A few examples are:
- Susan Polgar used 2.6 seconds per move at average during a simul where she scored 96.6%
- Grandmasters show brainactivity in a different area in comparison to amateurs.
- MDLM isn't special.
- Papa Polgar produced 3 prodigies, not just one, so a prodigy is nothing special, it's just a matter of good training.
A circumstancial fact that made a great impression on me and that is very important to understand what I'm after is the following.
During the years I have played a few prodigies. 10 to 13 year old, on their streak to mastership.
I always used the opportunity to talk to them afterwards.
With one important question in mind: are these kids superbeings or are it smart kids with just one supertrick? Do they have superior reasoning skills, an eidetic memory, fabulous knowledge of chess theory etc. or do they have just a simple kink in their brains what makes them to spot good chessmoves faster?
My talks with those prodigies convinced me of the latter. It just all comes down to one supertrick. At all the other area's they were just no match for me because, well they were just 10-13yo kids, they simple had not had enough time to develop all that super reasoning, fill their super memory, they hadn't read as much books as me etc..
That supertrick is what I'm after. A trick so simple that even a 11yo can do it. I realize that I strip the mystic of chess and that common mainstream belief is opposing me.
But when I talk to a smart 11yo I simply cannot get rid of the feeling that I'm talking to a smart 11yo and not to a superbeing with mythical para-abnormal characteristics. Even when he (she!) smashes me from the board.
MDLM found that supertrick, but he failed to tell some (for him) self evident details, or we skipped them while reading, thinking it was not important.
I intend to find out.
This belief is what colors my posts so heavily. So now you know.