God Given Talent

[JB Cases]

Let's see the research studies that you're citing.

As I posted earlier, the top chess players have prodigious memories, which helps them to excel at the game. The following research is consistent with what I posted:
http://www.psy.fsu.edu/faculty/ericsson/ericsson.mem.exp.html

The Specificity of Experts’ Superior Memory

The most influential research of experts’ memories focussed initially on chess experts. In their pioneering studies Chase and Simon (1973) showed superior memory for chess positions by chess experts. Chess players ranging from beginners to international masters were shown a position from an actual chess game (such as the one illustrated in panel A of Figure 1) for a brief time (normally 5 seconds) and then asked to recall the location of all the chess pieces. The ability to recall increased as a function of chess skill. Beginners at chess were able to recall the correct location of about four pieces, whereas international-level players recalled virtually all of the more than twenty pieces.

To rule out that the superior memory of chess experts reflects a general superior ability to store any kind of visual information, Chase and Simon (1973) had chess players recall chessboards with randomly placed pieces (as illustrated in Panel B of Figure 1). With briefly presented random chessboards, players at all levels of skill had the same poor recall performance and were able to recall the correct location of only about four pieces—a performance comparable with that of chess beginners for actual positions from chess games. Further, Chase and Simon (1973) showed that when an actual chess position was shown using an unfamiliar notation (see Panel C in Figure 1), the chess expert was able to display a similar level of superior memory performance after a brief period of adjustment. This result implies that the superior memory of experts is not photographic and requires arrangements of chess pieces that can be encoded using associations to the experts’ extensive knowledge of chess. Since Chase and Simon’s classic study, investigators have shown that level of expertise is related to superior memory performance for representative stimuli in the associated domain, such as computer programming,, basketball, and dance, and that this superiority is mediated by increased knowledge and domain-specific skills (for a recent review, see Ericsson, Patel & Kintsch, 2000).
​

And what you highlighted in red and the other observations prove exactly what I said. Namely skill, in this case recall, improves with practice.

And as I said when chess players learn chess they learn the language of chess. Same as speaking english, you do it because you learned that arranging the letters in a particular way means something. Take those same 26 letters and make a new language that doesn't conform to the rules you use and you will be completely lost trying to communicate using words.

We learn the language of pool and even we can't perform a certain task consistently we can see a layout and know what to do whereas a beginner does not.

So then what is "talent"?

Hand-eye coordination?

Faster synapses?

Empathy?

Cognition?

Calmness under pressure? (Earl then is not talented at all)

I mean I can certainly accept that some brains are "wired" differently. What else explains autistic savants? What else explains retardation? If a person has a learning disability then another one can have a learning ability. But it's neurological and not specific to any particular field.

The thing is that you can NEVER know how great someone might have been in some other field because to BE great in one field requires quite a lot of energy and focus. And also the circumstances for each are different.

Until you have a world where humans are grown in lab environments and experimented on with every conceivable control you simply have to accept that each and every one of us is unique. We all grow up in different circumstances, with different influences, different opportunities.

And we can barely measure what effect any of those variables had on us and our resulting performances. So to those of you who think that you are either born with it or not I feel sorry for you. Most people who are very successful resent being classified as a freak of nature and prefer to be thought of as someone who was willing to work harder than everyone else to get where they wanted to be. You find that over and over and over in biographies of highly successful people.

The common denominator among them all?

Drive.

Determination.

Never quitting, always pushing the envelope, what top athletes and the scientists who train them call threshhold training. What makes people better is simply pushing farther each time. Going just beyond the limit of where you went before. I could give you examples of this in my own business but they would be completely wasted on you. But the end result is that I have taken a couple people with ZERO experience in leather tooling and made them very good inside six months by pushing them to think and grow each time they put the tool to the leather.

I would hope you would be offended if I told you that your chess prowess came from natural talent and not from intense study of chess.

If you start to look around you find plenty of stories of people taking up something later in life and becoming the best or among the elite at it.

I think that in MOST cases people do have the ability to improve dramatically. What's that old saw about us only using ten percent of our brains....... what will the world look like when we figure out how to use the other 90%.

