ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 ก.ย. 2024
- Fabiano responds to Dubov's recent comments, and shows us one of his most impressive piece of preparation, which just got unleashed after a 5 year wait!
If you enjoy this video, please Like & Subscribe, it helps us a lot!
👕MERCH: c-squared.shop/
▶️CLIPS CHANNEL 🎞️: / @csqclips
▶️PLAY WITH US : go.chess.com/c...
▶️DISCORD : / discord
▶️TIKTOK: / csqpod
Dubov's comments | • Daniil DUBOV: comeback...
#chess #fabianocaruana #magnuscarlsen #hikarunakamura #chesspodcast #chessopenings #gukesh #india #indianchess
It's funny how you can start with a great reputation for working hard and consistently doing a lot of prep. Everyone will naturally assume you are talented but that you're outworking similarly talented people. After a long time of people saying these things about your prep consistently you'll start to get comments, even from high level grandmasters who should probably know better, claiming you never had much talent at all and all you are is a prep machine. Frankly, even if he was right, the ability to dedicate yourself more than anyone else is also a talent. It's one of the least common and most useful talents in my experience.
"... claiming you never had much talent at all"
Now you're claiming he claimed Fabi doesn't much talent at all, which he didn't. He's talking within the narrow context of the top 20. I'm sure he takes it as read that Fabi is more naturally talented at chess than most of the 8 billion people on earth. His argument, true or not, isn't that Fabi has no talent at all, bur that he relies more on hard graft than the other 19 players at the top of the game.
@@8964TS so you agree that in terms of natural talent fabi is not in top 20?
Lmao this is such a L take
And his statements on gukesh and arjun, that they're good only because they study 10 hrs a day, and he can be just as good if he only puts more work in.
This is just pure cope, convincing yourself that you are exceptional enough, just need to put the work in.
I didn’t say I agree. I corrected the OP’s misinterpretation and mischaracterization of Dubov’s comments. To argue against someone’s argument, you have to actually understand it first.
Off topic, but cool to see you in the wild! I’ll always remember your collab raps
@@sumanraj9394 he never said that “they’re good only because they study 10 hours a day”. He never said he is very exceptional and I don’t believe thinks that.
Let's have a 1 hour podcast with dubov and clear things up 😄
Why not Invite Dubov and talk about other things.
I'm down!
No
It was a compliment: he actually meant Fabis moves are always understandable (at the highest level) meaning reproducible, which explains Fabis long term success. Talent and gift alone doesnt provide reliable success. Magnus is working his arse off, but maybe he loves chess the most (like Aljechin and Fischer).
And also ask him to rank top 25 players based on talent, that would be fun 🤣
I believe Dubov has his own distinct interpretation of 'naturally gifted,' placing greater emphasis on creativity and intuition rather than deep calculation and preparation. In his view, Dubov likely sees Fabi as akin to Batman-intellectual, methodical, and someone who triumphs through relentless hard work and unparalleled preparation, albeit without the billions of dollars. This contrasts with the idea of a Superman figure, who is seemingly born great but still vulnerable to defeat by mere mortals through cleverness and meticulous planning.
True, I wish this comment was farther up so Fabi can read it!
This is a great example!
Basically what he meant.
Yeah, using fictional characters as a analogy just doesn't work. It's pointless - Superman and Spiderman can do whatever the scriptwriter says they can do.
Chatgpt response
I wish I was as talentless as Fabi 😩
I remember when everyone used to say Fabiano was bad at blitz chess because he was #2 in the world in classical and "only" about #9 in the world in blitz.
You are as talentless as him! Only lazier 😏
You Are as talentless as him! Only lazier 😏
Ok C! I let it go , cause i know u re team Ali too. But i was a lil angry u know😁. Delet this too, just a massage🫡
We all know Fabi is in The Mafia. Basically a discrete don. So when he says he does not take it personally... Dubov should not go to a restaurant with him, especially in Tessio's territory.
Bring cake, Dubov😄
Just a reminder, Kasparov said being able to work extremely hard; harder than the rest; is a talent. So Fabi may lack the intuition magnus and other intuitive players have, but he sure as hell works hard. Also, I disagree with Dubov. Carlsen already said that Fabi just "Calculates everything to a tee". So that's extreme talent.
I agree with this 100%. The ability to focus for long periods of time and grind is a tremendous talent that not everyone possesses. I do not have it, and I wish I did.
but what he calls work includes the work of their seconds and Kasparov happened to have the best of all because the Soviet Union was very dominant for a very long time.
@@paulgoogol2652Kasparov dominated his soviet colleges, who had access to the same seconds, funding, etc, if not more, as Kasparov was in a very tense relationship with the government and FIDE.
@@LasCosasDeBrunin so? I was talking about the work part. I didn't deny that Kasparov was somewhat talented. so what is your problem exactly?
@@LasCosasDeBrunin yes. that's why Soviet Union as a whole was very dominant. so how does Kasparov being better than the others contradict what I just said?
We see under time pressure in shorter formats Fabi struggles, intuition can be a weakness here.... and thats why its so so impressive he is so incredible at classical and shows how much hard work he puts in. This is what Dubov means, it is definitely a compliment but I can see how some would see it as an insult. He is praising Fabis work ethic
It's just lack of practice and experience, speed chess hasn't been his focus. Correlation does not necessarily equate to causation.
