Arimaa Forum - Print Page


    
      
        Arimaa Forum
        (http://arimaa.com/arimaa/forum/cgi/YaBB.cgi)
      

        Arimaa >> Off Topic Discussion >> Genius is made, not born
        
(Message started by: Fritzlein on Aug 4^th, 2006, 4:45pm)

Title: Genius is made, not born
Post by Fritzlein on Aug 4^th, 2006, 4:45pm

I just read a very interesting article from Scientific American about chess expertise.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00010347-101C-14C1-8F9E83414B7F4945&pageNumber=1&catID=2

Of course, I don't have the expertise on the nature of intelligence to know whether the author is right or wrong, but some some of his points that ring true for me when I think about Arimaa include:

1) Work probably trumps natural talent in Arimaa just as in chess. I've played more games of Arimaa against humans than anybody but PMertens, and recently more than him as well. My faltering in last year's WC is reasonably attributable to being out-trained in the month or two prior. 99of9's impending victory in the Postal Championship is quite likely due (at least in part) to his pouring more time into each game than anyone else. The importance of work rather than talent is probably only exaggerated given the unsettled state of Arimaa theory: thus when 99of9 analyzes deeply in the postal he may be discovering things that nobody else knows.

2) Studying Arimaa (including writing about it) has probably improved my game even more than just playing. It's easy to play mechanically, particularly against bots, and not be learning anything new.

3) The bot ladder is a brilliant idea because it's best to always strain for something just barely out of reach. Aiming too low (something already mastered) or too high (a bot that can shred you forty in a row) is likely to be less useful.

4) Motivation is very important. I don't like what it says about my psychology that I'm obsessed with Arimaa, and that I really, really want to win, but the flip side of my "unhealthy" attitude is that it helps make me good at the game, because I train with a will.

5) There are tens of thousands of professional stock-pickers, but only a tiny number of those could invest my money better than I can. :P

Title: Re: Genius is made, not born
Post by 99of9 on Aug 4^th, 2006, 7:53pm

Interesting article and thoughts.

on 08/04/06 at 16:45:49, Fritzlein wrote:

when 99of9 analyzes deeply in the postal he may be discovering things that nobody else knows.

Yes, I've found that studying a position very hard does show me stuff I never would have considered before. But the results are very hard to generalize, I often find myself playing seemingly opposite things in different games. Or even in the same game... against Fritz I recently found it necessary to plunge my camel into the same fray as my EHH (!!!), and then a couple of moves later, I was dead keen to get it out.

Title: Re: Genius is made, not born
Post by H_Bobbeltoff on Aug 7^th, 2006, 11:47am

Reminds me of an aphorism by Friedrich Nietzsche. I'll see if I can find it...

Here we go, Section 162 from 'Human, All Too Human' (found at www.publicappeal.org) -

"Worshipping the genius out of vanity - Because we think well of ourselves, but in no way expect that we could ever make the sketch to a painting by Raphael or a scene like one in a play by Shakespeare, we convince ourselves that the ability to do so is quite excessively wonderful, a quite uncommon accident, or, if we still have a religious sensibility, a grace from above. Thus our vanity, our self-love, furthers the worship of the genius, for it does not hurt only if we think of it as very remote from ourselves, as a miracle (even Goethe, who was without envy, called Shakespeare his star of the farthest height, recalling to us that line, "Die Sterne, die begehrt man nicht"—one does not covet the stars). But those insinuations of our vanity aside, the activity of the genius seems in no way fundamentally different from the activity of a mechanical inventor, a scholar of astronomy or history, a master tactician. All these activities are explained when one imagines men whose thinking is active in one particular direction; who use everything to that end; who always observe eagerly their inner life and that of other people; who see models, stimulation everywhere; who do not tire of rearranging their material. The genius, too, does nothing other than first learn to place stones, then to build, always seeking material, always forming and reforming it. Every human activity is amazingly complicated, not only that of the genius: but none is a "miracle."

From where, then, the belief that there is genius only in the artist, orator, or philosopher? That only they have "intuition" (thus attributing to them a kind of magical eye glass, by which they can see directly into "being")? It is evident that men speak of genius only where they find the effects of the great intellect most agreeable and, on the other hand, where they do not want to feel envy. To call someone "divine" means "Here we do not have to compete." Furthermore, everything that is complete and perfect is admired; everything evolving is underestimated. Now, no one can see in an artist's work how it evolved: that is its advantage, for wherever we can see the evolution, we grow somewhat cooler. The complete art of representation wards off all thought of its evolution; it tyrannizes as present perfection. Therefore representative artists especially are credited with genius, but not scientific men. In truth, to esteem the former and underestimate the latter is only a childish use of reason."

Title: Re: Genius is made, not born
Post by Fritzlein on Aug 7^th, 2006, 12:29pm

Wow, I might need to read some more Nietzsche. I think it is true that the end product is admired more than something evolving, because evolution by nature contains mistakes and false starts. And because we want to admire something amazing, miraculous, and in some way above ourselves, we prefer not to see anything common, boring, ugly, or in any way imperfect about the process. Thanks for that great excerpt.

Title: Re: Genius is made, not born
Post by DorianGaray on Aug 7^th, 2006, 3:16pm

II don't know, philosophers may very well have a higher level of expression and an ability to expand on their ideas and make them look seductive and convincing but in the end their opinions as educated as they may be are as diverse as the ones of the great unwashed and for one philosopher who says one thing you can be sure that you’ll find several who will disagree.

Nevertheless, I tend to agree with Nietzsche's assessment to a point. Have you noticed that to be granted the label of genius especially by the hoi polloi a person has to be afflicted by numerous unenviable flaws? For instance, Mozart is usually described as a man-child that spent his life fighting petty battles and died in poverty. In fact, I would be hard pressed to find one genius who was said to have a happy and well-balanced life. People may envy the ones they call genius but they usually pretend not to by insisting on the terrible things the so-called genius has had to endure.

Now I've seen with my own eyes people with incredible talents. For instance, someone able to play the violin after only a few lessons when most people are incapable of playing it well before a couple of years.

Or people who are so gifted at math that they are a couple of years in advance of their current class and I even met one who didn't like math at that and yet had an instant comprehension of it. You can't explain these unless you admit that the genius is real even it isn't as divine as some might think.