dedicate*
The logical decision for a chess player
Sort:
All signs point to 18 being somewhat late to acheive real success given that the natural decline appears to begin once you're into your 30s (giving you only ~15 years to master the game that others have been playing for 25-30 by the time they hit their peak), but I wouldn't want to be the one to deter you from trying.
dschaefer wrote:
dedicate*
He said he wants to be a top level chess player, not a spelling bee champion. You understood what he meant, yes?
Jun 2, 2010
0
#5
Yep, 18 is too late to be able reach a professionally competitive level. There was an excellent IM Silman article on this very topic, it might answer more questions about this if you track it down in previous chess com articles.
Jun 2, 2010
0
#6
There is no reason on earth to think what the norm has been, limits what you can do. Always remember, you may be one of the few.
To start off, let me say I don't know a damn thing about you.
Here's what I can tell you, though.
Let's assume you have the natural intellect/visualization skills/whatever to *potentially* compete at the elite level. You were born with the potential of Bobby Fischer, but never cultivated it. Okay. The Magnus Carlsens, etc., of the world were also born with this potential. Agreed?
Good. Let's call that "equal" in the potential department. So all other things being equal, the advantage will go to those who have spent more years studying. You will NEVER catch up to other elite natural talents who have also spent their lives practicing chess. That doesn't mean you can't ever play at an international level. But it does mean that realistically, you can't ever, ever expect to compete with the world title contenders. They have at least the gifts you do, and have an uncatchable head start in practice. So super-GM is right out for you.
Agreed?
This isn't the end of the world.
There ARE GM's and IM's who didn't start till later in life. These guys aren't ever going to contend with the Anands, Topalovs, Carlsens, etc. of the world, but they can play in money tournaments, write books, teach students, and otherwise have a life devoted to chess promotion, play, study, and enjoyment.
You will very likely have to pay your way and/or qualify through satellites for international scale tournaments, and the biggest of the big invite-only type tournaments, you'll probably never be a part of. But you could potentially get to where this wouldn't actually be a money-LOSING proposition. You'd just have to accept that tournament play could probably never be your meal ticket...just one part of a larger chess lifestyle.
How monetarily successful could you be? That would depend on your motivation. In general, the more you study, the better you get, but the less time you have to promote other agendas. The most successful non-super-GM's are tireless promoters.
My guess is that if you devote yourself half-time to chess improvement, you can be master class by your mid-to-late twenties, at which time you can probably be considered viable as a teacher and writer, and could quit your day job and eke out a living as a chess guy full time. If you are independently wealthy, you can start full time right now, and get there sooner. The more important things like a social life are to you, the longer the road becomes. That's one of the un-talked-about advantages prodigies have. They dedicate themselves to their craft in an era when their hormones aren't driving them to pursue other agendas.
If you're interested in dating, you'll be devoting time and energy to socializing, and to working so you can afford to, and you'll suddenly be dedicating a heck of a lot less time to study than "half-time." If you want to fit into society at all, you're probably talking about a couple hours a night at most, five nights a week at most, and at that point, the road becomes a lot longer, and the potential peak a lot lower.
It's not undoable, but it's hard, and will require a lot of sacrifice.
And remember, the whole premise here was based on the idea that you had a LOT of natural talent. Do you have a *little* bit of trouble visualizing? Do you have to work a bit to grasp strategic concepts? No sweat...that's how it is for 99% of us. But the further you start from that Bobby Fischer-esque natural talent peak, the longer and slower the road to mastery becomes. It's STILL not unattainable, but it's less of a supernova exploding onto the chess scene, and more of a long, slow slog through the swamp for most.
Being the next Kasparov? That ship has sailed, if it was ever in port to begin with. But maybe becoming the next Jeremy Silman isn't out of the question. Depends what you're willing to give up to get there.
From what I've heard on these forums, the vast majority of adult beginners can attain the candidate master title, with the perseverance, energy and time available to a highly-motivated but working person.
