10 year GM roadmap

Hi, so like all players i too want to be a GM/IM some day

I did participate in Indian junior nationals after winning my state-level when i was 8 years old without much chess coaching really. I did ok i think. That was 14 years ago. And after that i couldnt really play it anymore due to circumstances

Now after almost 15 years i just tried visiting a under 1600 rating tourney with no practise and lost both games i played against1500 rated players, and i abandoned the tourney.

I hope to become a GM/IM within a long period of 7-10 years with slow and stable study. So what would be the plan for having the best chances of hitting it over such a long period if i can put in approx 2 hours per day from now?

i do enjoy positional play and i dont mind reading a lot of chess, and i can go on for hours usually without getting tired, analysing each position, but i dont want to immediately join a chess club. I want to learn a bit more, so i can get to a decent level again, because losing to low level players just hurts my ego too hard.

i just got the Chesmaster- Grandmaster edition, and im starting to learn the academy courses in it, and solve them all on my own, every move which im not sure i just copy the position and set it up and play it against the computer even if it is not mentioned in the tutorial. I found it really satisfying.

One more question, is it better to put off rated tournament play for later. Do the first few ranked games matter a lot, (like in online MMORPG games); or does it not matter where you begin?

I dont care about winning any games immediately, but what are the skills which i need to start honing now so they will reap rewards 5-10 years down the line?

This question is constantly asked here. No one can tell you if you have/had what it takes until they see how you play. I think you need to play some games here and show them to people.

After you analyze them, you will have a basis to understand whether or not you have any skill and what areas are deficient. I looked at one of your 3 games played here two years ago and could quickly see that you deserve a higher rating than 1100.  How much higher, I have no idea.

Play 25 games to see where you stand.

Your question seems like simular to this one: Will i beat a very strong player if i have 1 month to think for every move so to have enough time to analyze all moves. Both answers is unfortunate - No for many reasons. And you have ego problem. You can't make even 6 months plan if you withdraw from just 2 games in a tour !!!  Also 2 hours is way not enough. Specially for a new and not young player. You may reach 2000 Fide or 2200 for CM title but you will have to completely change yourself which i am sure it wont happend for above reasons. Also you need talent and coach for  years....

But i have very good news for you. You can get title for very short time if you want so much. You have to play in one of the Zonals in your area. Score 50% or 60% which it wont be that hard if you reach at least 1700-1800 FIde next year and you will receive direct CM title or FM.

Why don't people set goals that are more realistic/achievable and then once they reach that goal set a new goal , and continue in this manner ?  I recall my first goal was just to be better than certain club member that I didnt like and he was only a B class player ... 

Don't be disappointed if you study your butt off and after ten years you still haven't hit 2000. A lot of people hit the wall before they get to 1800 and all the practice in the world won't help.

I want to run a mile in under four minutes but it ain't gonna happen. 

@notmtwain, those games i played the day before the tourney just to remember a bit of the game again, i didnt read any basics, i didnt even have basic skill over passed pawns etc then..

one of my employer's clients was the state chess federation, and that guy just asked me to join, so i played.. in the games i could clearly feel a lack of purpose/direction on what i have to move..

so clearly that history is definitely not a decent indicator...

See, i dont want to play games immediately increase my rating by playing on chess.com, i want to learn the middle game, positional play, endgame, tactics before i feel okay i have a grip on what should be done at a given point. That is why im not really interested in playing any games against human opponents because most probably im underutilising my skill due to lack of game knowledge..

What i want to know is what are the "exercises" i need to start now so after practising for 5 years, i will be a solid player

Should i focus more on positional play reading the databases of chess players, or more into tactical play in finding the best forks and seeing 7-8moves ahead?

What would be the seeds i should plant today which will eventually bring fruit tomorrow..? i dont want to plug up temporary holes but to relay the foundation from scratch..

You could say im trying to take a romantic approach like the typical martial arts movies where the trainee keeps practising the basics for years before moving ahead, sorta, if that makes any sense..

