A response to Andrew Martin

Fallacious argument?

I merely posted my opinion and some information I happen to come across. Whether you agree or disagree, you have no right to tell people to shut up and to agree with you. Different people have different opinions, and leave that be.

I find it inspiring to know that some people managed to get their titles at such an advanced age, and so I shared the information. I do not know whether all of them start learning chess early or late. Gisela Gresser seemed to learn chess only when she was almost 40. Whether you agree or disagree, that is your own problem. I believe that it's never too late to learn chess as long as that person is willing to put the required effort and has access to the proper resources.

Hankas does make a valid argument surely that excellent chess can be played at such an advanced age. I also think the biological elements sucha s dendrites that people have brought up make these players' late achievments relevant as well.

Oh my.  That's one of the funniest statements I've read in quite a while!  Ray Keen(e) is one of the lamest chess authors who ever lived...especially with his pen pal David Levy; the two of them churned out buckets full of useless dreck way back when.  The only thing of DeFIrmian's I've ever seen is MCO...but he's still got to be miles ahead of Raymundo.

Wrong. David Levy wrote an excellent book in the 1980's called "How to get the most from your chess computer". It was, for its time, a pioneering work. He explained what the horizon effect was and discussed the strengths and flaws of many programs such as Sargon and Belle, using actual games.

Raymond Keene wrote some very interesting books. One was on the Nimzo-Indian. He wrote a great chapter on a tricky ..Qe8 move by black.

The last book by Nick De Firmian was A DATABASE DUMP. It had computer generated lists of moves. There was no discussion of ideas. None! My MCO book [korner?] from the 60's has more discussion of opening ideas than De Firmian's trash. A database dump is a sign of a chess publishing industry that only cares about profit. Bash it out. Leave in a gazillion typos. Make a buck. Get a GM to be the "author" in a cynical attempt to give the database dump kudos. In reality the GM is just a post hoc marketing gimmick who has done no more authorship than I have done trips to Mars.

I think that Ray Kenne would find "Raymundo" so funny that he'd cook up some wacky opening like the Acton Extension 2 and call it the Raymundo defence

Hey, keep em coming, linux! lol  Ray Keene, David Levy...who's next on your list of geniuses? 

Those two clowns collaborated on Nice 1974...which was one of the most insufferable pieces of crap I ever waded through.  To me the names Keene & Levy are about as welcome a sight as the following word would be:

Well done. You ever played an engine? David Levy's early work as a qualified electronics engineer was a large part of engines getting anywhere. Pretty bright guy.

Prolix and horlix in equal measure.

Ray Keene and David Levy aren't exactly shy of trying to make a quick buck (or any kind of buck) any way they can.

http://www.chess.co.uk/kingpin/Kingpin/raylevy.htm 

It's pretty amusing to hear the rainbows and unicorns and shyt folks blowing right past FM on the way to 'world class' -- it's like being an FM is I dunno, some kind of cheesy door-prize they pass out to 90 year olds at the entrance to chess-camp . 

To put this in a weird sort of perspective (sort of):

There are approx. 20,000 people 7 foot tall or taller. 

There are approx 10,000 people with a FIDE above 2300 (FM).

(6,000 FM - 3,000 IM, 1,300 GM)

FM is not chopped liver, and there are plenty of people who start as children, play chess their whole lives, and are damn happy when they crack  1800 USCF! 

On a side note, in my opinion IM is an excellent defintion of "world class" since it literally means "you are a master of chess and have proven this internationally" -- kind of what world class should mean, right? Of course many people use world class to mean someone who can legitimately compete at the world championship level (what the GM title was meant to signify originally) which at this point is above 2700, more like 2750...)

As for age being a barrier... I took up hockey last year and recently turned 50. Despite the fact that Gordie Howe played NHL caliber hockey at 50+ I've set my sights slightly lower and more realistically at playing a hard shift with guys half my age while neither embarassing nor injuring myself... I will let you all know if I accomplish this lofty goal. 

