8103 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
Everything is based on hard work. Nuff said.
magic is definitely inferior to chess overall. well the only way i'd play magic is if everyone would accept playing printed cards. Buying them seems crazy to me. uh...no, the most expensive cards are also the best one. they try to say they have strategy, but money takes up a large percentage of that 'skill'.
No, I don't think you understand how MTG competition and the economy works. Think about how trends change in chess for instance, Fischer, Kasparov, Carlsen etc. plays something and everybody else down to even club level follows suit.
If you had to buy your chess openings, the "best" openings would be the most expensive but as people figure out new ways to play against them and have more success the demand and thus, the price, falls and some other opening rises in popularity.
Good luck and it will take a lot of work over a life time.
I am still shotting for my 2000 uscf raiting.
omg this is an awesome idea... chess, but you buy packs of cards that give you pieces powers (maybe you could buy pieces too -- new pieces, like the helicopter) -- so you might have a normal rook and a silver foil rook which can also move like a N and promote to a queen if it gives check. Meanwhile your opponent has played a 'royal rage' card allowing his King to castle thru check at no cost.
nope singers do stuff, cos they make people happy. but yeah pro athletes are kind of useless in reality's view.
Pssssssst! Pro athletes make people happy too
Some singers and songs depress me and make me want to drink myself into a coma. I am glad there is more than one radio station or I'd be screwed...
I'm not a very good player and also not a bad player . im a teenager boy .
This is all the information you need to know that you may as well choose a different dream.
Chess, like tennis, is one of those pastimes where if you're not already one of your country's finest participants by the time you're a teenager, you're simply never going to improve enough to catch the teens who already are.
You could probably be right 99% of the time with a statement like that, but I still think it is possible to accomplish this with a late start. I will admit that studies would probably show anything you absorb as a child or teen age tends to be easier for anyone to excel at, as opposed to waiting until we are grown adults. I've seen some old men do some rather amazing things.
Alternatively, you could just turn pro now. Quit your job and just play chess full time. You won't have any money, but never mind at least the ambition is realised :)
Seriously though, what some people don't realise is that 2500 GMs just about scrape by playing chess, or if they do make decent money it's from coaching or writing books rather than playing. 2650+ to make a lot of money from the game, and even then it's nowhere near the huge salaries you see in a lot of professional sports.
To put those ratings in context. 500 elo points is about a 99% expectancy. A novice is rated 1000. An average club player, rated 1500, will beat the novice 99 times in 100. An expert, rated 2000, will beat the average club player 99 times in 100. A 'weak' GM, barely strong enough to play professionally, rated 2500, will beat the expert 99 times in 100. That's how good even the lowest rated rated professions are. Frightening.
I am not disputing the numbers. May I ask where you got them? They seem to make sense, but I like second opinions for things that seem either arbitrary or something that otherwise I am taken aback by, due to having never really considering it before.
Bobby Fisher used to set up the board and he would play both side of the board.
He never lost a game.
He always knew what the other player had in mind.
Here is one of Fischers puzzles that you should solve before you become a professional.
WHITE TO MOVE AND WIN.
Black must not lose.
Good luck youn man.
This is a priceless lesson and exercise. I have tried this and I find I am too biased. If you attempt this, you have to make it a point to lose your biases. You seriously always have to not only find the best move, but check to make sure you didn't err with each one. I am not sure how Fischer pulled that off. I think if engines ever get a brain to go with their awesome ability, I might try this myself.
Becoming a pro in chess for normal person is like a dream . You must train atleast 10 hours per day atleast for 10 years !
My rating is 1642 and I am not a proffesional, because even players with 1700 or 1800 rating blunder in almost every game. Some people say I am proffesional, but I think they say it, because I am only 9 years old.
After analizing my games against people of that level, they seem to make 5 inaccuracies, 1 or 2 mistakes and or a blunder. Its crazy to me what analysis says, after I thought I played a good game.
There is no such thing as talent, not in chess, not in music, not in anything, it's a myth and a very bad myth which put off anyone dreaming to be great in something.
Shahin, you don't have to leave your country now, it's ridiculous, just improve as much as you can now with help of internet and then when you become very strong you can participate in internation tournaments. Most tournamnts organaizors would send you an invitation to sort your visa out even before you pay the entry fee.
I disagree. I had musical talent that I didn't have to develope, but there are other skills I had to learn and practice to be able utilize, alongside my natural talent. I believe chess is similar. It has everything to do with the kind of person you are. If you are naturally patient and analytical, you won't have to develope those traits, as an example. As far as lines, openings,etc, I compare those to music scores you still have to learn, despite what talent you already may or may not have.
