What makes them 9-dan?

[SoDesuNe]

Uhm, I, too, find it very suprising, that so many people seem to rely on talent and say hard-work is just a poor try to achieve, what doesn't seem one's destiny.

Of course everything will be easier if you are somewhat gifted. But if you get lazy about that, the hard-worker will surpass you. Even if he can't, he will still be better than like 90% of other people doing the same.

So, what is the ground here? Don't even try because you probably can't be number one? I think this reflects the attitude flOvermind described.

[deja]

... 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.

I think you misunderstood my point. I'm arguing against the simplistic notion that the only thing one needs to be successful is hard work. It's trivially not true. You can work hard at something, be proud of the process (not disappointed), and still fail (not succeed). So I'm not sure what you're strongly disagreeing with.

Uhm, I, too, find it very suprising, that so many people seem to rely on talent and say hard-work is just a poor try to achieve, what doesn't seem one's destiny.

Who suggested this?

[Solomon]

I don't think this discussion will go very far until someone provides a specific definition of "talent" and "success"/"failure" that everyone can agree on .

[Kirby]

... 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.

I think you misunderstood my point. I'm arguing against the simplistic notion that the only thing one needs to be successful is hard work. It's trivially not true. You can work hard at something, be proud of the process (not disappointed), and still fail (not succeed). So I'm not sure what you're strongly disagreeing with.

Maybe I misunderstood your point. If you are saying just that, despite hard work, you can still fail at something, then I agree.

I guess that I am saying that it is impossible to say with certainty that you cannot do something, even if you worked and failed. If you fail at something, there is always the chance that a little bit more work could have made you succeed. You cannot know for sure, despite how likely failure may have seemed to have been inevitable.

Because of this uncertainty, though I allow for the possibility that failure could be inevitable even through enough effort, I want to tell myself that anything is possible with enough work.

It cannot be proven otherwise, and I cannot prove that hard work is enough to do anything. But do I have control of my talent? No. Do I have control of my effort? Yes.

So I want to make best of that which I have control of.

[Kirby]

Well I agree with deja, infact I would like to go further. Hard work has disadvataged people.
Having talent is to soar through the sky like an eagle, working hard is being like an ant, you're likely to be stepped on.

I don't know what to say to this. I don't think that working hard disadvantages somebody. You prefer to not work hard? Aren't you curious about the potential that you may have but have never discovered?

Your attitude smells of self-righteousness ( at least it does to me , sorry about that. )

Sorry if I'm sounding self-righteous. It's definitely not my intention. While I do believe that I can do anything with enough effort, it is not something limited to me personally. I believe in the power of human ability.

Yes, some people have talent that might give them an advantage. But I believe that human ability is strong and can overcome that.

It's not about me. It's a nature of mankind.

Telling people about it will probably not have the result you want:
Oh, you must be really talanted! *admiration*
Well, I do work really hard...
Owww... *disappointment*

I don't see why talent should be admired over hard work. Do you admire people that are physically taller than you?

[SoDesuNe]

Uhm, I, too, find it very suprising, that so many people seem to rely on talent and say hard-work is just a poor try to achieve, what doesn't seem one's destiny.

Who suggested this?

Having talent is to soar through the sky like an eagle, working hard is being like an ant, you're likely to be stepped on.

My interpretation, of course.

By the way, I agree with you: Hard-work alone might not bring the success one might look forward to. But as it goes between talent and hard-work, talent is not a one-way-street to success, either.
In my view, hard-work is still more valuable than talent. Talent is somehow fixed on specific areas, whereas hard-work can boost your expertise in many more areas.



Helel
I think, you just cut my (half-)sentence out of the proper context - read it as a whole ; )

1.
People using this term all to often makes the flawed deduction that other people that fail, simply hasn't
worked hard enough. This leads to contempt for weakness and self-righteousness.

Interesting question for me: What do you think, why people fail in achieving goals?

2.
It is also about not making a future nonexisting goal so much more important that the existing present that
you keep sacrifying the now until you have no now left. It is the road that should be worth journeying, the
destination should come second at best.

Okay, that might be your point of view. I don't think that someone who is working hard to achieve his dreams becomes a hollow shell. Of course there are extremes, as always. (Same response to number 3.)

[Kirby]

I don't think this discussion will go very far until someone provides a specific definition of "talent" and "success"/"failure" that everyone can agree on .

Maybe this is true. I'll try to make some definitions:

1.) I think of talent as the innate abilities that people have and cannot control.
2.) I think of effort as the process of trying to improve upon the abilities that you have.

My basic argument is that, while "talent" may give some people advantages, "effort" can overcome those advantages with enough work. I cannot prove this, but I like to maintain this thought. If it's correct, then more effort will always produce more results. If the thought is not correct, then there's nothing that you can do about your talent anyway.

3.) I think that "success" can come in many different forms. Achieving your goal can be a success, and also the process of achieving it can be a success.

I don't like the idea of giving up on a goal, simply because you've convinced yourself that you don't have enough talent.

[deja]

It would be interesting to have demographic information on some of the current pros, family history, socioeconomic background, and so on. I bet we'd find similar profiles in terms of the resources available to them early on. As John has already said, there's more to it than just talent and hard work.

My point is that we often retrospectively create these idealized narratives, which draw upon cultural and personal values and gloss over the less remarkable, non-heroic details. These details are typically key features that go untold – they screw up the story. A good example is the interview with Lee Sedol http://lifein19x19.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=307

Q: How much time do you spend studying Go each day?
Lee Sedol: I am not so diligent, but sometimes when I am watching TV I will suddenly start thinking of Go.

Is this the answer we would have expected from the top Go player in the world? Of course not. Why not? The real world tends be pretty boring.