On the subject of chess books... if there's a room in hell for people who've written bad chess books, it's a large hall, and it's crowded.

Yeah, but I like Andy...among the best of his books btw are the ones taken from "Chess to Enjoy," which thankfully are not "serious" at all.  I've only seen 2 duds from him:  the one about the games of Spassky (which was his 1st) and the 100 Best Games thing (which suffered from a flimsy and pedantic premise).  Of course, I'm pretty sure Soltis has a day job to help him make his rent payments (as a journalist or something like that)...

Ray, on the other hand, sucks. 

lol now I have to think you're just messing with us.  His argument had nothing to do with the question at hand.  In his list, it never mentioned when any of these players started.

If you're not sharp enough to catch onto that at least, then I'm afraid there's really no point in trying to reason with you at all.

As someone who's been coached by a 2200/2300ish titled FM [Bill Jordan] I am fully aware of how strong an FM can be. Anyone who thinks that only super GM is world class is just stupid.

Of course, moves from anyone 200 ratingpoints stronger than yourself will make an invincibly strong impression

Right. You asked for. This is a paste from a bio of Bill Jordan who is an FM who coached me once:

I am a very experienced chess player, who has concentrated more on chess coaching than playing in the last 15 years.

I have been coaching since the early 1980s, including with private students, small groups and schools. I have also given lectures and coached by correspondence.

I have won nearly every major title in Victoria (including the championship) and have represented Australia 3 times overseas. In the 1992 Australian championship I tied 5th with GM Tony Miles. In 1995 I came =5th in the Australian quickplay.

I was winner of the 1997 Australian correspondence championship. and achieved a correspondence ELO rating of 2455. Australia has had a good record in correspondence (postal) chess, having had several players finish in the top 5 (including first) in the World championships over the years.

I have authored numerous chess tutorial programs and 2 courses by correspondence.

I have put a lot of study into what factors determine chess skill and how players can improve their game.

I am familiar with lateral thinking techniques and psychology.

**********

You still want to argue that FM doesn't = "world class"?

As a note: there are two players that were world class that started in their teens: Tarrasch and Blackburne were both GM strength and started playing in their teens.  

Again I have studied how the brain develops and it is impossible to develop the necessary skills to become a GM having started playing as an adult, FM definitly possible and IM maybe but GM is a qualitative leap that is not physically possible. FM is very respectable as well and puts a person in the top percentage of players. 

It is interesting to me how the human mind also seems to have found a lower limit of 12-13 to become a GM. (the records by months and years at first now are down to days/weeks) There is clearly something mentally that occurs to obtain that key skill level.  Master or 2200 is been done around 8-9. 

Of all the people who play American Football, only about 300,000 seniors play on high school football teams each year. 

Only about 9,000 go on to play on collegiate 1-A teams. Are they "world class" players? From the perspective of the millions of people who "play football" at some point in their lives -- be it pee-wee leagues or back yard fun -- it is hard to see how you don't call those collegiate players "world class."

But it is harder to see how that can be the case when less than 300 of those 9,000 players get invited to even try out for the NFL each year. 

FM is much the same. Compared to the average chess player, these are collegiate 1-A players. They're really, really good. But very few of them are going on from that level to the "NFL" of chess. 

I know an FM who said that a GM is someone who plays every day like he does on a good day.

Yes, I do want. It's quite obvious that the term "world class" has very different meanings to different people. It's totally subjective, which makes this discussion (which is also completely off topic) quite pointless.

But since this thread has derailed anyway, let me give you an example how other people use the notion "world class": the best german male tennis player, according to the official ATP rankings, has been top 20 (but not top 15) for the last year or so. It is common perception that germany currently does not have a male world class player.

World class means among the best in the world... there's really no other way to interpret it...

If you're the best in your country, you're likely an amazing player... but you're not necessarily world class... and FMs aren't often the best even in terms of country.

I don't think FMs describe themselves as world class either... I know each person has their own way of ranking things but this term, "world class," seems clear to me.