Main
Date: 17 Oct 2006 02:05:43
From: John Evans
Subject: No Substitute For Hardwork
Hi All,

I just started a new blog which is all about chess. I'm trying to grow my
reader base so I would like to invite you to read my latest post. Its about
talent vs. hard work. Please feel free to leave comments, good or bad. I'm
just try to share my thoughts and become a better writer. Hope you keep
coming back.

http://growwithchess.com/2006/10/no-substitute-for-hardwork.html

Thank you,
John






 
Date: 22 Oct 2006 02:37:35
From: Matt Nemmers
Subject: Re: No Substitute For Hardwork
Johannes Seppi wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 00:01:05 -0400, "Ray Gordon, creator of the
> \"pivot\"" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>> > That would be five years of full time study (40 hours a week).
> >>>
> >>> More like 30,000 hours is required, preferably consecutively (i.e., 40
> >>> hours
> >>> a week for 15 years).
> >>
> >> only if people follow your training methods... perhaps
> >> this tells you something about your methods?
> >
> >That Fischer (23 years from learning the game to winning the world title)
> >and Kasparov (17 years) were using the same method?
> >
> >Oh wait, they were...since they are the ones I modeled my method after.
> >What you call "my" method is one that's been used by several world
> >champions.
>
> "Fischer was a monomaniac, he had an obsession with one idea and that
> was to be the "Best Chessplayer of All time." People who were around
> Fischer would say that he studies chess day and night, and that they
> have never seen him do anything but chess."
>
> If you are really modelling this, how to you have time for posting all
> day long in all kind of groups, let allone for your legal follies?
>
> Perhaps you could accomplish something, if you really devoted your
> time and effort to it.
>
> Johannes

Well said.

But Gordo won't do that. He likes annoying people and playing lawyer
too much.



 
Date: 20 Oct 2006 11:35:02
From: Inconnux
Subject: Re: No Substitute For Hardwork

Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot" wrote:
> > That would be five years of full time study (40 hours a week).
>
> More like 30,000 hours is required, preferably consecutively (i.e., 40 hours
> a week for 15 years).

only if people follow your training methods... perhaps
this tells you something about your methods?



  
Date: 22 Oct 2006 00:01:05
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: No Substitute For Hardwork
>> > That would be five years of full time study (40 hours a week).
>>
>> More like 30,000 hours is required, preferably consecutively (i.e., 40
>> hours
>> a week for 15 years).
>
> only if people follow your training methods... perhaps
> this tells you something about your methods?

That Fischer (23 years from learning the game to winning the world title)
and Kasparov (17 years) were using the same method?

Oh wait, they were...since they are the ones I modeled my method after.
What you call "my" method is one that's been used by several world
champions.


--
Money is not "game."
Looks are not "game."
Social status or value is not "game."
Those are the things that game makes unnecessary.

A seduction guru who teaches you that looks, money or status is game is not
teaching you "game," but how to be an AFC. He uses his students' money to
get women and laughs that "AFCs pay my rent."




   
Date: 22 Oct 2006 09:38:11
From: Johannes Seppi
Subject: Re: No Substitute For Hardwork
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 00:01:05 -0400, "Ray Gordon, creator of the
\"pivot\"" <[email protected] > wrote:

>>> > That would be five years of full time study (40 hours a week).
>>>
>>> More like 30,000 hours is required, preferably consecutively (i.e., 40
>>> hours
>>> a week for 15 years).
>>
>> only if people follow your training methods... perhaps
>> this tells you something about your methods?
>
>That Fischer (23 years from learning the game to winning the world title)
>and Kasparov (17 years) were using the same method?
>
>Oh wait, they were...since they are the ones I modeled my method after.
>What you call "my" method is one that's been used by several world
>champions.

"Fischer was a monomaniac, he had an obsession with one idea and that
was to be the "Best Chessplayer of All time." People who were around
Fischer would say that he studies chess day and night, and that they
have never seen him do anything but chess."

If you are really modelling this, how to you have time for posting all
day long in all kind of groups, let allone for your legal follies?

Perhaps you could accomplish something, if you really devoted your
time and effort to it.

Johannes


 
Date: 20 Oct 2006 02:05:10
From: Matt Nemmers
Subject: Re: No Substitute For Hardwork
Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot" wrote:
> >> I just started a new blog which is all about chess. I'm trying to grow my
> >> reader base so I would like to invite you to read my latest post. Its
> >> about
> >> talent vs. hard work. Please feel free to leave comments, good or bad.
> >> I'm
> >> just try to share my thoughts and become a better writer. Hope you keep
> >> coming back.
> >>
> >> http://growwithchess.com/2006/10/no-substitute-for-hardwork.html
> >>
> >> Thank you,
> >> John
> >
> > Very good article. I really liked the link to the scientific american
> > article.
> > The only thing that I would add is that you have to study properly for
> > 10 000
> > hours.
>
> That would be five years of full time study (40 hours a week).
>
> More like 30,000 hours is required, preferably consecutively (i.e., 40 hours
> a week for 15 years).