But is this talent or skill what fabi lacks in speed chess he makes up for it in playing perfect classical chess (specially when he was in prime)
but someone like magnus has this insane moments like loosing to 2600s in qatar or to esipenko and others cause he has become a lazy calculator which inturn means blunders can happen if your intuition doesn't turn out to be right
To me it seems like playing with intuition and speed, and extreme calculation ability are just two seperate skills
Magnus possesses both (iguess thats what you need to be GOAT) but at this stage of his career he has just become a lazy calculator.
I think that's mainly due to exactly what he alluded to in this video, tactical awareness. A lot of time scrambles are decided by someone missing a tactic so the player who can spot them quicker always have an advantage. Fabi acknowledges this. In classical he has more time to spot the tactics so he's probably not going to miss it.
I totally agree, I blunder pieces left and right in bullet, but my longer time format rating is 2000 on lichess. I just don’t have the talent to blitz out my moves, I always need a several minutes think or I might sometimes forget a piece controls a square or miss some other detail
Except Fabi is 2766 FIDE in Rapid (world #4) and 2796 in Blitz (world #5). He's better in classical, but this idea that he's weak in faster time controls is completely bogus
I mean Fabi beat GM Wojtkevich when he was only 10. Was like yesterday I was watching
I agree with Fabi. Talent is a wishy washy concept. There is only winning and losing. The rest is storytelling.
To clarify, there are some exceptions. A 6'7" athlete has obvious natural advantages in most sports. Let's say IQ is a good metric for chess (it may or may not be, but just as an example) - someone with a 150 IQ has a natural advantage.
But that's not what people are generally talking about when they speak of talent. They're talking about something subjective and ultimately impossible to separate from the player's experience, work ethic, coaching, etc.
@@KevinHawkshaw IQ basically measures pattern recognition and education, right? I'm not so sure
I think talent is a simple concept. Say two people achieve the same results in some activity, the one who had to invest less time and effort can be viewed as having more natural talent for said activity.
@@prenticeanyonywrightiq measures human intelligence
Definitely not education, honestly iq might actually be a pretty decent metric for chess talent. But people can be good at chess but also dumb in everything else
@@ramanahveljeyaseelan5406 IQ measures performance on IQ tests
for example Wesley So without any major coach or big culture of chess in Phillipines grew up to be 2700s even 2nd in the world at some point. That's a talent
So is American
Watch the olimpiad lol
@@PhurngirathaanaSo was born in the Philippines. He moved to the US at age 19, 5 years after earning his GM title.
@@Phurngirathaana
Delete your comment
@@fredcurts9219
Just because Alekhine was born in Russia does not mean he gets credit for theory in the Petroff defence 👍
@@eightyoutube11
Delete your account
As someone who kept telling myself I had natural talent but simply don't work hard enough to reach top in my field, I ended up realizing that this is just cope. If you are the top in the world at anything, you have both hard work and natural talent. And its very hard to distinguish which one lead to it.
Ageed, Dubov's comments came across as cope. Something u tell yourself to justify not making it to the top
I mean yeah if he said like fabi is not as talented as magnus and a few other players then maybe you can atleast make some sense of it
But to say that fabi is the least talented player in the top 20 is just copium deluxe
Maybe Dubov looks at talent by how much a player can navigate "weird/non-traditional" positions that dont fall into theory, and their fluidity in understanding those kinds of positions without having to spend much time brute calculating. And that his "compliment" is more aimed at the idea that though Dubov doesn't think Fabi excels in those kinds of positions, his willingness to still fight in them if it means the best chances of winning, along with his prep are what Dubov thinks are Fabi's main strength. Just my interpretation but could be wrong.
I teach a lot of beginners. And I understand concept of talent. It's especially visible when the kids starts to learn, some of them learn things faster than others, some of them catch the ideas if you tell them once, others struggle to remember how the bishop moves after 4 hours of active learning. But then sometimes I see super talented kids who get to quite decent results and others who get beaten all the time - they spent the same amount of time with chess. But at the end of the year some of these struggling kids work harder, just follow my basic advises, like try to play 1-2 games a day and try to implement what we were learning today, and analyze what you could do better... and they beat talented ones who believes that they're better so they don't need to train. I've seen that plenty of times.
immediately thought of the messi vs ronaldo "discussion"
except that i think Ronaldo’s talent in football is better than Fabi’s talent in chess
But the thing is we got lukaku here claiming Ronaldo is the least talented in top 30 😅.
Ronaldinho was more talented than both, and still his career isnt even close. Talent is overrated
@@yuriscaramussa how do you define talent in football?. It's seem everyone have their own strength. In the end it was decided by the number of output they produce / G+A, achievement / trophies. In chess we call that rating and title.
@isaac7272 Dubov is like Rafael Leao who just plays for the love of the game and Fabi is more like Salah who is very hardworking and effective but not the best to watch. Salah and Fabi are way better but Leao and Dubov are more entertaining to watch.
