2014 Sinquefield Cup is LIVE! Open to ALL MEMBERS! Join GM Ashley, GM Seirawan and WGM Shahade! Click here to watch!
Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

A response to Andrew Martin


  • 24 months ago · Quote · #141

    ponz111

    Mike, for sure you can and will make master.

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #142

    FirebrandX

    micaman994 wrote:

    Well I am 38 and was a 1400  a few years ago and my rating shot up as high as 1879.I started taking lessons and I am improving.I defeated a few masters and I feel I will make master.I need to work on endgames and positional chess.I have a tactical rating of 2600 on chess.com .If anyone would like to see my games against the masters let me know.I think anyone can improve if they know what there weaknesses are.I stink at blitz ,but I play well in slow chess.Mike

    Edit: Nevermind. Wrong name lol :-P

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #143

    pellik

    micaman994 wrote:

    Well I am 38 and was a 1400  a few years ago and my rating shot up as high as 1879.I started taking lessons and I am improving.I defeated a few masters and I feel I will make master.I need to work on endgames and positional chess.I have a tactical rating of 2600 on chess.com .If anyone would like to see my games against the masters let me know.I think anyone can improve if they know what there weaknesses are.I stink at blitz ,but I play well in slow chess.Mike

    It's funny the way every serious player (those that study) above 1800 or so thinks they will be a master. Most of them say 'within 5 years' or something like that, too. 

    The higher up you go the thinner the air gets. You're just starting to reach the stage where the other players take the game seriously, too. 

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #144

    konhidras

    pellik wrote:
    micaman994 wrote:

    Well I am 38 and was a 1400  a few years ago and my rating shot up as high as 1879.I started taking lessons and I am improving.I defeated a few masters and I feel I will make master.I need to work on endgames and positional chess.I have a tactical rating of 2600 on chess.com .If anyone would like to see my games against the masters let me know.I think anyone can improve if they know what there weaknesses are.I stink at blitz ,but I play well in slow chess.Mike

    It's funny the way every serious player (those that study) above 1800 or so thinks they will be a master. Most of them say 'within 5 years' or something like that, too. 

    The higher up you go the thinner the air gets. You're just starting to reach the stage where the other players take the game seriously, too. 

    At least the guy had a goal. and that is worth something to aim for.

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #145

    AndyClifton

    FirebrandX wrote:
    But in all seriousness, why not get a free permenant diamond membership if you really are a NM? It doesn't make sense that you would pass up on all the free benefits therein.

    It's a long story...but this is/was my old account:

    http://www.chess.com/members/view/OmarCayenne

    (And yes, I really am an NM.) Smile

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #146

    hicetnunc

    According to his profile, Mike has played chess competitively as a child, so he has greater potential than a late starter. Let's wish him good luck on his way Smile

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #147

    waffllemaster

    I'm starting to think the ability to learn is a bit of a misnomer in that learning could also be characterized as a skill.  Sure a kid will learn faster when immersed in something, but an adult who's forgotten how to learn will hardly learn at all.

    Things like abstracting individual events into general principals, identifying when the principals may apply elsewhere, repetition of ideas to work them into memory, aggressively identifying and fixing your weaknesses, breaking down mistakes, things like this.

    It's no wonder to me that an adult who's forgotten how to learn would hardly improve their rating over decades.

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #148

    FirebrandX

    AndyClifton wrote:
    FirebrandX wrote:
    But in all seriousness, why not get a free permenant diamond membership if you really are a NM? It doesn't make sense that you would pass up on all the free benefits therein.

    It's a long story...but this is/was my old account:

    http://www.chess.com/members/view/OmarCayenne

    (And yes, I really am an NM.) 

    They let you have two accounts here? I thought that was against the ToS.

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #149

    pellik

    waffllemaster wrote:

    I'm starting to think the ability to learn is a bit of a misnomer in that learning could also be characterized as a skill.  Sure a kid will learn faster when immersed in something, but an adult who's forgotten how to learn will hardly learn at all.

    Things like abstracting individual events into general principals, identifying when the principals may apply elsewhere, repetition of ideas to work them into memory, aggressively identifying and fixing your weaknesses, breaking down mistakes, things like this.

    It's no wonder to me that an adult who's forgotten how to learn would hardly improve their rating over decades.

    I think this is really the heart of the matter. +1

    I think that, like chess, learning is both an ability (talent) and a skill. Some adults are quite talented at learning and can assimilate new ideas with much less effort. Those are the ones who can still make big improvements at an advanced age. 

    Most kids are very good at learning. They get tons of practice and it's really their primary skill in life at that point. Their brains are wired for rapid learning and they have a bonus that adults just can never compete with. This is why top tier status is reserved for those who have been persuing chess from a young age. 

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #150

    finalunpurez

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #151

    ponz111

    I am 71 and have had severe set backs with my memory and spatial because of health problems.

    While I am a "slow" player [the faster the play the worse I do]. I have been playing 15 minute games on another forum.  This has always been where I am really poor.[playing a fast time limit]  By studying various openings such as Bb5 lines vs the Sicilian and new theory in the Center Counter and theory I did not know in various other lines I have improved that rating by 200 points in the last year .  It is still not so high as I play when drousy. But my point is once you reach a certain level there is still much to learn and I do not think it is all that hard to learn.