As if Gordo's in a position to speak intelligently on the matter...



 
Date: 19 Oct 2006 02:57:09
From: Simon Waters
Subject: Re: No Substitute For Hardwork
> John Evans wrote:
>
> The only thing that I would add is that you have to study properly for
> 10 000 hours.

And you'll still get beaten by the person who had more natural talent and
also studied for 10,000 hours ;)

One idea I found intriguing was the concept that it may matter in what
order one is exposed to ideas, as to how the chess mind is formed.


 
Date: 17 Oct 2006 18:16:30
From: Ivan Baricevic
Subject: Re: No Substitute For Hardwork

"John Evans" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Hi All,
>
> I just started a new blog which is all about chess. I'm trying to grow my
> reader base so I would like to invite you to read my latest post. Its
about
> talent vs. hard work. Please feel free to leave comments, good or bad. I'm
> just try to share my thoughts and become a better writer. Hope you keep
> coming back.
>
> http://growwithchess.com/2006/10/no-substitute-for-hardwork.html
>
> Thank you,
> John
>
>

GJ, man.




  
Date: 17 Oct 2006 23:55:10
From: John Evans
Subject: Re: No Substitute For Hardwork
Thank you for visiting my site please check back soon for more stuff. If you
have anything you want me to cover just ask.

Thank you again!

John

"Ivan Baricevic" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "John Evans" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I just started a new blog which is all about chess. I'm trying to grow my
>> reader base so I would like to invite you to read my latest post. Its
> about
>> talent vs. hard work. Please feel free to leave comments, good or bad.
>> I'm
>> just try to share my thoughts and become a better writer. Hope you keep
>> coming back.
>>
>> http://growwithchess.com/2006/10/no-substitute-for-hardwork.html
>>
>> Thank you,
>> John
>>
>>
>
> GJ, man.
>
>




 
Date: 16 Oct 2006 22:09:28
From: Inconnux
Subject: Re: No Substitute For Hardwork

John Evans wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I just started a new blog which is all about chess. I'm trying to grow my
> reader base so I would like to invite you to read my latest post. Its about
> talent vs. hard work. Please feel free to leave comments, good or bad. I'm
> just try to share my thoughts and become a better writer. Hope you keep
> coming back.
>
> http://growwithchess.com/2006/10/no-substitute-for-hardwork.html
>
> Thank you,
> John

Very good article. I really liked the link to the scientific american
article.
The only thing that I would add is that you have to study properly for
10 000
hours.



  
Date: 20 Oct 2006 04:11:35
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: No Substitute For Hardwork
>> I just started a new blog which is all about chess. I'm trying to grow my
>> reader base so I would like to invite you to read my latest post. Its
>> about
>> talent vs. hard work. Please feel free to leave comments, good or bad.
>> I'm
>> just try to share my thoughts and become a better writer. Hope you keep
>> coming back.
>>
>> http://growwithchess.com/2006/10/no-substitute-for-hardwork.html
>>
>> Thank you,
>> John
>
> Very good article. I really liked the link to the scientific american
> article.
> The only thing that I would add is that you have to study properly for
> 10 000
> hours.

That would be five years of full time study (40 hours a week).

More like 30,000 hours is required, preferably consecutively (i.e., 40 hours
a week for 15 years).


--
Money is not "game."
Looks are not "game."
Social status or value is not "game."
Those are the things that game makes unnecessary.

A seduction guru who teaches you that looks, money or status is game is not
teaching you "game," but how to be an AFC. He uses his students' money to
get women and laughs that "AFCs pay my rent."




  
Date: 17 Oct 2006 23:47:05
From: John Evans
Subject: Re: No Substitute For Hardwork
Thats true! Spending 10000 hours on scholars mate wont help much. Thank you
for visiting my site please check back soon for more stuff. If you have
anything you want me to cover just ask.

Thank you again!

John

"Inconnux" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> John Evans wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I just started a new blog which is all about chess. I'm trying to grow my
>> reader base so I would like to invite you to read my latest post. Its
>> about
>> talent vs. hard work. Please feel free to leave comments, good or bad.
>> I'm
>> just try to share my thoughts and become a better writer. Hope you keep
>> coming back.
>>
>> http://growwithchess.com/2006/10/no-substitute-for-hardwork.html
>>
>> Thank you,
>> John
>
> Very good article. I really liked the link to the scientific american
> article.
> The only thing that I would add is that you have to study properly for
> 10 000
> hours.
>