#3
#5
#6
What are you talking about?
Is there any scientific evidence about those claims?
Stop reproducing primitive perceptions without any scientific research.
So, according to the elo rating system the top chess players are getting stronger with respect to the average person than what the previous generation of top player was. (That's what the elo system measures.)
If we assume that the average person's abilities remain the same then how can we explain this?
Is it because the next generations are genetically involved to play better chess???
Of course that's ridiculous.
There cannot be such evolution just in one generation.
So it's arguable that what makes someone a top player
is not their genes but their understanding of chess which is acquired by their interaction with their environment.
So each generation learns everything that was conquered by the previous generation and they advance even more.
You could claim that still at every generation there are only some specific individuals that are at the top but my point is that if some simple notions can make the difference between the top players of each generation then that means that difference in chess is not in genes but in the notions that one has discovered.
Given that throughout human history in any field any individual cannot make but tiny steps on his own and we mainly build in the previous generations' knowledge it's fair to say that for the time being at least it is not a matter of genes but what you learn. Most of someone's progress is not due to his own discoveries but due to the learning.
So studying chess and by that I am not talking about reading books but trying to understand what is the key point in every position you can become the best player in the world.
For that of course you need a lot of luck.
As for any discovery or rediscovery (in the case of learning) you never know what will intrigue someone to come to a realisation.
What is for sure is that so far anyone has the capability to come to these realisations.
I make this claim because if you think about that people make similar claims about mathematics.
But the mathematics that the top mathematician struggle with two centuries and supposedly only the "genetically superior" people were able to understand now are taught in high school...
The same is going to happen with the mathematics that we are struggling with right now.
It is not the genes that will evolve but the educational system.
So
@DARKOBSCURITY don't listen to all these claims that you cannot do something because of your gene limitations.
They have learnt to feel inferior and as you can see they do their best to spread that to the others without the need of any scientific support.
So my claim actually is not that it's certain that your genes won't limit your capabilities in chess.
My claim is that there is absolutely no evidence that they will but you could say that there is evidence for the opposite.
But I would like to suggest to you
@DARKOBSCURITY another way to become the best chess player in the world.
You can kill everyone who is better than you.
So my question is: Why do you care about being the best in the world in chess?
If you don't feel well with yourself now why being the best in chess would make you feel better?
In other words why would your goal be to not exist better players than you?
Why your goal wouldn't be just your improvement?
If there was a natural disaster and everyone better than you died, you would feel better with yourself?
What's going with all this vanity???
