It's pretty obvious that in a scientific field, without passion, rigor won't find itself. This article reeks of immaturity. And I'd rather have only passionate people in our field. Most coders who only go through a CS degree as oppose to elementary-highschool-life and beyond coders, there's just a huge wall of difference in terms of understanding down from the cpu to tcp networking, across to asm, endianess, etc etc.…
90% of grandmasters were grandmasters by the age of around 13. At risk of hijacking this comment tree, I'd love to see some kind of citation is this is true. It'd be striking if it were.
I do it for the money
11–15 of 15 posts
Re: I do it for the money
#12Re: I do it for the money
#13Cool dude -- no worries; I'll just never hire you. Passion is really hard to fake and, frankly, I don't want to work with you if you don't have it.
Re: I do it for the money
#14I'm burying this as not intellectually interesting. If it developed the point in a thoughtful way, it might be ok, but it doesn't.
You might give some thought to how this relates to the lack of diversity (esp.) gender diversity in our field. It ought to be the starting point for a great discussion. Perhaps HN is not the ideal venue for such a discussion....
Re: I do it for the money
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
90% of grandmasters were grandmasters by the age of around 13. At risk of hijacking this comment tree, I'd love to see some kind of citation is this is true. It'd be striking if it were.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_chess_grandmasters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_grandmasters#L... Not even close.
My statement was wrong. I believe the effect is still there, considering that in the lists you linked, the strongest grandmasters happen to _also_ be on the youngest grandmasters list. Clearly there is a 3rd factor that correlates these two, or the effect of young chess learning is profound. I'd think the latter.