I was going through my limited set of photo's a few months ago.(<---not photogenic) and I stumbled across a pic from years ago when I met Susan Polgar. It sparked up my passion to learn the game yet again. I've been reading books, studying games, playing online, etc. Yet I was better at chess when I was 10 then I am now. (I'm 21) I used to teach kids and train them for scholastic tournaments etc....but I'm wondering if I'm too old now to ever make a significant impact on the chess world....did giving up the game from 10-16 and 18-21 ruin that chance....am I bound to mediocrity(or at least not anything close to greatness)?

hi mate, to be honest I think only you can answer that question by giving 100% in your training and games. I know this doesn't help you much but you are the only one who matters in this.

Red

Derelict wrote:

Yet I was better at chess when I was 10 then I am now. (I'm 21) I used to teach kids and train them for scholastic tournaments etc....but I'm wondering if I'm too old now to ever make a significant impact on the chess world....did giving up the game from 10-16 and 18-21 ruin that chance....am I bound to mediocrity(or at least not anything close to greatness)?

---

 I would guess that the answer to this question is yes, even though people will try to tell you differently.

 

Most of TODAY'S highest ranked chess players trained intensively in chess througout there childhoods. Like the Polgar sisters whose dad kept them out of school so they could train as chess players instead of wasting time doing schoolwork. Same applies to Gata Kamsky (who's dad was quite a tyrant).

Anand became World Champion and he is in his 30s. Also, don't forget Viktor Korchnoi (80s?) I got my first OTB tournament win when I was 41 (4-0 score).

You are never, ever, too old!

ESPECIALLY NOT AT 21!!!!!

Your ability to learn is supposed to decrease with age, but will and determination will overcome that.

 

I also quit playing when I was very young and just started again (im 26) and am determined to get good at this game.  True things may not come as easy to me as they would have when I was younger, but I've been putting in the time reading, working with a coach, and playing until Im sick of it.  I still have a long way to go, but I know the only thing that can actually hold me back is myself. 

At 21 youve got plenty of time.  I've seen it quoted that anybody should be able to reach 175BCF , about 2000USCF, with serious study.  That said, it doesnt come overnight.  Alekhine, Capablanca, Karpov and Spassky all took 2 years to go from 150 to 175.  Fischer took 3 years.  The outstanding player here is Reshevsky who was 175 (2000) rated at age 7 (!!!)  In comparison, Fischer was 12.   But then look how Fischer improved in a few years.  Mind you he was obsessed.  If you study and play the game, but don't improve by 40-80 USCF points per year, the chances are you will never be really great, but you could still be close.  Good Luck!

mxdplay4 wrote: At 21 youve got plenty of time.  I've seen it quoted that anybody should be able to reach 175BCF , about 2000USCF, with serious study.  

---

This is probably true (I buy into it), but the original poster asked if he would be able to "make a significant impact on the chess world," and a 2000 rating does not a significant impact make.

HalfSigma wrote:

---

This is probably true (I buy into it), but the original poster asked if he would be able to "make a significant impact on the chess world," and a 2000 rating does not a significant impact make.

---

I agree. It sounds like most here have misunderstood the original poster's question. I know of no GM's who started playing chess in their 20's. And even if he did make history in becoming one, there are plenty of GM's who have not made "a significant impact on the chess world."

No, of course not. You have 80 years left in life.

I know this is about chess and life.  Colonel Sanders started KFC I believe if I am correct when he was 80.  Most of the time our limitations that we have are self imposed.  My daughter's teacher says you only are defeated when you quit trying.  I joking replied "Ask your teacher if you receive a B can I redo it for an A."  I also said be sure if you do that do not have an attitude.

You could always attend a World Championship and shoot all of the players.  That would make a pretty big impact.

silentfilmstar...you are right....but anyway.... as to the Colonel Sanders comment...he actually got turned down hundreds of times and eventually got a deal in Salt Lake City. 1) KFC started in Utah 2) great story about persistence

I don't think it has much to do with age. If you're a big talent, you can still get very high. Some of the grandmasters also didn't start before they were 21. If you're not such a big talent, you probably won't make it to the top, but then you neither would have made it if you started when you were 5 or 6 years old.

 

I do think however that giving up the game shows that you don't have an extraordinary talent or passion for chess. If you were very gifted and were fascinated by chess, you wouldn't have given up chess, would you?

 

But like many said before, you don't enjoy the game more when you get higher. People rated, say, 1400, can enjoy the game as much as any grandmaster. 1400's may even enjoy the game more, because for them it's just for fun, while grandmasters "need" to win due to their status as grandmaster and because they see chess more as work than as a hobby. 

I don't think it really matters how old you are when you start ( or restart) playing chess.  If you start studying when you're six, you'll obviously have an advantage over someone who starts studying at 21, but that just means that person has to work harder and learn more quickly. 
On whether you could make a significant impact in the chess world, that's a different story, no offense meant.  Most of the people who have made an impact in the chess world - Bobby Fischer, Garry Kasparov, etc., were born chess geni.  They studied, but they were born with an incredible natural talent for chess.  To overcome that talent with studying would require an incredible amount of time and devotion.  (Some people would probably call it an obsession.  )  Not to say that you couldn't, just that you aren't very likely to.   Sorry.

That is dependent on two factors. 1.) Playing skill: how well you can play, how much you know, etc. 2.) (more importantly) Attitude: How much you effort, time, etc. you are willing to put, how you look at your own prospects etc. Realistically, your skill level is probably not significant enough to make much more of an impact because so many discoveries have already been made that chess is now being called a "dead game" with winning attributed to players who memorize combinations. In this scenario, unless you are a fischer, a kasparov, etc. don't get your hopes up, but do enjoy the game anyway.

Phobetor wrote:

Some of the grandmasters also didn't start before they were 21.

---

Simply not true. Nobody in the past half-century has ever started playing chess at 21+ years of age and then gone on to become a Grandmaster.

Derelict wrote:

....but I'm wondering if I'm too old now to ever make a significant impact on the chess world....

---

 what do you mean by a significant impact?  do you mean are you gonna be a world famous GM?  do you mean lots of people in the chess community will know your name? 

dude, you are only 21.  you might think that is old, since there are 10 year olds with 2300 ratings, but if you study super extra hard, seriously, for 10 years, you could easily make 2300 in 10-15 years time,  and you would be what? 36 years old?  i'm 38, i just started playing last year, and i have a decent blog, freinds all over from that blog, and i still plan on making 2000 in a few years.  i will never be a GM, i won't even make it to master, but in 10 years, most chess players will know who i am, at least cause i write a crappy blog.  that to me is a significant impact.  

21 years old.  HA!  you are still so young, you are completely unaware of how great you can be.