Agree with nameno
Check out this brilliant game by Effim Geller:
Geller has been a trainer of our national team for a couple of years. I was attaining some of the courses, although I was a member of the team, but not a player.
Geller has analysed the game to us, but he was not particularly happy about many things in it. He claimed that 18.Ng3 is a "cheap" move and that Black should be better after 18...cd4 19.cd4 Nc4 (modern engines disagree, and claim equality). He also claimed that Black's decisive mistake is 19...Rad8, which was pretty much the only move he, and Smyslov have seriously considered. I remember we have spent a couple of hours arguing like fools about the value of that move, but it seems that Geller was right- at least mrs. Houdini and Critter agree with him that 19...Rad8 is inferior.
Later on, Efim missed a very simple tactic, which would end the game immediately: 22...c4? 23.Re2! and Black can resign. Tactics have always been Geller's soft spot- we knew that well before Boris Spassky had claimed that if Geller wan't tactically blind, then his exquisite positional understanding, opening knowledge and superb technique would make him an undisputed world champion.
A couple of inaccuracies after that as well, but of minor importance- Black's position is quite BLR.
Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
If it's a bad thing, I suggest you piss off.
It's like that comment I read on a blog here claiming that Leonid Stein played "okay games."
Why would you want to be a pro?
That means sacrificing your life to chess.
Do you really want to do that? Pick something more exciting chess.
Sitting in a chair for hours thinking over a position your entire life is pathetic.
Look at Bobby Fischer and Wilhelm Steinitz.
Both were great players dedicated to the game, and both went insane.
Becoming a pro is kind of a silly goal. We live in an age where "anyone can do anything they want," but honestly, you have to be realistic sometimes. A goal like going to college and getting out and getting a descent job is a good, attainable goal. Wanting to be a pro chess player when you show no exceptional abilities? That's a little unrealistic.
Famous musicians and athletes tell us to dream the impossible dream. It's easy for them to say because they're one of the few people who did it. For every one of them there are literally thousands who didn't. People become masters because they have a love of the game and a work ethic that carries them to the top. If you're immediately starting out with the goal of being a pro, it will slow your progress. The distance between an average player and a pro is so staggeringly enormous that you will become discouraged quickly and easily. Start with attainable goals. Make it your goal to reach 1500 in standard games, and then after that make it your goal to win a few games in real OTB tournaments. Setting goals like this will be more encouraging. You will reach these milestones quickly enough so that you will be encouraged and still like the game. If your goal is to be a pro, the victories and improvements you enjoy will seem insignificant in the face of becoming a GM. Beating a 1600 player will seem trivial compared to your goal of reaching 2700+
I'm a mediocre player, and I know I'll never reach the level of a professional. I have shown no great ability with chess, nor do I play it nearly enough to reach that level. I like it because it sharpens my wits, and it's something I can see slow, but satisfying improvement with.
Kasparov and Anand seemed to have kept their sanities. In fact, in the modern day I think chess players are less insane than the old-timers from centuries or many decades ago.
I chalk this up to the advantages of having compounded knowledge at their disposal. Of course the ones that had to do all the work show all the wear. Bobby Fischer locked himself in a room for indefinite periods of time to figure it all out. Now a days, a guy flips on Rybka and goes and reads or spends some time with his family and goes back later and studies the results.It isn't rocket science.
If somebody is going to go insane, they will go insane chess or no chess.
Yes, but will they have the foresight to pack a lunch?
How good you can be depends on how hard you work. Botvinnik said that chess can't be taught it can only be learned. Coaches can tell you what to study to increase your efficiency, but you have to do the work.
For people with relatively established ratings, increases of 150-200 points a year is considered solid improvement. Kids who are still developing often see much larger yearly increases, but those jumps usually aren't sustained.
I like to look at this idea from the perspective that, you can only try to get someone to understand how it is that they must think but, it is they who must teach themselves how to actually do this. Teaching one's self how to think is paramount for calculation and how to best absorb the necessary tactical, positional and strategic knowledge necessary to win.
Patzer vs. Expert. Truly smashing. Really.
by December_TwentyNine a few minutes ago
jac 1yn staff games i did not agree to
by jac1yn a few minutes ago
King's Gambit a good opening?
by jetfighter13 a few minutes ago
5/25/2013 - Pieces Out of Play
by zkzz a few minutes ago
Problem with Theme
site software freeze-ups
by jac1yn 3 minutes ago
FM Borislav Ivanov Disqualified
by Fear_ItseIf 9 minutes ago
Is there any chance that a 1300 rated player can beat a 2700 rated player?
by gimmewuchagot 10 minutes ago
psychic chess masters, UFOs, technology and civilization
by ekorbdal 11 minutes ago
Can Anyone Become Grandmaster?
by ekorbdal 14 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com