Fabi is the most self-aware and mature sportsperson (not just chess player) that I have ever seen. Never change Fabi!
Well if we discuss talent in chess, it's also worth to look at the Polgar experiment.
Particular one interview of Judith Polgar's Dad saying, that Judith was the least talentet of his daughters. but the one who was working the hardest and therefore she was the most sucessful one.
If you look at this perspective: 'working hard' means a lot more than 'talent' (survival of the fittest - a very sowjet style of thinking), Dubov's saying really is meant as a compliment.
Last time I was this early Morphy was still the best in the world.
He still is.
@@Patrick462 Love me some morphy !
imagine being too good at chess, nobody can defeat you, and the chess pros come to your workplace just want to defeat you in chess game.
Fabbi was an uncommonly talented prodigy who made it to the world championship. You can't make it to the world championship on hard work alone. Ask all those just below super GM's level who have been grinding it out all their lives.
Like Federer and Novak. federer is talented, and novak is hard working man. Surely Novak is talented as well, but compare to Federer, i think not as much. Novak has to work very hard to be in his position today. We dont really see that on Federer. I am sure Federer also training hard but we can really see that he is something else. At least in his prime.
Dubov said least talented not not talented. Compare to the 20 best. So still talented. But compare to Magnus. Then Magnus is somethjng else.
Yeah but he said fabi is one of the least talented players
Now you can speculate whether he means fabi is least talented in top10 or 20, but he clearly stated fabi is least talented,
this is such a L take I can't even put effort into justifying it
I mean if he said fabi is less talented than magnus and a few other players then ok i could see it being somewhat true
But to say fabi is the least talented, this just complete bs
Plus hearing his take on Arjun and gukesh that they are just good cause they study chess for 10 hrs every day
And he can be also at their level if only he puts more time in
My god its just cope at this point just telling yourself that yea im as good as world no 5 only if i bothered to work is all
true, Federer could win without producing a single drop of sweat
@@sumanraj9394 fabi mentioned something interesting, he said maybe it s language barrier. The way russians say things always to the point but it does not mean he belittled fabi. It s language thing.
yeah but novak has only less talent than Rafa and Roger,not other 30 people
Novak is honestly more talented than federer, his game doesn’t have any weakness. Federer got amazing finesse, but as all around player i think novak has amazing ability to grind points methodically. Something Feda dont have
What Dubov has done here is committed a type of logical fallacy. I'm not sure if there's an actual name for it but I see this happen a lot and I'll explain it.
Before I do, I just wanna say that I agree with Fabi. I think it's clear from Dubov's comments as well as the way in which they were said that Dubov clearly means this as a compliment. In fact, IMO you can see he has a great deal of admiration for Fabi.
But basically what Dubov has done is common psychological trick people can play on themselves. It can be very easy to do, even when trying to be conscious of biases, etc.
Fabi is IMO very different from most of the others chess players that you see compete in the top 1-50. He's highly articulate, but more than that he's particularly careful about how he speaks and you can tell he's very mentally disciplined. He's always 'serious' and I don't mean that in a bad way. He's always trying his best and not just in the matches, which is where that ends for most players. He takes media responsibilities very seriously and tries to give thoughtful answers to questions. He's also *incredibly* knowledgable.
He comes off as a very 'Book Smart' person, because he speaks very coherently, in complete sentences, little to no slang, very 'proper'.
Sometimes a reaction people will have to people like this is "Wow, that person is really smart"
But another type of reaction is some people assume that just because someone is highly knowledgeable that they are *only* book smart. In other words, there tends to be a type of cognitive bias against highly conscientious intelligent people. People tend to not see their intelligence/talent as 'genuine' because it's assumed they're only as knowledgeable as they are, or *appear* as talented as they are, because of their work ethic.
Someone like Hikaru, who is clearly highly intelligent/talented (like Fabi), gets seen as genuinely being intelligent/talented because he often times has a very blasé type of attitude in interviews, etc. There's nothing wrong with this of course, it's just personality differences, but he seems *less* invested and *less* of a try hard, even if those things aren't true. So there's this aura about him where people would assume he's much more talented because he's as good as he is despite not caring as much. (Again, I'm NOT saying he doesn't care. I'm just saying that his attitude gives off that impression.)
So Duvov essentially recognizes how committed to excellent Fabi is, but that very observation has also biased/blinded him a bit from realizing that their is a huge 'talent' component for Fabi as well. His intuition regarding the game is exceptional.
I also think Fabi's style of play could also contribute to this characterization by Dubov. I feel like many times when people assess Fabi's play, they tend to find it a bit sterile compared to some of the more flamboyant 'aggressive' top players. The irony is Fabi does tend to like to play with an aggressive edge, but it's highly based in calculation so it doesn't come off as aggressive as others.
People are again thinking that his play essentially seems 'booksmart'. That he sticks a bit too closely to popular lines, etc. Plays too conservatively, etc. However, what people don't realize is that when you're such a strong calculator that style of play is just simply advantageous to you. If you're just *better* than your opponent, then it suits you to *not* make the game messy and attempt to *control* the game, like Fabi does with calculated aggression. Play as sound a game as possible while trying to find low risk ways to apply pressure to your opponent, etc.
