This question has been making the rounds among chess enthusiasts on YouTube, and much of the confusion surrounding it obviously stems from two different readings, or interpretations, of the same question, as well as from people’s willingness — or unwillingness — to be honest in dealing with the facts and significance of statistical averages and human nature.
The question is this: “In the game of chess, can anyone become a grandmaster?”
If you’re honest about IQ and natural ability, then the true answer to the question is a definitive ‘no’.
After all, the question isn’t merely whether, technically speaking, the opportunity extends to all people on the planet. Of course it does. The more interesting question posed, implicitly, is whether all people are functionally capable of achieving grandmaster status in the game of chess.
After factoring in the typical work ethic of human beings or the resources required (mental as well as physical and economic), then the practical answer is also ‘no’.
To the extent that any hypothetical extends to human beings and their capabilities, an honest assessment acknowledges the causes and reasons that explain why people tend to perform around averages.
The fact of the matter is that ‘average’ is where most people can reasonably expect to end up (statistically) wherever they apply themselves, and likewise most people tend (or try) to find satisfaction or contentment around the averages and never show themselves to be excellent at anything. Indeed, most people show far more ability in conditioning themselves to be content with their stations in life than they do in demonstrating qualities such as willpower, stamina, perseverance, and critical thinking — the latter representing just some of the qualities required to perform among the best in chess, or virtually any competitive field for that matter.
Any person who answers in the affirmative to this question is betraying or ignorant of the facts, or even giving lip service with ulterior motives.
Comments
Post a Comment