Personally, i feel scared in tactical positions as i used to be a careless player even when i was younger, and even in my other spheres of life im pretty smart but careless, missing the obvious solution but being able to understand the complexities well; so tactics you could say i wont be very strong on. Also, when i start seeing moves ahead i start to miss out on a couple of piece positions in my mind which leads to mistakes while practising.

I generally prefer a more conservative, systemic approach to doing things, because i need a piece of mind to do well. If there is too much doubt i get too tense and dont utilise my potential, so i prefer more solid positional play to risky tactical manoeuvres..

Hope that helped idk

Thanks

Actually there is more chance to become lets say top runner than GM. like going to gym every day and after 3-6 months completely body change. Chess is not like that.

"im not really interested in playing any games against human opponents because most probably im underutilising my skill due to lack of game knowledge.."

Playing games it will show you how much lack of knowledge you have.

Take diamond membership and start chess.com video lessons and chess mentor from very beginning.

ofc, there is no guarantee to get a title, 

but what im asking, is what are the key practise-dependant skills which will help you in the long term

if i cant make it after working hard and having a structured plan, then it doesnt matter, because there is no use regretting something which was impossible..

but, what would be the best way to do it is all im asking..

as for smaller objectives, i dont know what they are, maybe if you can give me a roadmap or something also would be great.

-another question, is should i try to start as high as possible in ratings or just start at whatever rating/knowledge i have and start playing?

-In any case i wont have time to play any tournaments in the next 1 year atleast due to work, although i can put systematic practise regularly, i cant spare a full week of study, because i have a career too.

-Getting a title is like one of my big life goals/bucket list items that is all, and i actually find studying chess to be incredibly useful in refreshing my programming skills and work too.. it reminds me what level of thinking im capable of, and motivates me to work smarter and get work done better..

is chess mentor significantly better than chessmaster ?

a simple answer to your question is endgames.  with less peices the general principles of chess are clear.

if you pour your heart into endgames- its Very clear they will reap big rewards for years to come.

--

and another subject to really learn is tactics.  Tactics HAPPEN in endgames- so its not entirely a different subject.

tactics and endgames. those are absolutely required to being good at chess.

of course, I am not a titled player.  but what are long term essential skills is an easy question.  answered by just about every author who talks about how to improve in chess.

IM Silman tackles this very problem in his most recent column.

http://www.chess.com/article/view/how-to-learn-an-opening-and-more

I like your attitude!  Especially the far-sighted, "I dont care about winning any games immediately, but what are the skills which i need to start honing now so they will reap rewards 5-10 years down the line?"

Start with the most basic.  You are rated 1200 here, which translates to roughly 1000-1150 FIDE (it varies so much) so for you I'd recommend honing your board vision, calculation, and candidate moves.  Tactics training achieves all three, for example if you take out a Nf3 and there's a Bg5 and the white d-pawn and black c-pawns have moved then you could win the bishop assuming no obstructions on the fifth.  Start with the most basic and move onto more difficult problems, CT-ART 5.0 comes with CT-ART Beginner so start with that then graduate to 4.0 and Mating Nets. 

Also Total Chess Ending is a great program but you need something like Nunn's Understanding Chess Endgames too so you can tackle the basics such as the Lucena position and various simple theoretical forced wins and draws.  Then you move to more complex stuff found in CCE and Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual.  And never forget about prophylaxis!  

So you are a novice player, 22 years old.  I will break it to you gently.  You will not (99.99999% certainty 99 times out of a 100) achieve a title.  A monumental achievment would be to break 1700 in tournament play. To do that while having a career and a family is a feat in of itself.  If you break 2000, fantastic.  Then work at breaking 2200 and maybe become a strong master.  From where you are that may take as long as 20 years of consistent tournament play, study, and coaching. 

On the upside, at 44 you should be able to afford travel to the large opens and you family will be old enough to not miss you for a week.

Good luck.  Chess is not about the titles.

Wrong!

I was 17 and a novice. 

I went to a club and got interested in the higher aspects of the game (relative to a beginner): combinations, tactics, opening ideas, some middle game operations. 

I engaged in conversations with people in the clud and asked many questions. I played many games and got into some tournament. 

A year later I was already over 1500. 