[Kirby]

As John has already said, there's more to it than just talent and hard work.

I guess that I don't see it the same way for reasons that I've already pointed out. I'm OK with that, though. People have different mindsets and ways of looking at life. I think that you get an idea of what mine is, and I hope that it didn't come across as self-righteous like somebody pointed out.

[deja]

I think that you get an idea of what mine is, and I hope that it didn't come across as self-righteous like somebody pointed out.

Not at all. I was surprised by that characterization.

[Kirby]

...
Nighter do I. If you care about something I believe that the proper course is to continue no matter what.

With the point above, it seems that we agree. The important thing to me is the part that I've put in bold above. This is probably the underlying belief that I have on this topic.

...
I am quite aware of my potential, my abilities and my limitations, so the answer has to be no...

This is probably the part I agree with the least. I am not sure how you are aware of your potential, abilities, and limitations. Is it possible that you could achieve more than you think?

By the way, I don't really get this one:

Do I have control of my effort? Yes.

No. That sense of control is only an illusion.

Could you explain what you mean by this? I would think that I have control over the amount of time that I study, exercise, etc... I don't really get what you mean here.

[Cassandra]

1.) I think of talent as the innate abilities that people have and cannot control.
2.) I think of effort as the process of trying to improve upon the abilities that you have.
3.) I think that "success" can come in many different forms. Achieving your goal can be a success, and also the process of achieving it can be a success.

I think of "talent" as something like "fitting into a special ecological niche".

If you "survive" (e. g. "have success"), depends on other factors, one of these will be "effort" / "(very) hard work".

And it will be easier to "survive", if you are a perfect match to the "ecological niche" you have (perhaps been) chosen to "live" in.

Remember that there are only a "few" 9 Dan in the Asian Go playing community of some 10 million people. Who knows, if there might be someone in that large crowd, who would have been a perfect match to Chess, but never had the chance to play it ?

[Violence]

On a different note...

As to how far such "non-professional amateurs" are from the top in go, I'm sure it is at least four stones. I find it laughable to hear so many westerners claim they can match a top pro on four stones in serious games.

I think that's just ridiculous. You're saying that Gu Li can give Hu Yuqing 4 stones? Look at their games, that's clearly impossible. Likewise, I don't think Lee Sedol can give Korean insei 4 stones, nor can he give 4 stones to the amateurs who win the national tournaments.

Whatever gap there may have been between pros and amas in the past, it has surely shrunk. At least, I have never heard of the claim of a gap as large as yours. Four stones? I just can't believe that.

[John Fairbairn]

Violence, you must learn to read. I said, and you quoted, "non-professional amateurs". An awkward phrase, admittedly, hence the "", but I think I made it plain that I was not talking about ex-inseis and the like who have trodden part of the professional path. Indeed, quite a few of these are amateur only in the sense that they have not been accepted by the pro organisations. They are often full-time players, e.g. running go salons or working in training squads. There are also some who are just temporarily amateur on their way to professionaldom, which is why I also referred, for contrast, to "permanent amateurs".

The difference between what I might just as awkwardly call these "professional amateurs" and top pros, seems - judging by the annual pro-am events in JCK, to hover, on average over the top 10 boards, between 1.5 and 2.5 stones. Even the somewhat exceptional Hu Yuqing had to take 2 stones in his last Wangbao Pro-Am Match.

I still believe that the bulk of top TRUE amateurs, as in the west, will find it hard to match a top pro on 4 stones in a serious game. Even Xie Yimin, "only" 4-dan, last year gave 4 stones in a serious published game against a very distinguished amateur in Japan (Miyoshi Toru, who is actually a professional go writer). It ended in jigo, and if someone claimed Xie even contrived the jigo, I might say hmm, but would not utter a knee-jerk "just ridiculous".

[Kirby]

...
Like convincing you that I am right? I doubt it.
One of the things I care about is being as versatile as possible. My background is in physics and engineering but I have
never felt limiting oneself to one field of study or one single viewpoint is enough, one must strive for as good
understanding of as many aspects of human life as one is capable of. But in the process I becomes more and more aware of my limitations, and I little hope of understanding everything.

But I really don't set so much store in achievments, for me it is the trying that counts.

Well, it doesn't matter who is "right". As you mentioned earlier, the exchange of ideas can be mutually rewarding. So the reason I am still responding is that I am trying to understand your viewpoint better.

I think that I get your standpoint a little better now. You are saying that trying is more important than actual achievements, and that as you learn more about something, you feel that you have limitations. So if I understand you correctly, I think that's a good viewpoint to have, because you are still putting importance on trying your best.

I think that my viewpoint is similar in that I think that effort is very important. I guess that I just hold on to the hope that all things are possible. It motivates me to some degree.

I have many controversial views but this is not one of them. I would have thought that the quotes ( slightly altered )
in my signature would have set you on the right track for this one...

(EDIT: That is, I have this view, it is just not controversial.)

I will see if i can find some better authority than me... Yes this will do...
The following is quotes from Alan W. Watts:

"if decision itself were voluntary, every decision would have to be preceded by a decision to decide -- an infinite regression which fortunately does not occur.

"We are free to decide because decision 'happens'. We just decide without having the faintest understanding of how we do it.
In fact it is neither voluntary nor involuntary."

"For a decision -- the freest of my actions -- just happens like hiccups inside me or a bird singing outside me."

I don't know if these viewpoints are as universal as you say. I do not feel like my power to decide things is an illusion. I don't think that anybody can be certain of how decisions fundamentally work. I feel like I have control over my decisions. It's possible that my feeling is an illusion, but it's just speculation, I think.