Imagine that world.

 

[PoolSharkAllen]

And what you highlighted in red and the other observations prove exactly what I said. Namely skill, in this case recall, improves with practice.

And as I said when chess players learn chess they learn the language of chess. Same as speaking english, you do it because you learned that arranging the letters in a particular way means something. Take those same 26 letters and make a new language that doesn't conform to the rules you use and you will be completely lost trying to communicate using words.

We learn the language of pool and even we can't perform a certain task consistently we can see a layout and know what to do whereas a beginner does not.

So then what is "talent"?

Hand-eye coordination?

Faster synapses?

Empathy?

Cognition?

Calmness under pressure? (Earl then is not talented at all)

We all grow up in different circumstances, with different influences, different opportunities.

The common denominator among them all?

Drive.

Determination.

Never quitting, always pushing the envelope, what top athletes and the scientists who train them call threshhold training. What makes people better is simply pushing farther each time.

I would hope you would be offended if I told you that your chess prowess came from natural talent and not from intense study of chess.

If you start to look around you find plenty of stories of people taking up something later in life and becoming the best or among the elite at it.

I think that in MOST cases people do have the ability to improve dramatically.

No one here is saying that hard work, drive and determination are not crucial to success. Of course, they are.

But having the talent, a natural aptitude, makes learning the task so much easier and faster.

In reading another thread on a poster's frustration with the Hit a Million Balls (HAMB system), Grilled Cheese defined "talent" as follows: "What I call talent, are those people who for whatever reason, have the physical ability or coordination to be able to put all the pieces together faster, and more correctly during the learning process. People call it 'being a natural' because it almost seems like they naturally get it right. I don't know what the cause for this is, but some do learn faster as a result."

I think many of Grilled Cheese's other comments can be applied to this thread too:

But there isn't a pro out there that didn't put in the time and effort. It comes in different forms. Some did it the academic way, with teachers and doing drills, playing tournaments. Others did it by gambling and playing under pressure all the time against better players.

Whatever the case, there was some kind of motivator pushing them to execute to the best of their ability, over and over. To shoot all those shots the right way. When gambling, your ass gets down on the shot and does the best it can to stroke well, aim well and make the ball. Otherwise, your wallet gets thinner. It's why some like to say that players who gamble get better faster, or are better players. Some players want tournament success. And are fortunate to have good teachers who stick with them and they drill and drill. Learning, tweaking and practicing.

Great play, high level play is nothing more than fundamentals applied. Mastery of the fundamentals. If a player can master the basics found in any number of pool instructional books...and apply them to game scenarios - they will be near pro level. Mastering means, being able to consistently execute these shots and skills to where errors are very, very rare.

As was said, amateurs practice til they get it right. Pros practice till they can't get it wrong.

That's the difference. When is the last time you or any other player got on a table and worked on a single skill, so long and so hard, til they could do it on right 99 out of 100 times if asked? That's why they say you have to love the game. You have to love it so that things like this do not appear like tedious, boring work. So that these things are considered FUN. And done with full desire. Done with plenty of heart. And dedication.
​

 

[Masirib5]

Wow all you big brained people are so amazing. Now just go play some pool. Arguing about who knows the most about what the definition of God Given Talent is or isn't and what will make the best player.

OMGGT!

--Jeff

 

[JB Cases]

No one here is saying that hard work, drive and determination are not crucial to success. Of course, they are.

But having the talent, a natural aptitude, makes learning the task so much easier and faster.

In reading another thread on a poster's frustration with the Hit a Million Balls (HAMB system), Grilled Cheese defined "talent" as follows: "What I call talent, are those people who for whatever reason, have the physical ability or coordination to be able to put all the pieces together faster, and more correctly during the learning process. People call it 'being a natural' because it almost seems like they naturally get it right. I don't know what the cause for this is, but some do learn faster as a result."

I think many of Grilled Cheese's other comments can be applied to this thread too:

But there isn't a pro out there that didn't put in the time and effort. It comes in different forms. Some did it the academic way, with teachers and doing drills, playing tournaments. Others did it by gambling and playing under pressure all the time against better players.

