A response to Andrew Martin

I have come across one or two players who made a sudden advance at age 50+.

Not to world class tho'.

No one beats their best shoot-em-up score after reaching 14.  And mathmeticians who have not published anything world shattering by about 22 know they never will.

If you want a satisfying game at which you can continue to improve up to 80+ bridge is for you.  :)

Well, I wouldn't call you a bad guy so much as more than a trifle naive (for thinking that that's really my name...not to mention for not getting the joke that it implies).  It's okay though, you're far from the first one around here to make that mistake.   And you've managed to be a good deal more civil about it than many in the past have been.

Andy:

Clifton:

(Both played by Andy Kaufman, lest you didn't know.) 

Okay, but that's a very long way from demonstrating that all of Andrew Martin's DVDs are uninstructive, as implied by your original post. If he really makes as many mistakes as you suggest, wouldn't we have heard about his poor reputation already? In any case, the DVDs may still be instructive despite the mistakes. I'm sorry, but you give the impression of having an enormous greasy chip on your shoulder about IM Martin.

Probably the same reason I don't use my GM title, don't want to reveal my true identity.

Oh, then I can't see a reason.

And no, I'm a patzer ^^

If it's got any relevance to my OP, I have improved enormously in just a few weeks of watching some videos here. It shows to me that in a post-internet world people can be as good at chess as they want to be.

I am a purist. In that I don't care if someone never plays in a FIDE event in his or her life. If someone grasps endgames and chess ideas to a world-class standard then that's what someone will be. That's probably the gulf between Andrew Martin and myself. He would say that someone has to enter tournaments. I say that someone doesn't. I'd go further. Actually I wouldn't care if somone never played a rated game. If someone here goes over videos, chess mentor etc and masters the concepts then that's world class as far as I ma concerned.

Read the books of Nimzowitch and prepare your openings with a computer. 

Computers are certainly a boon.  Some years ago my wife bought me a Novag Diamond machine and I played on it for a while.  I am a moderate club class player and have been content to play in club events and local leagues with a few week-end tournaments when I was younger.  I don't improve much.  But the Novag improved my grasp of the critical lines in my favourite opening very fast.  It plays the same moves each time and gives you its evaluation.  So you can soon enough find the strongest moves and then understand what it is in the continuation that makes that particular move strong or weak.  Recognising why, in particular, a move is weak and what to do to exploit it helps your over the board play of that opening a lot.

I don't think even the best books on openings advance you as fast.

@kenpo : I'm going to be blunt too, but I don't think someone starting chess at 44 can achieve a 2000 OTB rating.

I agree with IM Andrew Martin that he wouldn't have enough energy...

I don't know if no one could do it. But anyone who did would be a huge anomoly. 

Look, the average active tournament player is about 1600 USCF. These are players who take the game seriously. They study tactics, they study openings, they study endgames, they pay for lessons.  That's the average. 

To say that anyone of normal intelligence can become a master, or 2000 is just silly. There's no evidence for that sort of claim at all. Anyone can become 1200 USCF? Yeah, probably with a little help and work. But there's no data to support a claim of any  rating much higher than that simply because counter-factuals start to abound. 

I can show you adults who have studied hard. They've worked hard. They've tried. And they're not yet 1600.  

This seems to have already been beaten to death but my thoughts-

First off, I think it would be a totally different story if a 40 year old learned when he was 8 but never took it serious.. maybe this player stopped at age 12 but knew what a fork, pin, deflection etc was...

..BUT... Most people LEARNING the game in their 40s need a few years alone just to stop 1 move blunders. Adults have weaker pattern recognition abilites. I think the OPs advice (the one that started the thread, not the guy who wrote Martin)doesnt take into account how hard it is to teach someone in their 40s who just learned the game.. (sure, you may be middle aged but learning at a younger age has its benefits like I said) Ive tried teaching guys in their 40s by reading over some simple games from the Chernev book or talking about basic strategy in their own games but its hard to see any improvement because they dont get past the blunder stage.They are not absorbing the tactical shots from books/their games.

As for myself I am starting to feel a little more set in stone these days in terms of my ability/speed to absorb information. I am 22 (thats half the guys age who wrote Martin, btw) and high class B, so I decided that if I want to be a master it really has to happen now which is why Im trying to do 2.5 hours of tactics a day.

Even if this 44 y/o is somehow retired already and has 0 kids.. could he pracitice 14 hours a day without going cross eyed?

As for the oldest player I know, theres a lower class B/high class C in my area who is 80... but this is only because he was a strong Expert in his prime.

Shadwoknight911: I'm not arguing if there aren't some outliers who might make that rating. I'm arguing that it is unrealistic to expect any particular person to achieve that rating. 

Only about 30% of all active tournament players ever achieve a rating above 1600. 

Man, that's depressing.

What's his age ? And did he play chess when he was young ?

If you will it, it is no dream.

 He is 35 now, not sure what year the bet happened but I will say this- He has a very high understanding at many types of poker (used to picking up different games with different thinking processes fast) is very very bright, and is rich enough to afford probably any chess coach. If he cant do it I dont think anyone could.

edit: and he has near unlimited time to work at it, unlike nearly all adults.

Well, if the guy has already played as a youngster, and starts working seriously on his chess at ~30, he certainly can reach a reasonable level. But if he is a late starter, meaning he learns the game in his 30's, things are already much more difficult (probably 1800 would already be a great achievement).

I guess this poker guy had already played as a youngster. In any case, this is a good experiment about adult improvement

I'd be curios to know what the original letter writer's feelings about it are. I mean people may be thinking that Andrew Martin was too harsh in his response, but he was also just "telling it like it is." Sometimes we all need a reality check. Sure he could have said it softer, but why is it better to get a person's hopes up, getting them to spend money on lots of books on an unlikely dream? I got the impression that the letter was similar to writing to Tiger Woods and saying "I have never played golf before, what books and videos should I buy to be good enough to join the next pro tournament?"

Yes there is no reason that a person aged 44 (or older) can't get amazing at chess and beat everyone that they know, but it is highly unlikely that they will be what most people would classify as world class.

cool to know such a nice guy is here at chess.com!

Im reading the start of the thread and it seems he is doing this prop bet more for fun than anything else, he asked for software/book ideas in the thread and then showed what he was doing (which books) neat that he did it basically like an avg. Joe.. no expensive trainer