Last thing, in terms of "Winners Mentality" I think what is commonly meant by this word, and what Dubov means here, is that someone with a winner's mentality will do anything necessary to win that's not cheating/underhanded, etc.
Many players, evens some *really* fucking good players, are stubborn and tend to like to win, but only on their own terms. In other words, they're very stubborn about things like style, particular practice methods, etc. A player with 'Winner's mentality' is not only going to work the hardest they can, but they're going to be open to doing whatever it takes to win, no matter if they like the practice methods or have to change their tactics/style that they're fond of, etc. They'd truly do anything to win.
No, you are the one having fundamental misunderstanding that's about all there is. Dubov is completely right, fabi is only hard work, has no feeling for the game, no good intuitions.
@@golendorfjules1838 That's an insane thing to say.
At best, I would accept that his he's not 'as talented' as a very short list of specific players, but even here we're likely talking small margins.
You can't just will yourself to being the third highest rated player in history without having any feeling for the game/good intuitions.
Magnus has said on record that while overall, in terms of accomplishments, he is fairly peerless, especially in this generation, that his WC match with Fabi was *incredibly* close and that Fabi was *very* near his own level in that match.
That simply wouldn't be possible if he had no aptitude for the game at all, but beyond that just using the eye test you can clearly see the aptitude.
He's not saying Fabi isn't talented, it's specific to the top 20. I'm sure he recognizes that Fabi has real talent for chess, but that without the hard work maybe he'd be 21st in the world, not a former WC candidate. Clearly Fabi has a genuine gift for the game and his baseline level was miles ahead of 99% of us even before he studied.
why to use the language like "least talented" and shit bro. he could have said it in so many other ways.
@@SG-vh3ti "Least talented of the top 20". You have to listen to the whole sentence, not just pick out two words.
@@SG-vh3ti I mean he said least talented in top 20
@@8964TS how did he measure the talent of top 20 and ranked them and whats his metric of ranking them. nothing. he just blabbered something, pure opinion and feel, right? so, he is just being an asshole.
@@SG-vh3ti It's called an opinion. He's a pro chess player who knows all the players at the top. They all judge each other the same way. No big deal.
If Dubov had worked hard he would have ended up like Erigaisi
But he is lazy and loves the creativity tag
Or he is just plain coping.
Another Kramnik in the making😢. What are they putting in the water at Russia??
He isn't as lazy as you think. He finds interesting ideas and has several interesting variations
Nobody at his level is lazy. That's kind of the point faby is making: you can't point to talent as everyone works really hard. And even with kids I think talent is so difficult to isolate. Maybe you have one child who does his homework really well but doesn't care much and another child who never practices but he dreams about chess and thinks about it while he's playing soccer. Which one is more talented? Probably people will say the second child is talented, because they don't see him playing chess games in his head while he's looking out of the window during class ..
@@GaaikeEuwema
If he isn't lazy then how can Fabi be called hard working or talentless?
You can't have it both ways🤣🤣🤣
@@GaaikeEuwema
If he isn't lazy
Fabi isn't hard working👍
I thought I was just getting some chess gossip, but you tricked me into watching a remarkable game by fabi 👏👏👏
Fabi is the most naturally gifted thinker. He describes things beautifully.
This reminds me of the people who insist that Larry Bird wasn't very athletic. Watch any highlight reel of Bird - the man had incredible body control, hand-eye coordination, and saw the game like he was living 2 seconds in the future. He was an all-time great in a sport full of elite athletes. So I don't know what people mean when they say he wasn't athletic - that he wouldn't win a 100m race against other ball players, or didn't have the vertical of some other player? It's just all in people's heads; by any objective measure, Bird is one of the top 20 athletes in the history of basketball, and Fabi is one of the top 20 most talented chess players in the history of chess.
Let's go, I was hoping there would be a response to this
"Talent" is the refuge of losers. Like Nick Kyrgios in tennis - if I just goof off and pretend I don't care, then I don't have to face my fear that no matter how much I tried, I could never be good enough.
how do they overcome this?
It's simple Dubov is saying Fabi doesn't feel the chess like magnus does. Magus can gut tells this is the best move and then he calculated whereas Fabi gut don't talk, he calculates everything that's why he does more hardwork than anyone.
Wait best analogy, FABI IS MIGHT GUY of Naruto and Magus is .. well MADARA obviously 😂
perfect!
intuition comes after handwork.
Nonsense. I clearly remember Fabi being an up & coming prodigy.
You don’t know what Fabi’s gut tells him so this is based in fantasy
@@sullystpatrick no its not *fantasy* , fabi is not a top 10 player in speed chess, why? cuz his intuition isnt the best in the world . But fabii is clearly the 2nd best chess player of last decade of top3 highest rated all time , why? cuz he has worked on his calculations to such extents
Fabi is good man, good in explaining, good in going into detail. He has the gift to
Explain in a very detail
Way about many things. We are lucky to be able to listen Fabi in this podcast. always interesting
2850 peak rating and Magnus could not beat him in a Championship match.