Whatever the case, there was some kind of motivator pushing them to execute to the best of their ability, over and over. To shoot all those shots the right way. When gambling, your ass gets down on the shot and does the best it can to stroke well, aim well and make the ball. Otherwise, your wallet gets thinner. It's why some like to say that players who gamble get better faster, or are better players. Some players want tournament success. And are fortunate to have good teachers who stick with them and they drill and drill. Learning, tweaking and practicing.

Great play, high level play is nothing more than fundamentals applied. Mastery of the fundamentals. If a player can master the basics found in any number of pool instructional books...and apply them to game scenarios - they will be near pro level. Mastering means, being able to consistently execute these shots and skills to where errors are very, very rare.

As was said, amateurs practice til they get it right. Pros practice till they can't get it wrong.

That's the difference. When is the last time you or any other player got on a table and worked on a single skill, so long and so hard, til they could do it on right 99 out of 100 times if asked? That's why they say you have to love the game. You have to love it so that things like this do not appear like tedious, boring work. So that these things are considered FUN. And done with full desire. Done with plenty of heart. And dedication.
​

Now, go find Salman Khan's Ted Talk about the Khan Academy and his approach to learning. He has developed a task based approach that let's students learn by completing specific groups of problems at their own pace.

What they have discovered is that there are always kids who "get it" much faster than others and they race ahead through the "easy-to-them" parts until they hit a spot that slows them down. Then the slower kids catch up and often surpass the initially faster kids.

In our society we call the faster kids "gifted". But actually they are not gifted, they are simply able to figure out certain things faster while others take a little longer and both end up in the same place at the end. In fact it can be argued that the person who learns a little slower learns deeper and retains more that helps them later.

I am not entirely sure but you seem to making my points for me or somehow we are on the same side I think. Are you about to checkmate me????

Research indicates that "talent" is actually desire+focus.

And FWIW - I will spend an hour on one particular shot until I own it. Could be a little feather safety or Efren's reverse follow shot. I have always liked to work out problems on the pool as if they were chess problems and have made that comparison on here many times.

 

[JB Cases]

Wow all you big brained people are so amazing. Now just go play some pool. Arguing about who knows the most about what the definition of God Given Talent is or isn't and what will make the best player.

OMGGT!

--Jeff

Some of us can't be at the pool table all the time so we like to talk about it.

 

[mrayntexas]

Talent

I think that believing you must have natural talent to excel to a world-class level is just an excuse for those who are not world-class.

Anyone with desire, hard work, and proper direction can achieve world class status. Proper Direction is easier these days than 25 years ago owing to the internet and accu-stats, etc...

If you think you have put in the work, but are still not to the level you think you should be, re-evaluate and stop making excuses...it's your fault, not anyone elses.


...just my opinion, btw.[/QUOTE

I think people who dont believe that there is a such thing as natural ability, choose not to believe it because then they must admit that not everyone on this earth is born exactly the same and they dont accept that.

TALENT alone will not get you to the top.

WORK ETHIC alone will not get you to the top.

TALENT AND WORK ETHIC together will get you there.

I just cant figure out why some people are not willing to accept that.

 

[Masirib5]

Some of us can't be at the pool table all the time so we like to talk about it.

Ha! Good answer!

 

[naji]

Maybe the desire to become the best = natural talent





What is that bolded nonsense?

There is no such thing as luck, only a result or results of actions which may or may not favor you.
If 2 people play pool for infinitive time, do you think it's possible for one of them to get only 1 bad roll and the other one to get 25435432 bad rolls? No, they both get infinitive amount of bad rolls.

Agree with the rest tho.

Sorry bud! you said it yourself, get bad rolls, both get infinitive amount of rolls, of which it means luck is an issue if one get one more roll than other. How about the pick of who is going to play you in a tournament, some times your pick will be SVB 1st match, and on looser side you face Efren next match, you out !!!

