.)
Postulating variations in the human brain is socially off the table, and perhaps this is the best way for it to be. The evidence people are willing accept as absolute proof that human brains are basically equal is weaker by several orders of magnitude than that which would convince them that there is any statistical difference in the brains of any populations.
One indication of this is that people who think that there is no significant statical pattern in variations of human brains never take that thought further toward interesting scientific questions. (For example, why have all groups of humans had the exact same evolutionary pressures on all kinds of intelligence, or why is intelligence seemingly unable to evolve in different directions, given that however you measure it it seems highly, highly heritable as shown by twin studies and other evidence?)
So basically, I'm just a mood to explore really politically incorrect and dangerous ideas, many of which may also be wrong. However, people who explore these ideas are not stupid, and reactions like "duh, it's the society" aren't really warranted. It may be socially irresponsible to think about ideas like this, and I'm agnostic about whether that's so. It quite possibly could be indicative of a very poor political sensibility too (see James Watson, Larry Summers.)
Soviet chess grandmasters came from all kinds of ethnic backgrounds. There's no genetic argument to make.
I'm not making an argument for chess. I'm making an argument for the possible existence of a single counterexample to the "obvious" claim that if a group of people are good at X, regardless of the nature of X, then it is necessarily only due to cultural factors.
Actually, there are cultures which foster intense distance running so I think even the genetics/distance running argument isn't a "slam dunk" - ie, to just act like the point is proven is a cheap, unsupported argument.
Aha, but what if those cultures persist over countless generations? The degree to which one fits into one's culture partially determines one's reproductive success. Wouldn't this weed out the genetically poor distance runners while advantaging the genetically good distance runners?
Chess has always been very popular in Russia, I struggle to think of anybody I met there who doesn't know how to play.
Having said that, mathematics is also taught a lot more than in Europe or USA. When I moved from a Russian school to a European one, math teachers would give me homework that was 3 grades ahead of me. And even then it was English that caused issues more than anything =)
Having said that, mathematics is also taught a lot more than in Europe or USA. When I moved from a Russian school to a European one, math teachers would give me homework that was 3 grades ahead of me. And even then it was English that caused issues more than anything =)
Because chess is so much more popular there. Here the emphasis is on money-making activities, such as sports- that have rules that can be easily understood by the large masses, and that are easier to market. In addition,there is much more support for chess there, and chess is highly admired; here there are a lot of mixed opinions and myths about chess - for example, that in order to be a good chess player you have to be intelligent, chess is for nerds, etc. Now that chess is finally entering the US and increasing in popularity, hopefully it will be much better understood and appreciated in the future, but it may take a long time before it becomes really popular here.
I haven't read the article yet, so I'll guess at it's contents then check it to see how well I did.
TRAGAC because they teach every kid the country chess in school - identify the gifted - send them to chess camp - identify the more gifted - send them to chess school - keep filtering - concentrate the best of the best into more and more intense training - Botvinnik ran a chess school at the very top that trained both Kasparov, Karpov and Krammnik.
Make sure the talented get their 10,000 hours in with no distractions, like having to have a job.
Easy, peasy.
TRAGAC because they teach every kid the country chess in school - identify the gifted - send them to chess camp - identify the more gifted - send them to chess school - keep filtering - concentrate the best of the best into more and more intense training - Botvinnik ran a chess school at the very top that trained both Kasparov, Karpov and Krammnik.
Make sure the talented get their 10,000 hours in with no distractions, like having to have a job.
Easy, peasy.
O,k I read it. It DID have some mention of the state support system, but said it was for more ideological reasons.
Ayn Rand wrote an essay on WTRAGAC and she pointed out chess was a very CAPITALISTIC game. Why?
In chess, you own all your own pieces. Just about the only private property in the USSR. No Central Committee or Five Year Plan can tell you how to place your rook. At no time will your rook ever be nationalized by the state just when you need it the most.
Second, only you get to push your pieces. It is NOT collectivized.
Third, you are rewarded for being strong in a non socialist manner. You and the other guy start out with the same number of pieces, soon the stronger player has more. They don't NEED more, being stronger, but, as in life in the West, the rich get richer!