    In my day-the olden days--we did not have the resources you all have now.

    With the great resources I believe and guess that a player can improve fairly rapidly.  And thus a 44 year old person who has not learned chess at all could learn chess and make steady progress to the 2000 level. If he was willing to spend 4 or 5 hours per day he might get there in maybe 5 or 6 years. 

    I know I am in a minority opinion on this.

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #152

    zborg

    5 or 6 years of serious study and work to reach USCF 2000 sounds about rigght to me.

    But most folks (at any age) will "dial back" the time commitment long before reaching USCF 2000.  Too much work.

    Yes, this is a minority opinion.  Except that you, @Ponz111, were a "killer," while I could only break 1800, repeatedly.  Smile

    Thanks for your post.  Always a pleasure to read. 

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #153

    Steinar

    AndyClifton wrote:
    FirebrandX wrote:
    But in all seriousness, why not get a free permenant diamond membership if you really are a NM? It doesn't make sense that you would pass up on all the free benefits therein.

    It's a long story...but this is/was my old account:

    http://www.chess.com/members/view/OmarCayenne

    (And yes, I really am an NM.) 

    Oh, it's you! You've changed, somehow moderated yourself. I mean you're still funny, but not like the old tonydal. 

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #154

    AndyClifton

    Yeah well, I went nuts (as explained on my profile page).

    I'm afraid poor Firebrand is never gonna quite catch on...so I suppose we'll have to just leave it at that. Smile

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #155

    zborg

    Too much chess, or Puffin-Stuff can sometimes do that to a person.

    But it hasn't affected your rapier-like wit, @Clifton.  Smile

  • 6 months ago · Quote · #156

    Hohenzollern

    I think that Andrew Martin should have choosen his words better...nevertheless, what is this fixation to become "Worldclass", seems like over ambitious, and c´mom, "to be feared" lol... why not just enjoy the game and of course improve meanwhile. I mean i know people who have started playing classical Piano at a later age, and they enjoy that a lot and also with enthusiasm comes improvement etc. But to become "worldclass" classical pianist, when starting at +40, probably not happening. But i think that bashing somebodys dreams is not classy, whole life is just a dream anyway...

  • 6 months ago · Quote · #157

    SocialPanda

    SimonWebbsTiger wrote:

    Graham Morrison from Scotland is an example of a player who reached IM strength in later life. Of course, Graham has been a pretty decent player for decades (an FM) but he got his first IM norm aged 50 and last norm aged 53. He only needs to get the rating to be awarded the IM title.

    But that´s not easy.

    He has not done it yet.

    http://ratings.fide.com/card.phtml?event=2400090

  • 6 months ago · Quote · #158

    SocialPanda

    Gotterdamerung66 wrote:
    hicetnunc wrote:
    Shadowknight911 wrote:

    I think it's possible to get to 2000 but probably not far beyond that.  I refer back to the case of poker legend Allen Cunningham, who had a bet with fellow poker legend Howard Lederer (himself a former expert that was over 2000 when he was young) that he could essentially go from 0 to 2100 within one year.  Allen didn't make it in one year, didn't even get to 1800.  But now 2.5 years later, he's at 1920, and probably will make 2000 in the near future.

    Allen does have a big advantage in that he's a multi-millionaire that can do the requisite 4-6 hours of studying every day that is required to "catch up".

    What's his age ? And did he play chess when he was young ?

     He is 35 now, not sure what year the bet happened but I will say this- He has a very high understanding at many types of poker (used to picking up different games with different thinking processes fast) is very very bright, and is rich enough to afford probably any chess coach. If he cant do it I dont think anyone could.

     

    edit: and he has near unlimited time to work at it, unlike nearly all adults.

    He stopped improving after getting to 1900+ level and then stopped playing in april 2012 being a 1920.

  • 6 months ago · Quote · #160

    Jion_Wansu

    socialista wrote:
    Gotterdamerung66 wrote:
    hicetnunc wrote:
    Shadowknight911 wrote:

    I think it's possible to get to 2000 but probably not far beyond that.  I refer back to the case of poker legend Allen Cunningham, who had a bet with fellow poker legend Howard Lederer (himself a former expert that was over 2000 when he was young) that he could essentially go from 0 to 2100 within one year.  Allen didn't make it in one year, didn't even get to 1800.  But now 2.5 years later, he's at 1920, and probably will make 2000 in the near future.

    Allen does have a big advantage in that he's a multi-millionaire that can do the requisite 4-6 hours of studying every day that is required to "catch up".

    What's his age ? And did he play chess when he was young ?

     He is 35 now, not sure what year the bet happened but I will say this- He has a very high understanding at many types of poker (used to picking up different games with different thinking processes fast) is very very bright, and is rich enough to afford probably any chess coach. If he cant do it I dont think anyone could.

     

    edit: and he has near unlimited time to work at it, unlike nearly all adults.

     

    He stopped improving after getting to 1900+ level and then stopped playing in april 2012 being a 1920.

    Here's a good example of those 100+ threads or so that say "can I be a grandmaster" in 2 or 3 years or whatever they say, and people say that it would take 30 years and they are wrong...


Back to Top

Post your reply: