13945 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!
Also, i have been a little over a year and today i nearly beat a titled player. And you are the biggest bureaucrat. You should have played a year without studing as this reduces your creavity. Now you wouldnt learn lessons from failing and being mroe pratical foolish kid. You just limited yourself. Look at ratings this is completely natural talent. I have nbot read a chess book, even though i can read at 1300 wpm, i have not analyzed your precious measter games or even my own games. And look at my ratings. Therefore when i start to read and study the translucency of the game will be much better. YOu can only blame yourself for not having the satisfication that i will ultimately have. Before this year ididnt even know what the bisho por knight were, but give me another year. This year I am rated above average by just mere talent. did you get akll of that brah
Hey Juxtranspose thanks for sharing your story, I also started this year at 30 and it's inspirational to me to read things like that. You've got a high rating especially considering your average opponent rating about equal to you too.. So often on these forums they'll be people with like 1900 rating and then you look at their average opponent rating and it's low.
Sometimes I do think I should just quit chess though because I spend a lot of time on it and get very angry when I lose, and even when I win. It's just a really angering and frustrating game.
Its not only too late at 30 to get good at chess.....One could make a reasonable case that its already too late to even enjoy life, in general, at that accelerated age. :(
New too adorable magui , I have felt the same... Like is there hope for me? Etc ... But I seem interview with Carlson , he too hates to lose.. Ficher"winning is everything "
Am I saying that you need to be madly obsessed and take it to the extreme? Absolutely. Just kidding ! Lol. But yes that urge is beneficial.. In fact there may be something said about having emotions tied into as it serve sort of mental stimulus ... And for the 95% that say you can't make gm... Just watch me ... Arnold swarzenager had this saying that he loved to hear when people say it can't be done or no one has before.. Then I could be the first! That's a great opportunity to have ... I find quotes like that inspiring and I generally like to be inspired. Keep your confidence level high. I think that's an important factor, of your overall approach
I get mad when i lose too. The worst is when I have completely winning positions. And throw the game. I even get disappointed with some wins if they were just so-so games
Dont worry you will be alright as long as you want to be around 1800-2000 range, I used to play chess when I was younger but gave up altogether after college and restarted at the age of 30, while I am doing a-ok I think I would have progressed faster when I was in teens as compared to now.
Thanks for the advice Chess_gg. I'm not just frustrated by chess, it also makes me sad when I win, and I look at my games and see all the mistakes and blunders even in the wins.
Sometimes when I'm solving tactics puzzles, an overwhelming feeling of creepiness will come over me. I feel like I'm beginning to learn a strange visual langauge invented by psychotic mimes, the symbols of which don't have any meaning in external reality, but only within the alternate reality of the chess board. The pieces themselves seem to have a malicious life of their own, all they want to do is *take*, in their silent, scary way. They're like evil puppets, and remind me of the movie Puppetmaster.
I don't like to attack people, and when I really think about it, I don't like to checkmate people, because i know how bad they must feel.
I remember in a recent thread here I asked what's the most upset you've seen someone get at a tournament, and someone told the story of a small child. Playing chess had put so much frustration, fear, and stress on this young boy that he actually peed in his pants during a tournament game, and then continued playing with pee-soaked pants. That's how upset it makes people. When I really think about it, do I enjoy chess? I don't know if I do. Here's a question to ponder, what if Satan really exists, and what if he invented chess? What if this is actually an evil game?
I'm 35, and it took me the past 3 months to get to 1400 level tactics, and an estimated 1300 live rating. I'm actually more active on FICS, and so I'm 1500 over there. In reality, I've been playing online "on and off" for about a year. If this progress holds constant, in about 10 years I'll have a pretty good game. Unfortunately, I expect that as I get older, it'll be more difficult to learn new things, and so it'll probably mean 15 years to meet the model's 10 year expectations. That'll make me 50 years old by the time I get to 2000+, making it 15 years before retirement age (assuming the U.S. government doesn't extend it), which is quite acceptable for me. At my current rate of decay, I will probably look like Old Ben Kenobi by the time I get any good. This isn't a career or anything, just a fun distraction for when I retire over a chessboard with a single malt in one hand, and a cigar in the other, assuming the American Healthcare system allows me to see this day lol.