 

[Pangit]

Opportunity is obviously important. But then again New York, California, Texas, and Florida probably have more opportunity to find competition and mentors in the game then South Dakota, and yet the best player in the USA is not from New York or California or Florida or Texas.

And the idea that it is just "hand/eye coordination is a simplification and it is incorrect. The inner ability to excel at the game is more complex then that. Obviously Wayne Gretzky had hand/eye coordination, so does Tiger Woods, so does Roger Federer, but the chances are if Roger had of taken up Golf he would not have become Tiger Woods level, if Tiger had taken up Tennis he is probably not going to be the number 1 tennis player in the world for years straight, and if Wayne Gretzky took up golf or tennis instead of hockey he probably would not be world famous and hold world records in either sport.

Each sport takes a very specific type of mentality, a very specific type of brain make-up to excel at it. I took to pool very naturally and quickly became better then alot of people who had played alot more pool then me. In golf I have put in boat loads of practice and I still suck at the game. I was once a extremely good curler and became good very, very quickly at that game, and yet I have never been able to throw darts well despite playing the game quite abit. Every sport has its own unique aspects that each individuals brain has either a high or low capability in. Being good at one sport does not mean you will be good in another, and people who excel at sports such as the top pros normally focus on those sports because they take to them VERY quickly and realize they have abnormally high talents in them.

It is not just "hand/eye coordination", it is WAY more complex then that. The nuances that make a pro pool player have that potential within them is very specific to pool and simply not that generalized. Some peoples brains "just work" in certain games. Look at Chess, huge numbers of people try to reach the top of that game, very few players in the world show an abnormal talent for the game right from a young age and eventually become the top players in the world. Kasparov is not just the result of practice, there is something unique about guys like him. The top pool players are no different, they can do something that most people NEVER could.

Well said "Counselor"... CRAP!!! I don't think there is a rational person that could successfully argue against any point you made? Were you on the McGill University debate team? Joke....My college Psychology Professor has a Doctorate from McGill. The weirdest...and at the same time, the most intelligent person I've ever meet. I learned ton's from that dude.

 

[JB Cases]

Well said "Counselor"... CRAP!!! I don't think there is a rational person that could successfully argue against any point you made? Were you on the McGill University debate team? Joke....My college Psychology Professor has a Doctorate from McGill. The weirdest...and at the same time, the most intelligent person I've ever meet. I learned ton's from that dude.

Obviously you haven't read your own thread. Nor any of the research on this subject.

 

[whitewolf]

I had never heard anything before about Michael Jordan playing pool. I had heard he was quite good at golf though.

He is fairly good at golf. One thing for sure, MJ is a gambling addict and LOSES HIS ASS AT GOLF, betting big stakes. There is a sucker born every minute!

 

[whitewolf]

Some of us can't be at the pool table all the time so we like to talk about it.

No kidding! Do you talk pool with your wife when you go out for dinner?:grin: Where do you find the time?

btw, IMO you have to have natural talent(s), in the least, to make it to the top in billiards. There are no ifs, thens, and/or buts about this.

 

[Slasher]

here is some advice from someone that is considered the best ever in their sport, @ around 2:00 min

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNlMSZYHb50&feature=related

 

[PoolSharkAllen]

I am not entirely sure but you seem to making my points for me or somehow we are on the same side I think. Are you about to checkmate me????

When neither player is able to win the chess game, that's called a stalemate. But I'm ok with your thinking that you're about to be checkmated.

We really must get together ASAP and bet everything you've got on you.

 

[JB Cases]

When neither player is able to win the chess game, that's called a stalemate. But I'm ok with your thinking that you're about to be checkmated.

We really must get together ASAP and bet everything you've got on you.

Does that mean you want to spot me the rook and queen and play me some one pocket getting 11:8?

In two weeks you can find me at the SBE. I am glad to see you think that our conversation is a draw. I never knew the definition of stalemate before thanks for the education. See I am a total chess sucker so to be fair you should toss in a one of those horse pieces as well.

See you there right?

 

[PoolSharkAllen]

Does that mean you want to spot me the rook and queen and play me some one pocket getting 11:8?