However, I think that learning the game and immediately setting super-GM as a goal isn't best for your motivation. The most important thing is to enjoy the game, even when your playing strength is low. Setting more short term goals (like a rating some 200 points above your current one, or a certain rating on Tactics trainer/chess tempo/another tactics programme) might keep your eyes on the final goal.
propapanda wrote:
PrawneatsPrawn I recommend you to play Donnie Darkcore. He's a very good chess player. You can look for him on Youtube. He's German and is a friend of mine.
Wrong topic?
luxhydrus wrote:
I am a 18 year old student.
I only have been playing chess for a year. Do you think it is too late for me to aim to play successfully at an international level.
I'm in the same boat. And yes I do think it's too late.
BorgQueen wrote:
I believe that 18 is too late to start playing chess and make the grandmaster grade, but to compete at internationals, you have a shot! Go for it!
I started playing when I was 7 and I can't even compete well at the state level, let alone the intenational one :Þ
No I'm sure you can start at eighteen and make grandmaster level if you have enough aptitude for the game, and you put in enough time.
Joseph henry blackburne didn't start to play chess till he was about 19 and became one of the strongest players in the 19th century, whether you become a top player or not it's worth the journey to find out I think.
TheGrobe wrote:
dschaefer wrote:
dedicate*
He said he wants to be a top level chess player, not a spelling bee champion. You understood what he meant, yes?
ManyBuffalo wrote:
To start off, let me say I don't know a damn thing about you.
Here's what I can tell you, though.
Let's assume you have the natural intellect/visualization skills/whatever to *potentially* compete at the elite level. You were born with the potential of Bobby Fischer, but never cultivated it. Okay. The Magnus Carlsens, etc., of the world were also born with this potential. Agreed?
Good. Let's call that "equal" in the potential department. So all other things being equal, the advantage will go to those who have spent more years studying. You will NEVER catch up to other elite natural talents who have also spent their lives practicing chess. That doesn't mean you can't ever play at an international level. But it does mean that realistically, you can't ever, ever expect to compete with the world title contenders. They have at least the gifts you do, and have an uncatchable head start in practice. So super-GM is right out for you.
Agreed?
This isn't the end of the world.
There ARE GM's and IM's who didn't start till later in life. These guys aren't ever going to contend with the Anands, Topalovs, Carlsens, etc. of the world, but they can play in money tournaments, write books, teach students, and otherwise have a life devoted to chess promotion, play, study, and enjoyment.
You will very likely have to pay your way and/or qualify through satellites for international scale tournaments, and the biggest of the big invite-only type tournaments, you'll probably never be a part of. But you could potentially get to where this wouldn't actually be a money-LOSING proposition. You'd just have to accept that tournament play could probably never be your meal ticket...just one part of a larger chess lifestyle.
How monetarily successful could you be? That would depend on your motivation. In general, the more you study, the better you get, but the less time you have to promote other agendas. The most successful non-super-GM's are tireless promoters.
My guess is that if you devote yourself half-time to chess improvement, you can be master class by your mid-to-late twenties, at which time you can probably be considered viable as a teacher and writer, and could quit your day job and eke out a living as a chess guy full time. If you are independently wealthy, you can start full time right now, and get there sooner. The more important things like a social life are to you, the longer the road becomes. That's one of the un-talked-about advantages prodigies have. They dedicate themselves to their craft in an era when their hormones aren't driving them to pursue other agendas.
If you're interested in dating, you'll be devoting time and energy to socializing, and to working so you can afford to, and you'll suddenly be dedicating a heck of a lot less time to study than "half-time." If you want to fit into society at all, you're probably talking about a couple hours a night at most, five nights a week at most, and at that point, the road becomes a lot longer, and the potential peak a lot lower.
It's not undoable, but it's hard, and will require a lot of sacrifice.
And remember, the whole premise here was based on the idea that you had a LOT of natural talent. Do you have a *little* bit of trouble visualizing? Do you have to work a bit to grasp strategic concepts? No sweat...that's how it is for 99% of us. But the further you start from that Bobby Fischer-esque natural talent peak, the longer and slower the road to mastery becomes. It's STILL not unattainable, but it's less of a supernova exploding onto the chess scene, and more of a long, slow slog through the swamp for most.