Magnus is considered the GOAT
Fabi is considered the least talented player of his generation
WTF :))))
Obviously that wasn't an insult to Fabi. You have a lot of people that are successful because of their drive and determination (not because of physical or born talent). Tom Brady, Steph Curry...effort and hard work can make up for lack of born talent (I'm convinced Magnus has a photographic memory).
Let's just take a moment to appreciate how eloquently Fabi articulates his thoughts with such clarity and objectivity, never allowing emotion or offense to cloud his perspective.
“Some people think I’m an asshole. But, really, I’m just being honest…”
Yeah. But, you’re also an asshole.
there is honesty, then there is opinion wrapped as honesty, then there is being asshole, saying whatever comes to your mind , wrapped as opinion wrapped as honesty. So No, you are not being honest my friend, just being an asshole. You dont understand honesty.
@csqpod I've mentioned this before (maybe back in late 2022). Fabi is one of the more analytical minds out there. I'm not referring to chess, but just his general way of thinking about things. It comes close to the way I think. I've thought about what talent means, and I'm often saying this is a vague term. Fabi says the talent is vague, but he's careful to say that he isn't in other people's heads. In particular, it's possible that Dubov has a more precise idea of what talent means to him, but that he didn't state his case clearly explaining what he thinks. I believe Fabi knows that too.
Talent is a vague term. This can mean several things. It can mean that there's no quantifiable way to talk about talent (which is how most people put it). Fabi mentions this by using the term "metric" (which has become used in popular vernacular in the last 25 years or so, having originated, I believe, in mathematics). In this case, metric means a form of measurement. How do you measure talent?
Another way to view this is that different people have different definitions of talent. Often, a better term that has this quality is GOAT (greatest of all time). You can have metrics like longevity, number of titles, or even who would win today if everyone was still alive.
Let's use the last one as our metric (if everyone was alive, who would dominate). Most people recognize that sports (including chess) has advanced and while Fischer may have been a highly successful chess player in his day, he would probably struggle against today's top players. This metric, however, is unpopular because it dismisses accomplishments of the past. It also dismisses that today's players do well because they study the chess games of the past, in addition to using chess engines.
Finally, I do like this format because I love listening to Fabi think. Beyond his way of parsing words and his caution in stating things (compared, say, to Cristian), Fabi also comes across as being honest, at least, more than a typical well-known person. Quite frequently, you hear celebrities say polite lies to avoid hurting others. I'm not saying Fabi doesn't do that. He doesn't try to hurt people, so he's careful about that. But, in the walk and talk in Budapest, he points out when other players on the US team were weak and when they were strong. To him, it feels quite objective, and not hurtful, but others might not have said this about others (in particular, Wesley, but he was also self-critical too).
Anyway, great pod, a mix of opinion and analysis. Much better than the chess mafia pod which was OK, but not great.
I like it very much keep doing it !! 👏🏻💪🏻
Isn't Fabi the youngest GM in USA history? At least of one the youngest.
Also he went toe to toe against Magnus in the world championship.
Talented.
he was when He became,now not anymore but still talented lol
Talent is a measure of how strong a player would be if they never had any chess training, or at least no higher level structured training.
If you look at people like Capablanca and Morphy, they got to GM level with no engines, very few chess books, and opposition that was club level at best.
The problem with judging talent of modern players is that they start getting structured training and using books and engines at such a young age that we don't really know what their natural talent level would be without those.
Take Michael Jordan as another example. Not born with the height normally needed, didn't make his varsity team...yet the rest is history. So Fabi is the Michael Jordan of chess.
One more example: Andre Agassi. Announcers called him "workmanlike" and it was absolutely a compliment.
your conclusion is risible
Kobe is a better analogy
@@MadaxeMunkeee agree.
As an aside, and in honor of Fabi's background, may I give a plug for Giovanni Vignale's "The Beautiful Invisible - Creativity, imagination, and theoretical physics".
I think creativity/intuition can be worked on, built up. All it takes is just the thought, the decision, the determination to become more creative or intuitive.
Either way, we appreciate you Fabi
Fabi's talent being questioned by a lesser talent.
Dubov has far surpassed Fabiano in recent years
@@eightyoutube11??
@@eightyoutube11lol 🤣
@@eightyoutube11 in sweaters maybe
If winners mentality is the key to getting to Fabiano's level, it's only a matter of time before Hans Niemann becomes WCC because he has that in spades.
Fabi is just very methodical so it's easier to understand why he does the moves he does and not just from a move to move basis but from like a concept perspective on how he plays a full game, and strategy.
Basically dubov saw the podcast setup and thought yes I'm gonna chat like a thought full man, with some nonsense as well
I suspect that Dubov means one or both of two things by natural "talent": (1) the ability to do "chess" things that no other top player can imagine being able to do even with an infinite amount of time and work; (2) the ability to get excellent results at the top level even with relatively small amounts of work and preparation. This is not that different from the way a "naturally talented" person in other fields is described, for example, in mathematics or physics.
Point 2 is a key one. The footballer Cristiano Ronaldo is renowned for his work ethic and incredibly proud of it. He's given many interviews where he talks about how he's the world's best not because of talent, but because he works himself into the ground in training. While certainly true that he works hard, it's also true that his baseline level means he could outplay most people with only small amounts of work. His effort is what took him to the very top, but even without it he'd be comfortably good enough for a decent career in the game.