In my experience, you won't see progress immediately, unless you're a prodigy, and so let's get our expectations in order. You'll have long droughts, and new benchmarks that occur in streaks. I suppose the old saying applies; things get worse before they get better. It took Tiger Woods a number of years of mediocrity to adjust to his new golf swing, and now he's "player of the year", for what it's worth. I suspect based on the numbers that another masters win is just a matter of time, assuming there aren't any more of Tiger's "transgressions", which I've yet to rule out.
This is why it's necessary to add a buffer to your expectations, and have a reasonable margin of error for your projections.
It took 8 years for Magnus Carlsen to become grandmaster and 11 years for Bobby Fischer. It means you still have a time... Depending on your movitation.
And if you added their ages when they qualified for the Grandmaster title together, it would still be under 30!
Hey, adorable...don't think for one second that I believe you are not "full of horse feathers".
Afterall, I did think that you were Haywood back when you were pretending to be a kid. You did that with such...such...aplomb!
I never pretended to be a kid or given any age other than my real one (30) on this site. This is another assumption of yours just like you assumed I was Haywood. Also, what's with your discouraging comment that "most chess players won't improve much". That is not a truism, and it's like you're trying to convince people not to try and get better. An IM told me that we are ALL capable of massive increases in chess skill, no matter what our current ELO levels or ages. And yes, I know what you said is not about people being capable but about actually achieving it, however, I still don't see the point of making such a negative statement, especially considering that you are probably one of those people who had the privelege of learning chess at a young age. You don't know what's it like to learn chess as an adult and have to deal with everyone saying "you can't do this, you're too old to be good at this." Instead you probably had the opposite, you probably had your parents there every step of the way encouraging you saying "you're getting better, you can be a GM just put your mind to it". So someone like yourself who had all that encouragment is now discouraging other people? People can become strong chess players learning as adults, there's more than enough proof in this thread to confirm that. And most chess players WILL get a lot better no matter who they are, as long as they keep playing.
started playing tournament chess somewhat regularly at 21 and gained 900 ELO since then achieved NM at 25. of course you can improve a lot in adulthood. i think there is a lot to be gained by playing through the games of great attacking players and of course reviewing your own completed games on your own, checking it against a masters db and then against an engine. if you can use the initiative well, your opponents usually will eventually crack under pressure and you can progress quickly. i feel when you play aggressive chess you can create more chances for yourself than you would otherwise. fight for those squares! :-) [imagine your pieces exerting a force field of control and strive to increase it or at least preserve it - transform it to your advantage!]
Thank you for yet another comment that shows people can improve significantly as adults.
Someone's mom being in the same house as them doesn't mean they're a kid, now does it?
I like you, so I want you to keep your trophy, and I may even give you another one sometime. I just think the comment about "most chess players won't improve" is annoying, discourgaing, and most of all, wrong.
And if I do keep playing I can improve more than just "a couple hundred points", I already went from 800 to 1474 in this year alone. And this is a real 1474 rating since my average opponent ELO is also in the 1400s. Furthermore it's a live standard rating. Where is your live standard rating?
Consider this, I have not read one chess book yet, nor have I studied any GM games. I think when I actually read my first chess book on positional strategy (such as My System or Reassess your Chess) I'll probably improve "a couple hundred points" just from that alone.
well guess what. even if you "improve" ? "a couple hundred points" ? you will still be a zero? have you ever considered that possibility?
What would be the rating of a top chess player in the late 1800s today
by chyss a few minutes ago
Help about strategic decision
by ArtNJ 6 minutes ago
10/11/2009 - Simply Mate
by rugao123 6 minutes ago
3/5/2015 - E.Stoddard vs S.Sorenson, corr., 1977
by awesomes4uce171 7 minutes ago
by stuartjohnson26 24 minutes ago
New exciting chess clock coming
by wiscmike 25 minutes ago
how to change my profile background
by freezypopsicle 33 minutes ago
THE POWER OF CHESS 2
by Robert0905 36 minutes ago
What's On Your Bookshelf?
by kleelof 39 minutes ago
Is subscription worth it?
by kaynight 43 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2015 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!