Being the next Kasparov? That ship has sailed, if it was ever in port to begin with. But maybe becoming the next Jeremy Silman isn't out of the question. Depends what you're willing to give up to get there.
I agree with your first sentence.
Puchiko wrote:
From what I've heard on these forums, the vast majority of adult beginners can attain the candidate master title, with the perseverance, energy and time available to a highly-motivated but working person.
However, I think that learning the game and immediately setting super-GM as a goal isn't best for your motivation. The most important thing is to enjoy the game, even when your playing strength is low. Setting more short term goals (like a rating some 200 points above your current one, or a certain rating on Tactics trainer/chess tempo/another tactics programme) might keep your eyes on the final goal.
Then how come the vast majority of people on here aren't CMs?
MyCowsCanFly wrote:
ManyBuffalo wrote:
To start off, let me say I don't know a damn thing about you.
Here's what I can tell you, though.
Let's assume you have the natural intellect/visualization skills/whatever to *potentially* compete at the elite level. You were born with the potential of Bobby Fischer, but never cultivated it. Okay. The Magnus Carlsens, etc., of the world were also born with this potential. Agreed?
Good. Let's call that "equal" in the potential department. So all other things being equal, the advantage will go to those who have spent more years studying. You will NEVER catch up to other elite natural talents who have also spent their lives practicing chess. That doesn't mean you can't ever play at an international level. But it does mean that realistically, you can't ever, ever expect to compete with the world title contenders. They have at least the gifts you do, and have an uncatchable head start in practice. So super-GM is right out for you.
Agreed?
This isn't the end of the world.
There ARE GM's and IM's who didn't start till later in life. These guys aren't ever going to contend with the Anands, Topalovs, Carlsens, etc. of the world, but they can play in money tournaments, write books, teach students, and otherwise have a life devoted to chess promotion, play, study, and enjoyment.
You will very likely have to pay your way and/or qualify through satellites for international scale tournaments, and the biggest of the big invite-only type tournaments, you'll probably never be a part of. But you could potentially get to where this wouldn't actually be a money-LOSING proposition. You'd just have to accept that tournament play could probably never be your meal ticket...just one part of a larger chess lifestyle.
How monetarily successful could you be? That would depend on your motivation. In general, the more you study, the better you get, but the less time you have to promote other agendas. The most successful non-super-GM's are tireless promoters.
My guess is that if you devote yourself half-time to chess improvement, you can be master class by your mid-to-late twenties, at which time you can probably be considered viable as a teacher and writer, and could quit your day job and eke out a living as a chess guy full time. If you are independently wealthy, you can start full time right now, and get there sooner. The more important things like a social life are to you, the longer the road becomes. That's one of the un-talked-about advantages prodigies have. They dedicate themselves to their craft in an era when their hormones aren't driving them to pursue other agendas.
If you're interested in dating, you'll be devoting time and energy to socializing, and to working so you can afford to, and you'll suddenly be dedicating a heck of a lot less time to study than "half-time." If you want to fit into society at all, you're probably talking about a couple hours a night at most, five nights a week at most, and at that point, the road becomes a lot longer, and the potential peak a lot lower.
It's not undoable, but it's hard, and will require a lot of sacrifice.
And remember, the whole premise here was based on the idea that you had a LOT of natural talent. Do you have a *little* bit of trouble visualizing? Do you have to work a bit to grasp strategic concepts? No sweat...that's how it is for 99% of us. But the further you start from that Bobby Fischer-esque natural talent peak, the longer and slower the road to mastery becomes. It's STILL not unattainable, but it's less of a supernova exploding onto the chess scene, and more of a long, slow slog through the swamp for most.
Being the next Kasparov? That ship has sailed, if it was ever in port to begin with. But maybe becoming the next Jeremy Silman isn't out of the question. Depends what you're willing to give up to get there.
I agree with your first sentence.
Strange one to choose, since you can't possibly verify its truth value.
woodshover wrote:
Puchiko wrote:
From what I've heard on these forums, the vast majority of adult beginners can attain the candidate master title, with the perseverance, energy and time available to a highly-motivated but working person.