I interpret what hes saying is natural ability for spacial awareness and memory. A disposition to be better at these naturally.
Its like "potential". If they dont fulfill or utilize it, then its meaningless vs actual stats
Basically the guy was saying Fabi doesnt have intuition as much as others in chess but his work ethics,opening preparation is what kept him at nr 2 which is completely bullshit . If it was that simple ,everyone in top 20 could work like 20 hours a day like Parham claims and get to that level. Dubov is known for talking shit just because he thinks he has the charisma
Yeah, he thinks he''s quirky and interesting.
People say Messi is naturally talented, and Ronaldo works hard. It's not important - the end result is that they were the best players in the world for a decade. Fact is, the best players put in more work, but we need to pretend there's something mystical going on.
Messi greater than Tapiano Penaldo
Fabi is like within top 10 of the most talented chess players in the modern time.
idk seems like people in the comments are just taking this the wrong way...
Invite Dubov to the podcast
understanding of fabi is was too high , man is a genius
the best measure for talent by far should be chess 960. it requires creativity, understanding for structure and piece activity and calculation from move 1. it is just pure chess.
So.. Hikaru and Wesley So are more talented than Magnus?
It also depends,cause in 960 there are positions which are objectively Better for one or for the other,also U Could have a bad day and wont play that position anymore tò prove it was just a bad play
Sam Shankland = no talent
The cartoonist Scott Adams coined the term "Talent Stack" which accurately describes what Christian and Fabi are trying to say regarding 'what is talent'. It's the development of a variety of skills which combine to make someone a highly talented and sought after. This stack includes work ethic. In fact strong work ethic is the bedrock of the stack. Without it the stack would collapse.
I honestly think Dubov’s view is a legacy of the period when Fabi struggled at blitz relative to his classical form. Some people equate a strong ability at blitz to demonstrating ‘natural’ talent, and vice verca.
CHRISTIAN STOP INTERRUPTING FABI WHEN HE'S TALKING!!!!!!!!! Good lord, this is AN EXTREMELY interesting and unique POV from the #2 player in the world introspecting on the secret sauce to his success, and Christian just keeps blah-blah-butting in with his own personal opinions and tangents... -_- LET THE MAN WINNING AT CHESS FINISH A THOUGHT PLEASE SO RUDE!
I think you have to realize that what Dubov is saying is meant to be relative to other top chess players. Fabi is of course more talented than the overwhelming vast majority of human beings, but less talented than the other very top chess players (at least in Dubov's view).
Then of course Fabi has a point that talent is hard to define and being able to work very hard is a talent in itself, so it's all coming down to definitions.
By this natural talent metric, I think that the most talented players looking at the ratio of results/work, are maybe Morphy, Capablanca, Tal... and maybe Nezhmetdinov.
I understand Dubov's take and kind of agree with it, dven though he's pushing it a bit by talking about top 20. Although I would say Alireza, MVL, Nepo, Naka, Grischuk are more "talented" players, while Fabi is more disciplined chess-wise, better prepared, and seems to be more in control of his nerves in classical tournaments.
At the same time, faster controls in chess are often thought of as the controls where talent shows and Fabi is not seen as a top rapid/blitz player. That is also what Fabi recognizes.
Nobody likes to be called a training product. The Mad Genius syndrom, we prefer the Tals, Ivanchuks, Shirovs [Fischer in brackets because he was clearly mad😮] before the Fabis. I think. How do you measure it? Fabi keeps asking. You don't! It's refreshing to hear both DD and Fabi, they both speak their minds.
The ability to work hard day in and day out is the most important talent one can possess in any pursuit. Work ethic, focus, consistency, doing what it takes to succeed whether you feel like it or not, is more important than natural calculating ability, intuition, visualization, or anything else. The mind itself is a tool that can be re-shaped with sufficient time and determination.
Such a high level talk. Listening to Fabi should be a course in school. Such clear thoughts. he actually talks like machine looking for logic and meaning in every sentence. Amazing.
Talent is only part of the equation. And it's definitely not everything. Nor is it required.. as people like Fabi prove. I actually think talent is overrated. I mean, what use is talent if you dont have discipline or will power? Talent by itself is meaningless and doesn't equal success.
Hi Fabi/Christian - In the discussion about talent, what would you say about an old statement of Kramnik, where he said that the young Vishy who hadn't yet developed the work ethic (1992-2002) was one of the most talented players ever, even more than Garry Kasparov, and if Kramnik had that kind of raw talent, he would have been 2900!
You guys are my favorite chess podcast
As a musician it's similar. Some people do have more natural talent or feel then others. However, this means nothing without the hard work and practice. People with less "natural talent" but have put the hours in will *always* kick the arse of a talented person who doesn't work. I suppose that when you start out having a natural feel for an activity can make learning more enjoyable, but the work is still required. Ability to work is also a talent as Fabi says, and that can outweigh everything. As can a will to be best.
So yeah. At the top level there may be people who can make those less obvious choices may stand out. But again, 1) they need to work to get there and 2) someone who's worked much harder may still have the advantage.