Two years more saw me at 1700+

My life was such that there was never any TREMENDOUS amount of time to invest in chess... so progress was casual and incidental to the main events in my life. 

I stayed interested, and did play from time to time - read a book, even translated some books into Hebrew (my language...)

It certainly made a difference that I became friends with several titled people - GMs, FIDE masters...

I really like chess - but at that point I didn't dream of a title. 

I was 1850ish at age 26, and 1900ish around 30-31. 

A few years later I stabilized around the 2000 level - and NOW I feel that I'm in the middle of the move to the NEXT level. 

I just occurred to me - the moment you can look downwards at 2000 (if this is what is happening now, and I wouldn't be too surprised) - titles become a strong option. 

So never say never. 

It is NOT too late!

But there's TONS of work to be done. It's impossible to imagine how much more you need to know "just" to make 2000, when you're starting at around 1200 (which was probably my age 17 level). 

Are you saying I'm wrong or the OP?

so certain are you.

I don't see the need to be negative about it.   Everyone participating in this thread should know that becoming an GM/IM is a extraordinary unlikely.  only a miniscule percentage of chess players ever attain it.  the odds are tiny no matter what your age.

And , obviously, growing up obsessed in chess is a big advantage.

but nobody can exactly say what the limits to chess playing achievement is.   I would disagree with nlockeschchettair to say that all players want to be a GM/IM.  Many of those that do, might not understand the personal sacrifice involved.

not even do all chess players even want to improve.  I know several that don't.  others wouldn't mind it, but are simply unwilling to put any effort into it.

anyways there's another thread here about what chess players have achieved and what they have not.  but I don't think that anyone should be discouraged from their dreams.  only encouraged to be realistic and work towards them in small steps.

(no offense intended 'therealGMBobbyFish')...

None taken.  The point was not to be negative.  There are probably 100 threads on chess.com with adult novice players who think IM/GM is a realistic goal.  It isn't. 

The OP has played 3 standard games and can commit to 2 hours of study a day.  I think it would be interesting to see where the OP is after 2 hrs per day of study and a 1000 games. 

The rest of my post said exactly what you recommend.  Small steps.  Is 1700 easy?  IMO not for most adult novices, but it is a completely respectable rating and better than the average player.  From 1700, can a player achieve 2000?  In most clubs with a good selection of strong players, a dedicated player could.  Past that it takes exponentially more work and travel.  Each ELO point is twice as hard to get and increasingly you will be playing semi-professional players. 

Against, all this weighs time and real life which in my experience adults has respectively less time and more real life than our scholastic counterparts. 

So, the road map if you are not there or almost there by 20 years old going to be hard, probably impoverished and 20 years long if it is even achievable.

Am I certain?  1000-to-1 odds certain. 

It is a fallacy to think that one needs to be a titled player to play good chess.  The beauty of the ELO system and really many handicapped rating systems in other sports is that the competition is can be exciting at any level. 

I have had games against players at every level that were full of fight and pleasing to play and I am proud of. Did they have to be master level games?  Not in the least.  Maybe they were that one time. Nice to think they might have been.

I think every player has those gems regardless of ratings.  Masters just have them more often and against stronger players.  We've all seen GM games with B-class blunders.  They just don't make them every round.

So, my advice.  Seek the beauty of the fight in chess.  Not ELO points or titles. 

Chess IS fun.  if one can't find the fun in a good game of chess- there is NO hope for him. 

this doesn't mean there isn't a joy in seeking improvement.  I was delighted to get past 1500 (standard) here at chess.com.  I look forward towards progressing to 1600.

eventually, and incrementally I hope to be able to be an OTB expert.   I am old (42) and it is , indeed,very unlikely.  but people are not statistics. 

IMHO its not clear what holds people back (though time is probably a huge factor)- some people get overly negative when this topic of titles comes up.  being "realistic" can go to the point of lacking confidence and not being optimistic.  I realized this when I entered an online tournament.  my own negative expectations worsened my game.  thinking more positively- I entered another tournament and did MUCH better.   even worse is being deterred.  the "sour grapes" syndrome.  feeling like something isn't possible - so not trying and being negative about the achievement. 

we see that on chess.com as well.