Life In 19x19

Okay, if there are "many, many cases of professional skill being passed on," then how many cases are there of that skill being taught but not sticking? Come on, John, anecdotes like what you say don't prove anything. At best, it means that the talented ones manage to do well; how many fail?

In regard to the "talent" vs. "hard work" debate, I think it's best to just assume that it's completely "hard work". Of course, talent may play a role, but if you focus on this too much, it just becomes an excuse: "I don't have the talent, so I can never reach level X of awesomeness".

In my opinion, we cannot realize our own potential of working hard. It may be the case that, even after working hard, we cannot reach a certain level... But it is impossible to know this at the onset, so why not simply believe in your ability to reach any level?

A lot of "impossible" things can be done with hard work. Maybe your goal is too hard for your ability, but don't let yourself know that.

You have two options when faced with a goal that seems impossible:

1.) Say you don't have the talent and give up on it. This route automatically leads to failure.

2.) Believe that hard work will make up for your "lack" of talent. This route could lead to failure, but there is the chance it could lead to success.

I am an advocate of the second route. I believe that hard work can overcome talent in any scenario... Even when I'm wrong about it. Because there's still a chance that I'm right about it.

Speaking of Western tendencies to think in certain ways, we also tend to adulate the idea that hard work is the sine qua non for everything. We also tend to selectively apply this narrative retrospectively. Hard work has never disadvantaged someone, but it also doesn't provide for the myriad of successes in the ways we would like to believe. As john suggests, the resources one starts out with make a huge (the) difference.

The thing that bugs me about this hard work vs. talent thing is the common conception that if someone is successful, it's always because of the talent, and if someone is not successful, it was obviously not enough hard work.

It basically boils down to jealousy. Someone else is better? Well, that's talent. You can't do anything about talent, so we just have to accept it. We just can't admit that we haven't worked hard enough. And for sure we can't acknowledge someone else's hard work.

flOvermind wrote:It basically boils down to jealousy. Someone else is better? Well, that's talent. You can't do anything about talent, so we just have to accept it. We just can't admit that we haven't worked hard enough. And for sure we can't acknowledge someone else's hard work.

A good example of the point I was making.

flOvermind wrote: Someone else is better? Well, that's talent. You can't do anything about talent, so we just have to accept it. We just can't admit that we haven't worked hard enough.

He was born a hard worker. You can't do anything about that.

flOvermind wrote:The thing that bugs me about this hard work vs. talent thing is the common conception that if someone is successful, it's always because of the talent, and if someone is not successful, it was obviously not enough hard work.

It basically boils down to jealousy. Someone else is better? Well, that's talent. You can't do anything about talent, so we just have to accept it. We just can't admit that we haven't worked hard enough. And for sure we can't acknowledge someone else's hard work.

Wow, I keep disagreeing with you today.

Actually, talent is something that is well recognized, in many fields; it's been studied quite a bit: in music, for example, it's a deeper understanding of notes and harmonies that doesn't need to be taught as much. For go, I'd say it's a better aptitude toward recognizing and remembering patterns, and an ability to read (ie, visualize).

FrenchDude wrote:

flOvermind wrote: Someone else is better? Well, that's talent. You can't do anything about talent, so we just have to accept it. We just can't admit that we haven't worked hard enough.

He was born a hard worker. You can't do anything about that.

It is highly unlikely to be born a hard worker (there are no absolutes). That's like saying that people are born to be able to quit smoking.

Being able to work hard is gained through:
1. The need to improve
2. The meaning to work hard (they might not realize it, but their subconscious already has that meaning)
3. The pleasure found in working hard. This is not superficial, but rather, some kind of good addiction.

Genes take care of many things. It can take care of how much glucose is used in the brain. It can make the eyebrow ridge smaller to fit a bigger pre-frontal cortex.

I believe any average person who loves igo more than anything else in their life and starts before 14yo could reach the strength of 9p. Any higher (eg: Gu Li, Lee Sedol) would probably need an evolutional advantage.

There also is the case of whether or not genes greatly influence the love of the game. Well, that won't solidify publicly for at least 20 years.

I want to be the first to make a proprietary claim on the Go gene once it's discovered. Hence, any and all monetary gain as a result of exploiting the genetic propensity to excel at Go will be legally subject to a 5% genome trademark fee to be paid in perpetuity. This of course includes full control of the distribution of all relevant game records, advertising rights, and kin selection.

Lee Sedol, you now work for me.

I don't know if I agree with my previous post as I was just joking but it is something I think about a lot.
If I get good marks in an exam, it's because I revised for it. But what made me revise for it? There are others in my class who do not revise. Why do I work hard? Should I really be rewarded for my hard work if it's just something my genes make me do?

John Fairbairn wrote:The commentaries on the perpetual amateur games, however, much more often seem to along the lines of "That doesn't work - you need to try this instead." In other words, they still haven't mastered the basics.

In commentaries on of top amateur games it seems to me that there is a striking accumulation of "This move has been played in the wrong direction."

Araban wrote:3) They can remember games they played eons ago.

This is an interesting observation. I think pros place a lot of weight on this particular talent indicator. I remember reading how Cho Hunhyun thought Lee Changho would never be a great player because he could not replay his games from memory, even just after he'd played them. When Lee set the Go world on fire, Cho said he was "a different kind of genius".

I remember talking about this back on GD, on my "dual n-back" thread. I wish I had more insight into what pros think about the role of memory in Go... I'm thinking Cho's stance probably isn't unique among great players.

I guess I'm surprised that anyone would question the importance of talent.

In two of my main hobbies, guitar and chess, I have put a lot of time and effort into improving my skills.

But I see many, many people who put in much less effort who are much better than me. I don't mean a little better, I mean probably better than I could ever be even if I devoted myself to it full time. Some people just have a knack, a gift, a talent, whatever you want to call it.

I think the top pros in Go must be both talented and hardworking. Otherwise, like someone already said, they would be beaten constantly by the other players who are both extremely talented and hardworking, and they wouldn't be top players to begin with.

If you are going to compete against others in any competitive field, I think that unless you are a truly unique person there will always be someone more talented than you. You may be able to make up some of the difference in talent by exceptionally hard work, but it is likely you won't be able to make up all of the difference with the most talented people.

All that having been said, I have a lot of sympathy with Kirby's viewpoint, and I feel like it is positive thing to be optimistic about your full potential and to try and realize it.

deja wrote:... Hard work has never disadvantaged someone, but it also doesn't provide for the myriad of successes in the ways we would like to believe. As john suggests, the resources one starts out with make a huge (the) difference.

I strongly disagree. When I have really worked hard at something, I have never been disappointed. I am only disappointed when I have slacked off.

And even if you work hard at something and fail, the process that you go through in trying to achieve your goal makes it well worth it.

I'm reminded of the popular quote, "Whether you think that you can achieve something or if you think that you can't... You're right.". But being optimistic is only one part of the story. You still have to put forth the effort.

Kirby wrote:I strongly disagree. When I have really worked hard at something, I have never been disappointed. I am only disappointed when I have slacked off.

And even if you work hard at something and fail, the process that you go through in trying to achieve your goal makes it well worth it.

I'm reminded of the popular quote, "Whether you think that you can achieve something or if you think that you can't... You're right.". But being optimistic is only one part of the story. You still have to put forth the effort.

"Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better." Samuel Beckett