It's an interesting conversation, but the whole nature/nurture argument has a lot of pitfalls and it's virtually impossible to get reliable data because there are so many variables.
Wow, seems interesting.
Caruana is exactly powerful as Hikaru and others in terms of intuition and much more powerful in terms of understanding. The only reason they (Hikaru and few others) dominate him in speed chess is that Fabi has 1 huge weakness that they don't have and this is controlling his nerves in time trouble. If you see Fabi against Hikaru games in shorter time controls, Fabi is dominant in like more than 70% of the games and when both players goes into time trouble, Fabi is the one who blunders the game more often, but there is absolutely no connection between this and talent or intuition, its more a psychological aspect of the game. I think Dubov here made more of an impulsive comment, because to say that the 3rd highest rated player of all time lacks talent, it just sounds like a schyzophrenic statement. Also, obviously this man forgot what a monster Fabi was as a teenager and was considered a prodigy. If a prodigy lacks talent, we have a huge problem :)
An example of Talent is Levy Rozman right, he always talking about he should've been a GM if he didn't become a content creator.
I think Hans Niemann is probably similar because he beat Magnus and seems to be more of a character than hardworker and is in the top 20.
if dubov trained the same amount of time, would he have fabi's performance?(:
those with common sense already know the answer...
Ok guys I just have to comment - I’m the same age as Gary Kasparov - for a brief time Leonard Barden even ranked me as the number two nine year old in the world behind Kasparov (or Gary Weinstein as he was known back then) - the good old days lol.
Anyway over the years I’ve had quite a few conversations with Gary and he said to me - Julian people say I’m very talented but you know what my greatest talent is? I replied no what Gary? He said my ability to work on chess incredibly hard - to out work all my competitors!!
Its all about talent and "luck".
Luck actually does not exist because of determinism.
Everything is already written , so effort does no Matter , if Destiny wants you win then you win , no Matter how much work you made . Merit does not exist because of that .
Talent is the innate part of a skill. Chess isn't a primary skill but you can measure talent in more primary skills like space visualisation, memory, concentration, fast thinking...
I guess what Dubov means by talent is more like with Messi and Ronaldo. In the first case, there are things you just can't explain. Wtf moments that you can't explain by training or hard work.
960 reveals pure chess talent. Take away prep and you get closer to discovering who has talent. Hard work and application are a different thing.
Fabi never disappoints! One of the reasons I absolutely love listening to what he has to say!! A lesser player/human would've taken it as an insult. Loved how Fabi takes it neither as an insult nor a complement and gives his analysis as objectively as possible! I could absolutely learn from this!!
Fabi is a nice human..Definitely to admire, follow and learn. But sadly it's a.talent which I don't have any not many can get. So fabi is a great sports person.
Even Magnus himself, said Fabi is the strongest player he's ever played in classical chess, nearing Magnus himself - Dubov talking out of his ass
First of all, I completely disagree with Daniil. Second, Jim Courier became #1 and was similarly criticized. I think there's such a thing as "talent for working hard". And in the end, who cares if you got to be a top player through talent or hard work. The chess/ELO speaks for itself. Fabi is awesome!
This reminds me of Ivan Lendl in tennis who many said lacked talent, as to, let's say, John McEnroe. Lendl's talent was devotion and hard work. John McEnroe had a feeling for the ball that's hard to replicate. I think this is what Dubov is talking about.
Fab is the Might Guy of chess: not as naturally talented as the rest, but exceeded beyond them with a sunny disposition and hard work.
I think Dubov is being honest when he says that's inspiring because Fabi sets an example of a winner's mentality.
Talent is the ability to hide how much work you've put into something or is an excuse to explain why your maximum potential hasn't been or will never be reached.
Those with the greatest talent can give off the impression that they put in no work at all. When combined with a strong consistent and long-term work ethic, this can lead to greatness. But when mixed with laziness, a poor attitude or even just disinterest, that's the sole claim of credit that can remain.
For kids, regarding them as a talent can be a tool of motivation, but it can also be a risk in that they end up not following through. For adults, you don't really want to be called talented, unless your goal is to achieve maximum gain (not to be confused with unlimited gain) with minimal work.
But also, for adults who don't care, and only regard their sport of chess as a casual hobby, being labelled as talented also doesn't really matter.
Where things get interesting are the top players who are not only both talented and hardworking, but also able to hide that they are talented or hard-working, or even both. Just like with anything in chess, it's possible to sandbag both one's subjective talent level, and one's subjective work ethic metric.
I believe that everyone is born with a certain innate talent and gift. Its like Messi and football, Magnus and Chess. What I think about natural gift, is that a person can progress much faster than others in a certain period of time. I used to study chess during covid time. 2 Years on I still stuck at around 1100. As Vidit put it, now I play chess just for fun lol.
