worstplayer46

Oct 11, 2019

0

#21

So how long till I become a chess memer?

autobunny

Oct 15, 2019

0

#22

worstplayer46 wrote:

So how long till I become a chess memer?

but first, how do you know you've become a chess memer?

AlCzervik

Oct 15, 2019

0

#23

10,000 memes?

definitely easier than becoming a chess master. or, a pool master. https://www.chess.com/forum/view/off-topic/questions-about-becoming-a-pm

Verbeena

Oct 16, 2019

0

#24

Spelenderwijs wrote:

How many Candidate Masters are there compared to FM's, IM's and GM's? Those would be some interesting numbers.

Anyway, asking if you can become world class at the age of 44, never having played chess is (with all due respect) pretty stupid. I myself started playing chess at the age of 29, and yes, i too got fascinated with ideas of reaching a higher level. I still am. But i started with the more modest idea of becoming an FM. Nowadays i toned it down to becoming a CM. Somehow, i think attaining a CM title in my case is not an impossible goal. Difficult, yes. I will probably die trying

There are very few CMs because it is a title that few cares about or take it seriously.

How long have you been playing and how is your progress rate? I started to play at the late age of 36. I wonder how good i will able to be if i continue to play & study regularly, but i know that it would require a miracle to even come close to the expert level... =(

WordWarrior

Oct 16, 2019

0

#25

I started playing at a young age. If I worked hard, I might become a strong club player and perhaps even reach the nationals (I'm not playing OTB right now). I'm quite aware of my weaknesses - I know that I may be able to improve calculations but would never be able to match the computer-like brains of those even at 2300 level. These guys have all been doing it since a very young age so something tells me that there is something innate to this crucial ability or at least they have developed it at an age where it was necessary to do so.

PS I understood Tom Terrific's question. Where he stated:

"They may say why such-and-such a move is important in the situation; but what they never explain, and what they should explain, is the thought process that led them to question the fundamental principle they just violated - how the values were weighed."

I've also seen this a lot. Principles are violated in high-level games all the time. From the top of my head: retaking with a pawn instead of a piece leading to doubled pawns, not taking a hanging pawn or even a piece, taking a piece of a lower value instead of one with a higher value, putting a piece in a seemingly useless position, etc.

Now of course there are mostly very good reasons for doing so - these players are masters for a reason. But I have also noticed in some game comments that such moves are not explained very well. Perhaps in some cases, the expert commentator assumes that the reader will be able to spot why a certain decision was made, where in fact, many of us would have to need an engine to find the solution. (I often find that I'm not sure why a certain position is won or lost, or even why a player resigned.)

It is of course not practical for the commentator to have to provide for readers of all ratings - it would take a lot of time to comment each game in this way. But because of this, it leads to people not understanding certain on-board decisions all of the time.

My proposal is: First try to really understand the position. Use the analyse board feature to play through a few lines. If you really want to understand it in more depth, use an engine to play through some lines and see what comes out.

autobunny

Oct 16, 2019