How A BC Classic Is Won

I am taking a DVD chess course by Joshua Waitzkin who won the following chess championships:
National Primary School.
Elementary School
Jr. High School
High School
U.S. Cadet
U.S. Junior Closed Chess Championships.

i.e. Waitzkin won it all as a child in the early 1990s. A game at age 11 with World Chess Champion Gary Kasporov ended in a draw.
We already know from the Scientific American study of genius related to performance that came out about 2008 that these young prodigies do have talent but the other factor was that at some point early in their lives they obsessed over their sport or craft, internalized all the details, and thereafter were mentally or physically simply ahead of their less energetic peers.

The Waitzkin DVD gives more insight into how Waitzkin became the player he was. The DVD contains many of Waitzkin's championship games with Waitzkin explaining them move by move. Common thread is Waitzkin saying, re a particular move under pressure, "remember that this move is for the national championship." Or the world championship. Apparently that one he lost.

Then in such a game on the DVD Waitzkin will say--look at this position. Calculate it out. What would you do? After you decide your move Waitzkin comes back on and explains a series of "calculations" he made in deciding the correct move. To Waitzkin each position is a puzzle solvable merely by excruciating attention to detail. As I listen to Waitzkin explain what he did my thoughts go to "enough already". I am personally simply unready or unwilling to mentally obsess over various permutations of chess board squares to this extent. I decide that this level of chess instead of being above me, although without a doubt a high IQ is necessary simply to remember all possibilities, is so intricate I am without the mental energy to engage at this level.

The bottom line on Waitzkin's success is that he breaks down and takes apart every single possibility of every position in his game. He is relentless in this regard. You can visually see this as he explains his games. Waitzkin's winning primarily comes--instead of any excess of brilliant individual moves--simply from a motivation to out work mentally his opponent in any particular game. It is amazing to watch this play out move by move in the live championship games on the DVD.

How does this relate to horses? Well, we have B. Wayne Hughes on BC day acknowledging the Q as to what he had to do with the success of Court Vision--"all we did was buy him" as one end of the scale, and Waitzkin's attention to detail at the other end. For Court Vision, and our horses, presumably somebody was paying attention to the details and outworking the opponents. As a e.g. of this, what might have been the result of the Classic had Baffert, like Mott, brought Game On Dude into Churchill 4 weeks pre-race to adjust to the surface etc? Or, had Baffert instructed Chantel Sutherland to take a look to her right rear when she had the lead in late stretch. Little stuff.

So, you see I'm trying to justify the details involved in taking the hypothetical horse around the track. Continue next post. Here's the link to Waitzkin:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Waitzkin
Training:
Complications. Will post on training after the hypo horse get's around the track.