13165 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!
Mike, for sure you can and will make master.
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
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.
It's a long story...but this is/was my old account:
(And yes, I really am an NM.)
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
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.
They let you have two accounts here? I thought that was against the ToS.
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.
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.
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.
Thanks for your post. Always a pleasure to read.
Oh, it's you! You've changed, somehow moderated yourself. I mean you're still funny, but not like the old tonydal.
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.
Too much chess, or Puffin-Stuff can sometimes do that to a person.
But it hasn't affected your rapier-like wit, @Clifton.
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...
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.
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.
can i become a GM in 30 days?
by chessmicky a few minutes ago
3/14/2014 - Mate in 4
by snrmouse 3 minutes ago
Any tips for hustling?
by trysts 5 minutes ago
Daily Puzzle 3/14/14-Mate in 1
by GSHAPIROY 6 minutes ago
A draw with a Candidate Master!?
by Sam97 9 minutes ago
by pentiumjs 13 minutes ago
Graphical Challenges no longer showing
by UrzaPW 21 minutes ago
Can I become a grandmaster if....
by Goddric 26 minutes ago
abuse of the holiday button
by eval 36 minutes ago
by Sendi_Purwanto 41 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2014 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!