Learning chess later in life

NM is set by the country, but in the US an NM is 2200 USCF, which is approximately 2100 FIDE. 

The FIDE ranks are

CM at 2200,

FM at 2300,

IM at 2400(plus IM norms)

GM is 2500(plus GM norms)

Norms are just extra requirements. 

1800ish is the chess graveyard. 

Chess, like life, is an activity that you get stronger at until you one day say, "yeah, that's about enough" and stop. The effort it takes to break that 1800 threshold is pretty tough, and most players realize it takes a lot of work and they decide they are strong enough.  So 1400 ~ 1800 if fairly reasonable. 

Edward Lasker earned an IM at 74. 

Oscar Shapiro became a CM at 75. 

So yeah, there are definitely people who became masters late in life.

     Edward Lasker never "earned" the IM title. His entire chess career took place before FIDE had standards for earning IM and GM titles. He was awarded the title years later, sort of an estimate of how strong a player he was at one time. Actually, at his peak he was likely GM strength and may well have been able to earn that title in an era with more frequent top-category events.

     In 1970s and 1980s I played weekly at a local chess club in Berkeley, California. The "Fischer boom" made chess popular at the time, and several people who brought their eager children to the club tried out chess for themselves as long as they were coming anyway. A few liked the game and continued to play even after their kids left. Starting chess in middle age definitely sets an upper limit on chess achievement, but these latecomers all achieved ratings in the 15500-1800 range without being able to put the time and energy into studying the game that many youngsters do. The point is that they could play well enough to get satisfaction and enjoyment from chess, so any "older" person that finds chess interesting should give it a try. Realize that it will take some time learning and practicing to become good enough to occaissionally produce an effort you will find pleasing and rewarding.

Don't overlook the value of just playing over master games. If you go to More>Master Games on the menu here, you will find thousands and thousands of great games from great players to just "watch" as you click through them. I'd start with Morphy's games because they're just so brilliantly clear. Play through each game a couple of times, trying to figure out the thoughts behind each move. 

Also, there is a gigantic amount of material on YouTube! Gotham chess, John Bartholomew, agadmator, etc. etc. are all wonderful places to start, and I'm sure you will build up a library of favorites that both entertain and instruct. Anytime you don't feel like playing, you can just kick back and watch.

Amazing how many insightful comments we have here! What a great community. But I'm encountering a lot of sometimes dramatically conflicting advice, like: focus on opening theory VS. tactics, Sicilian is a good opening for a total newb VS. it's only for masters, etc. I guess in the end everyone has to find their own way and that while computers have somewhat solved chess, the best methods for improving a human's abilities are far from obvious.

I played a lot of poker in California and I really miss the bay area.

A few people are recommending slow chess but my best game so far seems to be bullet  I guess that's because the limit poker I focused on is played very fast and the only video game I'm good at is Tetris.  IOW I'm finding it pretty easy to apply my primitive approach to strategy under time pressure. And I had the idea that it's better to expose myself to many games in order to see many scenarios more quickly. But I'm starting to see how focusing on deeper learning is the winning approach in chess. The scenarios you encounter playing low rated players aren't going to be informative when you're trying to beat higher rated players. It's different in poker where the goal is to maximize your EV (or win rate) in all kinds of scenarios, at the extreme including even playing very bad players and world-class players in the same hand simultaneously. Thanks!

Cool. So I suppose if someone like me could get above 1785 they'd know it was at least somewhat remarkable. Thanks for the example and the reasonable sounding targets! 

I'm 44 and started playing last january. I've got to 1500 in Daily. I should spend more time on my rapid but prefer longer controls such as 45|45, it's difficult to find time and I dont feel energised enough in the evening, after the kids have gone to bed, so mainly Daily and study in the evenings mainly using books and increasingly Chessable. Anyway, I barely know any Openings, only the first few moves of the mainlines of a couple. I dont feel its held me back yet. I just play those lines and then opening principles and what I think the position requires. I've mainly studied tactics and positional chess by playing though GM games and a couple of middlegame books. My breakthrough came when I got basic blunders more or less under control which was down to better calculation, visualisation and thinking about the opponents moves and plans. Nothing to do with openings really. My impression is issues that hold back improvement are much broader than memorising moves.

OK I see 2500 is more of a GM rating and an NM is lower.

I'm reading about those players...  seems like Lasker was a 5 time US Champion by the time he was 36 and that Shapiro was the Massachusetts State Champion in his mid teens. Perhaps not a great examples for this thread but still inspiring.

In here with you. I've found the lessons to be very helpful.

Wise words!  It's so easy to get sucked into wanting to learn opening lines (speaking from personal experience), but, unless you're already a moderately strong player, you're opponent isn't going to play standard lines.  But opening principles can get you far.  (I wrote about one such experience here: https://www.chess.com/forum/view/for-beginners/important-tip-for-beginners-who-want-to-learn-openings )

But even a great opening only sets you up for a mid-game, and that's where you have to know tactics, visualizing attacks (both yours and your opponents), and even after that, you can't win unless you have a clue about endgames.

I'm sort of repeating what you are saying . . . but that's because I think you're totally on the right track.

thanks for this and congrats on your big improvement

I think this is the approach I'll take. Thanks for replying! 

Thanks! I put in a ton of work to learn poker when I was in my 20s. Read 40+ books and all sorts of articles etc. so yeah, I know where you're coming from. I'm not good enough at chess to comment on how they cross over, but there are probably some commonalities surrounding the evaluation of how exchanges and may affect your position later in the game when these things are less obvious, when you don't know what your opponent might do (and they don't know what you might do), and so you are in a bit of a case of incomplete information and forced to "gamble".

That's awesome! Keep us posted on your progress pls. I am finding that the game is making my mind *significantly* more sharp in general. I was surprised at that. Do you find that?

Its like learning a new language.  Adults can learn new languages and even be fluent just like chess.  Kids learn things quicker, like languages and chess for various reasons.  Becoming a grand master is something else though, you can become fluent in a language, but could you write a flawless novel in that language, or win a politics debate?  

I see what you mean. I guess it's like sports too. Many people are physically capable of, say, training like crazy to run a 5 minute mile. But no matter how hard they try, almost none of them could ever run a sub 4 minute mile and go to the olympics. That's why it's important to just enjoy the experience of playing the game and it doesn't matter if you're bad, mediocre, or advanced, expert, master, etc. we're all just enjoying a similar experience.

I also started playing more seriously at 37.  Here's what's working for me : slower time controls and less is better. I play 30m rapid and I try to play once a day, maybe twice. 

I'll now try to stay away from blitz and bullet, they don't suit me at all and are absolutely useless for me : I'll lose on time in winning positions or make mistakes that I would not do otherwise, this isn't what chess is for me.

Other than that, puzzles where I don't care about the time it takes me.

I learned the game as a teenager, but I stopped playing (around age 30) for more than twenty years. I picked it up again in 2013, and I've done OK at improving.