"It's tough to make predictions...especially about the future." - Yogi Berra
The logical decision for a chess player
Sort:
Wouldn't that be postdiction?
MyCowsCanFly wrote:
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.
Really nice of you trying to mock Buffalo's post when he obviously took a lot of effort when writing it. Instead of adding a line with nothing useful, take a ride when your cows fly away (I'm sure it would be a good experience, for he who goes and the rest who stays).
And yes, eighteen may be too old for mastering the game in order to challenge the current great minds...but (maybe) not late to make a modest living off of the game. It would wind up to how dedicated you would be to try your best and, if you really can't see it going anywhere, a lighter approach would keep Chess at a hobby level. Otherwise, just keep investing until you are somebody's coach or a good Chess writer. Job opportunities are always shifting, and (hopefully) the chess ones will have a spot for you if you do pursue this goal long enough.
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 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
Are you kidding? You should be dedicating....Do u believe my coach started his chess career at the age of 19 and now he is a succesful player..Most of the Indian GMs know him very well and my coach had helped many GMs and IMs...
So I think you should be dedicating
[Moderated. Watch your personal attacks]
It depends what you are wanting out of chess.
If you want to make a living out of it, good freakin' luck. There are many advanced players with titles who struggle to make a living, if they can do it at all. Assuming that you are like most people and you need some income, plan to have a day job. That doesn't mean you can't devote serious time and energy to chess and draw serious satisfation from doing so.
Now, setting aside the possibility that you are an unrecognized genius and will beating Magnus in a couple of years, lets assume you have some natural talent. Its largely a matter of resources. How many hours each week can you spend on chess and still have a roof over your head? Can you afford a coach? Do you live somewhere that quality coaching and good competition is available? What will you give up for chess? How obsessed are you? Do you dream about it? Can you imagine doing something else with your life? Me, Im a full time husband/father/career etc. guy before you get to chess in my priority list. But thats why my rating is under 1400. Having little to no natural talent factors in too, I am sure :)
I think if you work very hard and put in a lot of time, you should make at least expert level. If you have some talent to back that up you will probably make master ( I don't remember the country of origin for the original poster, I am not sure if we are talking FIDE or USCF here.) Beyond that, I think you have to be born with a certain level of something special. I don't think starting at 8 or starting at 18 has much to do with it. To quote the great Sam Mussabini, you can't put in what god left out. So, that brings up the big question-
Just how good are you?
Factor your amount of hesitation in answering that question into any future plans.
I tend to disagree a little bit about the talent thing.
I think you definitley need to have certain traits to become extremely good at chess, but I don't know if that really counts as talent. These traits include patience, intelligence (well it certainly helps!), tenacity, determination, analytical skill, etc.
With these traits I think it's possible, just not likely, for one to even be beyond master without being like fischer or capablanca. You can say only they "just get it" (if you know what I mean), but I have developed this sense to an extent myself (and used to never "get it"), previously sucking at chess for years. You just start to "know" what's right as you become more familiar with the game. I think that can be developed with the right traits as well.
I think talent becomes more important for high GM to WC level honestly (though it makes every stage of improvement easier I would think), but I still don't think it's impossible for someone who started with no skill at the game to in fact become one.
Jun 25, 2010
0
#29
It is hardly possible to become a top player after having started at 18.
However, why not just enjoy the game and see where it takes you? People succeed in chess because they love the game, not because they came there to become GMs or champions.
I didnt play my first rated chess until 1973, I was 20 years old and in my first tourney I lost every game against players rated from 1500-1600 ! I dont believe I have any talent for chess at all and thats why it took me 11 years to make NM in 1984 . I believe if I had talent for the game I should have made it in half that time, or even less. I also didnt have a coach/trainer/teacher nor the advantages of the internet and/or strong engines. My first otb rating came out at 13xx . When I first started chess was a lot more "fun" than it is now. When you work at the game and begin to take it more seriously and care about the results/rating I believe a lot of the "fun" is lost. I would like to ask Natalia has she also experienced anything like this with her own ches or does she know others who have ? I now play endless hours of blitz to recapture the "fun" that once also existed for me anytime I played the game.
Is it too late? That's a question only you can answer I think.
If you make it "work" as in you 9-5 job, and have a natural gift, then I cannot say it's too late. However, I do not know you or your true ability...maybe hire a GM as a coach and have them help you determine that possibility; I have a difficult time saying it's too late when I don't believe it is ever too late for anything worthwhile. For the most part though, the top level players started even younger than 8 years of age...I think Carlsen (an a lot of other GMs) was just 5 or so when he first learned the game; on the other hand, Capablanca never received formal training and became World Champion.