In two weeks you can find me at the SBE. I am glad to see you think that our conversation is a draw. I never knew the definition of stalemate before thanks for the education. See I am a total chess sucker so to be fair you should toss in a one of those horse pieces as well.

See you there right?

See my reply from Post #51 below:

I gotta admit, JB, that playing chess with you and crushing you like a bug would be highly entertaining. Since you're the one who thinks that playing chess is such an easy sport to master, you should be giving me a handicap. I'll take your Queen and all of your pawns, thank you very much.

All joking aside, it's amusing that like a duffer, you're already asking for a handicap. Should we ever play someday, you'll be getting no handicap from me. Chess is a game of skill and talent -- either you're good enough to win based upon your abilities or you're not.​

How are all these bets that you're always proposing relevant to the topic of the thread? And regardless of whoever wins these bets, with such a tiny sample size, it would never be considered statistically significant in answering the question at hand, i.e., in this case, the question about God-given talent.

 

[JB Cases]

See my reply from Post #51 below:

I gotta admit, JB, that playing chess with you and crushing you like a bug would be highly entertaining. Since you're the one who thinks that playing chess is such an easy sport to master, you should be giving me a handicap. I'll take your Queen and all of your pawns, thank you very much.

All joking aside, it's amusing that like a duffer, you're already asking for a handicap. Should we ever play someday, you'll be getting no handicap from me. Chess is a game of skill and talent -- either you're good enough to win based upon your abilities or you're not.​

How are all these bets that you're always proposing relevant to the topic of the thread? And regardless of whoever wins these bets, with such a tiny sample size, it would never be considered statistically significant in answering the question at hand, i.e., in this case, the question about God-given talent.

Where did I say or infer that Chess is easy to master? Nowhere. In fact everything I have said in this thread indicates that to MASTER anything, including Chess, requires hard work to build the requisite skills.

I'd have to say at this point that you are proof positive though that a high degree of intelligence isn't needed to become good at chess because you obviously don't have much.

Crushing bugs is entertaining to you? That's kind of a nasty habit and sort of cruel if you ask me. Are you a hustler Allen?

I am afraid I have to decline and withdraw my offer to gamble with you at chess since you obviously don't think you can out play an unranked nobody with a spot. Let me give you a little taste of what I think talent is....

In the book about Buddy Hall he and his road partners went to a spot and the guy they were supposed to play wanted weight from Buddy. The main backer was scared to let Buddy give up the weight. Buddy said this guy is unknown and he is already scared of me so why not give him the weight, the pressure is on him. The backer said no. So Buddy played on his own money and busted the opponent. Buddy then teased his backer with the money he won.

See I think that "talent" is the confidence that comes with knowing you are as prepared as you can be for the moment. It's having the heart to get out there and perform to the best of your abilities without reservations.

You don't have that Allen. Which is why you will probably remain at the level you are at in Chess and life. Chasing me around the forum speculating on what I think and feel makes you the bug not the bug crusher. If you truly believed that you COULD crush me like a bug then you'd give up the weight. But you don't because you're scared to lose.

Scared to lose to an unknown unranked chess player. Odds are there aren't THAT many in the world who could beat a ranked Expert and even lower odds that this person would be the object of your adoration on a forum. But with all your Chess brilliance you fail to see that you have the nuts even with spotting me a queen and a rook.

Now me on the other hand, I have no idea whether you can run three balls or not. I notice though that you have been ducking me on that. Soooo I draw the conclusion that you are scared to try me there as well even though you claim to have clocked my speed already and found it to be very low. So either you are really really bad or maybe you are not sure how I really play. In any event I have the heart to try you some.

And that's because I know my game and feel confident in it. As for proving the talent vs experience question of course us playing wouldn't do that at all. However if I should win the chess you would have to explain how a complete nobody who has not read a chess book since he was 12 could beat you. Would be tough since there is no "luck" in chess right?

 

[PoolSharkAllen]

I am afraid I have to decline and withdraw my offer to gamble with you at chess since you obviously don't think you can out play an unranked nobody with a spot. Let me give you a little taste of what I think talent is....