Rand argued that the TRAGAC because they used it to escape an unnatural Socialist system.
Ayn Rand wrote an essay on WTRAGAC and she pointed out chess was a very CAPITALISTIC game. Why?
In chess, you own all your own pieces. Just about the only private property in the USSR. No Central Committee or Five Year Plan can tell you how to place your rook. At no time will your rook ever be nationalized by the state just when you need it the most.
Second, only you get to push your pieces. It is NOT collectivized.
Third, you are rewarded for being strong in a non socialist manner. You and the other guy start out with the same number of pieces, soon the stronger player has more. They don't NEED more, being stronger, but, as in life in the West, the rich get richer!
Rand argued that the TRAGAC because they used it to escape an unnatural Socialist system.
Exceptional Ability = Practice + Availability of Time
for Practice
+ MotivationProbably the same reason they are amazing programmers
And scientists. The reason I think is in the traditionally more system-oriented education.
And a very advanced education system where calculus and physics are taught in 5th and 6th grade
BS. i took 5th, 6th grade in Soviet Union. we had no calculus and purely conceptual, primarily arithmetic oriented physics.
Not according to this: http://www.emis.de/projects/Ref/doc_ems_pdf/EMS_NATIONAL_PRE...
"Traditionally, in grades 7–9 mathematics comprises 2 school subjects, geometry and algebra that are taught in parallel (e.g., 2 hours per week for geometry, and 3 hours for algebra). In the senior school [16-17 years old], also two subjects are taught, geometry and algebra and elements of calculus. In grades 5 and 6 (and in primary school) we have a united course of mathematics."
For comparison, the US high school math curriculum (for students 14-18 years old) is generally algebra, geometry, precalculus/trigonometry and calculus, although students can still graduate with just algebra and geometry.
That said, I don't doubt that there is a cultural and educational emphasis on math in Russia.
"Traditionally, in grades 7–9 mathematics comprises 2 school subjects, geometry and algebra that are taught in parallel (e.g., 2 hours per week for geometry, and 3 hours for algebra). In the senior school [16-17 years old], also two subjects are taught, geometry and algebra and elements of calculus. In grades 5 and 6 (and in primary school) we have a united course of mathematics."
For comparison, the US high school math curriculum (for students 14-18 years old) is generally algebra, geometry, precalculus/trigonometry and calculus, although students can still graduate with just algebra and geometry.
That said, I don't doubt that there is a cultural and educational emphasis on math in Russia.
"Also, to eliminate any confusion, grades 5 and 6 in Russia are roughly the equivalent of grades 7 and 8 in the US."
Where did you get that from? When I studied in Russia we'd skip grade 4 (don't ask me why!) and most students started 1st grade at the age of 7. Meaning grade 5 really corresponded to grade 4 in other countries.
Where did you get that from? When I studied in Russia we'd skip grade 4 (don't ask me why!) and most students started 1st grade at the age of 7. Meaning grade 5 really corresponded to grade 4 in other countries.
Upon review it looks like it might only be shifted 1 older or possibly the same, but it's unclear. Russian education apparently starts a year later than in the US and, until the 90s(?), ended/still ends(?) a year earlier and, as you noted, didn't/still doesn't(?) include a 4th grade. The presentation from 2000 on Russian math education I linked to also states that "number 4 is usually omitted" and that the system "has been in the state of permanent reorganization." Thus, it's not entirely clear to me how the grades match up, so sentence excised.
For the past 10 years it's just about having the money to pay for your exams. Education has gone downhill since the collapse of the SU. Russia doesn't need mathematicians or physicists anymore. My uncle is a professor and gets paid well under $1K a month. All that matters is what the price of oil is, and how much they can export while the old refineries still haven't fallen apart. Russia's income is purely from oil & gas now.
This was around '89? I think they were switching from a 10 to 11 year program and whoever was in school already at that time skipped a grade.
[deleted](3)
"You are a product of your environment." --Clement Stone
Exactly. As the movie "Looking for Bobby Fischer" made clear, we in the US live in a non-chess culture. Like mathematicians, chess players and honor-roll students in high-school are ignored while jocks get lots of attention.