I Jusr realised omg
Vishy has played like 9 world championship macthes lmao
1 aga8snt garry
1 agaisnt karpov
2 agaisnt Magnus
And 4 or 5 when he was the reigning world champion
I think there seems to be a perception that someone who has natural ability seems effortless for them to succeed. And the opposite is someone who works extremely hard to perform at the same level. But what people don't see is the massive amounts of work that the "naturally talented" person has put in. An example of this would be Messi and Ronaldo. It seems that Ronaldo works non stop to get to his level, whereas Messi just seems to be able to make magic happen when he touches the ball. Although, that's dismissive of the countless hours of training a day that Messi has done since he was very very young. Magnus makes it look like he effortlessly performs at the highest level, but not very many people know he reads chess books every night, has a team constantly working with him, he has a coach that pushes him and trains every day. It's all the perception and the attitude.
seems like when they talk about Ronaldo and say he is less talented than players like Ronaldinho Zidane cruyff...ronaldo is stronger than all of them and has talent too,maybe only second to Messi but he has,and is arguably on pair with him
I mean, even though Dubov might be partially correct, but it's almost impossible that another person who would put the same (or even more) amount of work that Fabi has would reach his level just by doing that work. There are too many factors at play here. While Fabi's game may have less of a intiution quality that Magnus has, it's not that he is just sitting at world no. 2 just because he calculates well. I think he also must have intution but he relies on calculation as his final weapon, while Magnus trusts his intution more
For the time Fabi is talking and the video with Dubov is paused, please make Fabis screen bigger and the frozen Dubov image smaller. I would like the person who is talking at the moment.
there's no way, i think fabi's calculation skills couldnt be reached by most chess players even if they worked on them exclusively. only a few like maybe ding. that's talent as far as i'm concerned
I think what people like Dubov, Nepo, and to some extent Magnus feel about 'talent' is more 'instinct' actually. Like you give a position and these guys will probably have a natural flair for the right move, piece setup etc. probably, that's what they mean when they say Alireza is 'talented' but players like Fabi, Gukesh are a bit more calculation based. They work out the whole board and find the absolute best moves which sometimes even the instinctive players can't find, the tradeoff being that they are usually slower. Of course with very elite players, this line is very thin, as they are good at everything for us mere mortals, but maybe within their level, they could identify this difference.
I would actually like to hear Bruce Pandolfini's take on this topic (not only in regards to Fabiano).
I don't think "talent" really exists for the most part...in any sport, instrument, activity, etc. I think it's used as a word to describe a lot of the unknown factors that cause a player's success. If you take 2 kids starting chess and you see 1 of them is improving faster it will often be said that they have more "natural talent", but I don't think that's actually pointing to anything. Perhaps that kid had spent a lot of time doing non chess activities that develop pattern recognition and memory and that it translates well to chess. No 2 people playing their first game of chess is truly beginning from the same starting point. It's much easier to see this with athletics where even 2 people of the exact same physical attributes are starting from differing points of hand eye coordination, speed, dexterity, etc., but in this case it's much easier to point to the pre-requisite attributes that make learning a new sport easier. I think these pre-requisite attributes exist in chess as well, but it's just harder to pin point...but I think for the most part it's the amount, quality, and effort of work put in that's mostly responsible for one's success.
To some degree I do believe that "natural talent" does exist, but I think it's an extremely tiny factor. I could see it being the case that certain genes, perhaps certain neuro anatomical reasons that make one born with slower or faster processing speed, pattern recognition, and memorization ability, but like I said I don't think this is a huge factor. There are cases of extremely average people deciding to train in memory olympics and have improved their ability to the point of being able to accomplish feats like memorizing the order of several decks of cards within a short period of time. I just think people underestimate just how much can be accomplished through training. I also think the idea of 'natural ability' is attractive to some people because it shifts responsibility away from them in times of struggle. When you're stuck at that ~1700 ELO it's a lot easier to believe that you just weren't born with natural than to believe it's your own lack of work, study, effort that's preventing progress.
It's the nature vs nurture argument. But, all things being equal, talent is not equal. There were great mathematicians in Newton's day, but Newton was on another level. They only thing
that can explain that is pure talent (genius).
I believe with "talent" he means "aptitude". The more of it you have, the less work you'll have to put in to achieve the same results. Not all people have to work equally hard to reach a certain level, so one could measure "talent" by ELO rating divided by hours spent on improving / preparing.
I see talent as a work multiplier. For illustrative purposes lets say player A works 10 hours and improves N amount. Talented player B works 5 hours and improves the same amount.
It makes perfect sense for someone who has a more analytical approach to feel that “talent” vs “work ethic” is a very nebulous comparison.
As someone who moved through a lot of school (regular school, not chess) on raw talent more than hard work, I’ve always looked at the folks with both talent and grind and been impressed by them.
Given that he's only just in the top-40, perhaps Danil needs to focus a bit more on work ethic and not natural talent?
Omg yessss!! I was wondering what you guys thought about Daniil's comments. Turns out you don't even have to ask to receive 🙌🏼
I think one insight dubov has is how little magnus actually works, even when prepping for wc. They met him once in 6 months, and all he wanted to do was play paddle and swim. I think thats where he takes it from. That magnus doesnt even really work for his wc matches more than a random 2650 works on chess. Of course, he has helpers that work, but that him himself isnt very interested in looking at those lines for hours.
I understood years ago that the most important talent is to work hard. Period
I don't know Fabi, age at what people get to GM is fairly quantifiable to me. That being said Fabi got at 14 which is fairly early.