See I think that "talent" is the confidence that comes with knowing you are as prepared as you can be for the moment. It's having the heart to get out there and perform to the best of your abilities without reservations.

If you truly believed that you COULD crush me like a bug then you'd give up the weight. But you don't because you're scared to lose.

Scared to lose to an unknown unranked chess player. Odds are there aren't THAT many in the world who could beat a ranked Expert and even lower odds that this person would be the object of your adoration on a forum. But with all your Chess brilliance you fail to see that you have the nuts even with spotting me a queen and a rook.

Now me on the other hand, I have no idea whether you can run three balls or not. I notice though that you have been ducking me on that. Soooo I draw the conclusion that you are scared to try me there as well even though you claim to have clocked my speed already and found it to be very low. So either you are really really bad or maybe you are not sure how I really play. In any event I have the heart to try you some.

And that's because I know my game and feel confident in it. As for proving the talent vs experience question of course us playing wouldn't do that at all. However if I should win the chess you would have to explain how a complete nobody who has not read a chess book since he was 12 could beat you. Would be tough since there is no "luck" in chess right?

Your bet offer was a complete non-starter.

Chess is a game of skill and talent. Gambling and giving you overwhelming odds like a queen and a rook handicap is completely absurd. The real test of skill is playing someone dead even. Either you're good enough to win based upon your abilities or you're not.

You kind of strike me as a coward for even proposing this kind of lop-sided bet.

 

[JB Cases]

Your bet offer was a complete non-starter.

Chess is a game of skill and talent. Gambling and giving you overwhelming odds like a queen and a rook handicap is completely absurd. The real test of skill is playing someone dead even. Either you're good enough to win based upon your abilities or you're not.

You kind of strike me as a coward for even proposing this kind of lop-sided bet.

So you regularly seek out novice players to "crush"? I mean I proposed to bet even and you said that I am no good and that you would crush me.

In pool, in which you are obviously a novice, we call that stealing. You don't want to steal do you? You want a fair game or not? What's your proposition of a Expert, capital E with at least a 2200 ranking, vs. a novice with no ranking? You aren't a Chess Nit are you?

And please don't act so naive as to suggest that people don't play chess for money with handicaps. There are certainly chess hustlers out there.

And no interest in playing pool? Look up and to the left - the title of the website is AZ Billiards. I used chess because the study done on chess players supports my side of the argument not because I am any good at chess. Using yourself as an example of whether chess prowess is a result of god-given talent or hard work is of no use. You're a decent player as evidenced by your ranking. But you're not great and likely never will be because instead of desire to get better you'd rather argue with me about chess on a billiard forum.

So let's leave chess out of it and just play pool. If you want to post up a $1500 then we can play one pocket in a ten ahead session at the SBE. In order to identify yourself I need to see something from the chess world with your picture on it. I wouldn't put it past you to try and slip in a shortstop on me given that you want to steal playing chess.

Bet? You have 11:8 No adjustments. If I am in a trap then I will suck it up and take the hit.

 

[mrsmith1976]

I never believed I would say it but.

What do you call the ability to do something at a young age that others are simply not able to do? Talent. Plain and simple.

Tiger won junior world Championships at 8
Williams sisters started winning around age 10
Jordan won NCAA championship at 21
Picasso was drawing and painting before he could even speak
Whitney Houston was 19 when she recorded her first album
A-Rod was a shortstop in the majors at 18

Do you think these kids had that much work ethic?

Nope, they all had INSANE amounts GOD GIVEN Talent, and no matter how much you work at something, you simply will only go so far without it.

That being said no, insane work ethic is also something you must have to excel to the top. And I do believe you can excel at sports without extreme amounts of talent. This is where all the other atheletes fall into play. They have more talent than us, just maybe not as much as the elite, maybe not the work ethic either, who knows.

Pool is no different, I have natural ability to play and ridiculous love for the game, that with a very small dose of talent. It's eaiser for me than most people, but harder for me than most good players. I accept it. And practice my arse off to make up the difference.