Belonging to a subculture can be empowering for people who aren't world-class out of the gate like Bobby, but that's only available for a very small minority in cities. Elsewhere, there's little heavy competition or opportunity to evolve.
The US gets it's ass handed to it in international math competitions because math, as with most intellectual endeavors in the US, gets no respect. The news proves everyday that 2/3's of us are clueless about most things that developed in the 20th century.
Belonging to a subculture can be empowering for people who aren't world-class out of the gate like Bobby, but that's only available for a very small minority in cities. Elsewhere, there's little heavy competition or opportunity to evolve.
The US gets it's ass handed to it in international math competitions because math, as with most intellectual endeavors in the US, gets no respect. The news proves everyday that 2/3's of us are clueless about most things that developed in the 20th century.
I think http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs also plays a good role in producing good chess players.
Let me echo what some people are saying .... training and education. Duh.
If someone is smart enough to play chess at the highest levels, wouldn't he/she be better off as a mathematician?
Is there any evidence that there is a strong correlation between playing chess at a high level and being a great mathematician?
If you are a great chess player you wouldn't have time to become a decent mathematician.
In my experience mathematicians become quite good at chess - if they take it seriously. That's why I gave up playing long time ago.
In my experience, anyone of average intelligence becomes quite good at chess, if they take it seriously.
Karpov spent a year (I think) studying math as a freshman... "He couldn't make it" as the story goes.
Not really, a mathematician would likely make less money than a toplevel chess player.
But the falloff is sharp. A friend of mine was once ranked 44th in the world, and he switched to programming because he couldn't make a living playing chess.
Fat chance. There's only perhaps a few dozen people in the world who can actually even make a living playing chess (as opposed to teaching it on the side.) It's notoriously difficult.
Many American chess players switch to poker or a different profession.
Many American chess players switch to poker or a different profession.
Even then, I remember seeing ads for lessons by Gata Kamsky in the back of Chess Life about 8 years ago.
According to James Simons, "The average annual income of leading research mathematicians (those, say, with at least three articles in the Annals of Mathematics) is about 10,000,000 USD" ;]
Simons is worth several billions ($10 billion perhaps?) and the number of mathematicians with at least 3 articles in the Annals of Mathematics cannot be huge (1000 perhaps?). I am pretty sure that was what Simons was getting at. Seeing your smiley, I assume you knew that too!
I'm skeptical of that. There is one web site (besides the above comment) that has this quote. It links to the Wikipedia article about James Simons as its source. The Wikipedia article does not seem to mention the quote. Even if James Simons did say that, I'd like to see his source.
Edit: it just occurred to me that, since we are talking about "average" and not "median", this may as well be true, if a handful of mathematicians make a gazillion dollars a year. Very senior faculty members in the top research universities in the US are likely to make only $200-500k per year.
Edit: it just occurred to me that, since we are talking about "average" and not "median", this may as well be true, if a handful of mathematicians make a gazillion dollars a year. Very senior faculty members in the top research universities in the US are likely to make only $200-500k per year.
"Only," but that's ten times what a professional chessplayer outside of the top 10 in the world makes.
that's because Simons defines "leading" mathematicians as ones working for RenTech
Not really. Only a handful of top-level chess players are in the multi-million dollar range, while there are thousands of mathematicians in that range (the majority from the financial industry).
You'd have same approach with sports, ballet, or even high-school level contests in natural science. If there'd existed a world-renowned competition in crosswords, rest assured USSR would have had a nation-wide network of crosswording schools that would've enlisted talented kids at age of 5, three state-approved categories of crossword-manship (and one for juniors) and crossword solving discretely featured in every third motion picture.
But I digress. If you ever got to being a candidate for, say, a national senior-school physics competition, you'd be transferred to region's best teachers. They would train you like a circus dog, showing you the tricks and running you through hundreds of assignments encountered in previous years, with no focus on the essence of physics. Granted you'd know a lot about pulleys and levers and displacement, but it wouldn't make you any good physicist.