However, I think that learning the game and immediately setting super-GM as a goal isn't best for your motivation. The most important thing is to enjoy the game, even when your playing strength is low. Setting more short term goals (like a rating some 200 points above your current one, or a certain rating on Tactics trainer/chess tempo/another tactics programme) might keep your eyes on the final goal.
Then how come the vast majority of people on here aren't CMs?
Did you miss the part about perseverence, energy, time, and high motivation?
ManyBuffalo wrote:
MyCowsCanFly wrote:
ManyBuffalo wrote:
To start off, let me say I don't know a damn thing about you.
Here's what I can tell you, though.
Let's assume you have the natural intellect/visualization skills/whatever to *potentially* compete at the elite level. You were born with the potential of Bobby Fischer, but never cultivated it. Okay. The Magnus Carlsens, etc., of the world were also born with this potential. Agreed?
Good. Let's call that "equal" in the potential department. So all other things being equal, the advantage will go to those who have spent more years studying. You will NEVER catch up to other elite natural talents who have also spent their lives practicing chess. That doesn't mean you can't ever play at an international level. But it does mean that realistically, you can't ever, ever expect to compete with the world title contenders. They have at least the gifts you do, and have an uncatchable head start in practice. So super-GM is right out for you.
Agreed?
This isn't the end of the world.
There ARE GM's and IM's who didn't start till later in life. These guys aren't ever going to contend with the Anands, Topalovs, Carlsens, etc. of the world, but they can play in money tournaments, write books, teach students, and otherwise have a life devoted to chess promotion, play, study, and enjoyment.
You will very likely have to pay your way and/or qualify through satellites for international scale tournaments, and the biggest of the big invite-only type tournaments, you'll probably never be a part of. But you could potentially get to where this wouldn't actually be a money-LOSING proposition. You'd just have to accept that tournament play could probably never be your meal ticket...just one part of a larger chess lifestyle.
How monetarily successful could you be? That would depend on your motivation. In general, the more you study, the better you get, but the less time you have to promote other agendas. The most successful non-super-GM's are tireless promoters.
My guess is that if you devote yourself half-time to chess improvement, you can be master class by your mid-to-late twenties, at which time you can probably be considered viable as a teacher and writer, and could quit your day job and eke out a living as a chess guy full time. If you are independently wealthy, you can start full time right now, and get there sooner. The more important things like a social life are to you, the longer the road becomes. That's one of the un-talked-about advantages prodigies have. They dedicate themselves to their craft in an era when their hormones aren't driving them to pursue other agendas.
If you're interested in dating, you'll be devoting time and energy to socializing, and to working so you can afford to, and you'll suddenly be dedicating a heck of a lot less time to study than "half-time." If you want to fit into society at all, you're probably talking about a couple hours a night at most, five nights a week at most, and at that point, the road becomes a lot longer, and the potential peak a lot lower.
It's not undoable, but it's hard, and will require a lot of sacrifice.
And remember, the whole premise here was based on the idea that you had a LOT of natural talent. Do you have a *little* bit of trouble visualizing? Do you have to work a bit to grasp strategic concepts? No sweat...that's how it is for 99% of us. But the further you start from that Bobby Fischer-esque natural talent peak, the longer and slower the road to mastery becomes. It's STILL not unattainable, but it's less of a supernova exploding onto the chess scene, and more of a long, slow slog through the swamp for most.
Being the next Kasparov? That ship has sailed, if it was ever in port to begin with. But maybe becoming the next Jeremy Silman isn't out of the question. Depends what you're willing to give up to get there.
I agree with your first sentence.
Strange one to choose, since you can't possibly verify its truth value.
Strange one to defend, since you can't possibly verify I can't verify it's truth value.
I am a 18 year old student.
I only have been playing chess for a year. Do you think it is too late for me to aim to play successfully at an international level.
I read the biographies of all the great players, all of them started at like 8 years old.
I need to know if its possible;
because if it is, i will deticate all my time towards this goal.
However, if it is not, please be honest, because i dont want to deticate all my time and energy towards an unattanable goal.
Is it possible, or will the people who started at 8 years old have too big of an advantage by the time i make it to international (if i do).
Thank you