Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

I just started playing this year at the age of 30, is it too late to get good?


  • 2 months ago · Quote · #161

    BettorOffSingle

    Connectedpasser wrote:

    I started playing in my early 20's and reached 2075 around my 30th birthday. It can be done as long as you ignore the propaganda about how older people can't improve and work really hard.

    You need three things:

    Talent

    15 years

    No life

    Kids have all three, retirees have two, everyone in between?

  • 2 months ago · Quote · #162

    BettorOffSingle

    kco wrote:

    If we made 1-3-5 minute chess the championship time control, chess would be by far the most popular sport in the world.

    LOL

    Look at the crowds blitz can draw on city streets.

    Why is speed knocked so badly when it's clearly relevant to what chess is attempting to symbolize?

  • 2 months ago · Quote · #163

    kco

    more BS huh. Your username is probably best describe you quite well.

  • 2 months ago · Quote · #164

    snakery

    If you are a prodigy,or real talent,you could be good or even great in a very short time. Chess, like musical,athletic,or artistic ability requires ability that you are born with. There are 12 year old kids that can play lights out.  Don't think a superior IQ is all you need, it takes more, heavy on memory,imagination,and vision.

  • 2 months ago · Quote · #165

    BettorOffSingle

    The old age theory had a lot more to do with logistics, lifestyle, and that the game was more art than science or puzzle.  If a 10 year-old can become a GM, a 30 year-old should be able to do the same thing in 10 years, IF he trains the same and improves at the same rate.

  • 2 months ago · Quote · #166

    Sub1000

    I know it's kinda a derail... but, if you want to have a 1-3-5 bullet/blitz tournament, you should probably use an electronic interface that can keep accurate time in 100ths of seconds.

    IMO trying to play fast time controls OTB just leads to a mess. Future chess for rapid games should be completely electronic.

  • 2 months ago · Quote · #167

    zazen5

    The reason behind the idea that chess players must start young is mostly physiological. The idea is that with age neurons don't learn as well and physical stamina is less. There is some truth to this. Neurons don't adapt as quickly as when younger. That coupled with differing stamina can make a player less able to absorb. I believe differently. I think that as people get older this behavior is largely learned to adapt to daily frustrations. Personally I am physically stronger now than 20 years ago and smarter too in experience, learning speed, and focus. Rather than focusing on things you have no control over, you always have control over your effort level.

  • 2 months ago · Quote · #168

    BettorOffSingle

    zazen5 wrote:

    The reason behind the idea that chess players must start young is mostly physiological. The idea is that with age neurons don't learn as well and physical stamina is less. There is some truth to this. Neurons don't adapt as quickly as when younger. That coupled with differing stamina can make a player less able to absorb. I believe differently. I think that as people get older this behavior is largely learned to adapt to daily frustrations. Personally I am physically stronger now than 20 years ago and smarter too in experience, learning speed, and focus. Rather than focusing on things you have no control over, you always have control over your effort level.

    My personal experience as a "too old" serious chessplayer, and in life in general, says the *opposite* is true, and that we attribute to age what is really caused by a poor foundation.

    Take two players, give one a full "GM" repertoire, and retire both of them after high school, with the other learning nothing but the Fred.  Now have them come back in a decade.  The first player can continue building on his repertoire, while the second will have completely mastered the Fred, but decided that his age makes further improvement impossible.

    If you lay a proper foundation for improvement, you'll move up FASTER as you age.  I did not gain 400 points in four months on ICC at one-minute by accident.  In fact, I'm going to film my training so everyone can see exactly how it's supposed to be done, at any time control (one-minute just avoids cheating).

  • 2 months ago · Quote · #169

    BettorOffSingle


    Sub1000 wrote:

    I know it's kinda a derail... but, if you want to have a 1-3-5 bullet/blitz tournament, you should probably use an electronic interface that can keep accurate time in 100ths of seconds.

    IMO trying to play fast time controls OTB just leads to a mess. Future chess for rapid games should be completely electronic.

    That would be a given, I think.

  • 2 months ago · Quote · #170

    Blaww99

    I played in my first tournament after the age of 40. Prior to that, I'd probably played a dozen games or so, most of them before the age of 15. In 2.5 years, I was rated a little under 2100. In the last year, it hasn't changed much.

    The tactical aspects have been relatively easy. The more subtle parts of the game have been considerably more challenging. I only spend 2 hours/week on chess, but I'm not sure it would help if I spent 50. :)

  • 2 months ago · Quote · #171

    TheGreatOogieBoogie

    Actually it will help.  Try mastering one imbalance at a time starting with pawn imbalances.  This could be doubled pawns, isolated pawn pair, isolated pawns, candidate passed pawns, pawn chains, pawn islands, backward pawns, hanging pawns, etc.  Then work on weak squares and color complexes.  It takes three weeks of focused study to master a topic.  

    However, I'd first spend it working on a single endgame type.  Nunn's Understanding Chess Endgames and Muller's Secrets of Pawn Endings (Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual borrows many positions from here as well as adds some of its own) should give you plenty of time to naturally get the three weeks in.  It may even take longer to ensure you're closer to mastery.  Then minor piece endgames, rook endgames, and queen endgames.  

  • 2 months ago · Quote · #172

    McAlpin

    oogie boogie i like what you say about endgames and i need to learn more, is there an equivalence to nunn's and mullers available through chess.com tactics trainer or computer workout that you advise? i will look at the titles but i am new to chess.com and am processing (and truly enjoying) the many things available. thank you...

  • 2 months ago · Quote · #173

    TheGreatOogieBoogie

    Convekta's Total Chess Ending, but it's all problems without explaining the how and why of books.  

  • 2 months ago · Quote · #174

    Sub1000

    You'll definately need endgame studies. I cant tell you how many times I lose a game being 1-2 pawns up and cant promote or win the game. If I actually knew what "triangulation" was at the time it would have seemed like a no-brainer.

    R + P endgames I can blunder a lot too. lol


Back to Top

Post your reply: