FREE - In Google Play
FREE - in Win Phone Store
Mike, for sure you can and will make master.
Well I am 38 and was a 1400 a few years ago and my rating shot up as high as 1879.I started taking lessons and I am improving.I defeated a few masters and I feel I will make master.I need to work on endgames and positional chess.I have a tactical rating of 2600 on chess.com .If anyone would like to see my games against the masters let me know.I think anyone can improve if they know what there weaknesses are.I stink at blitz ,but I play well in slow chess.Mike
Edit: Nevermind. Wrong name lol :-P
It's funny the way every serious player (those that study) above 1800 or so thinks they will be a master. Most of them say 'within 5 years' or something like that, too.
The higher up you go the thinner the air gets. You're just starting to reach the stage where the other players take the game seriously, too.
At least the guy had a goal. and that is worth something to aim for.
It's a long story...but this is/was my old account:
(And yes, I really am an NM.)
According to his profile, Mike has played chess competitively as a child, so he has greater potential than a late starter. Let's wish him good luck on his way
I'm starting to think the ability to learn is a bit of a misnomer in that learning could also be characterized as a skill. Sure a kid will learn faster when immersed in something, but an adult who's forgotten how to learn will hardly learn at all.
Things like abstracting individual events into general principals, identifying when the principals may apply elsewhere, repetition of ideas to work them into memory, aggressively identifying and fixing your weaknesses, breaking down mistakes, things like this.
It's no wonder to me that an adult who's forgotten how to learn would hardly improve their rating over decades.
They let you have two accounts here? I thought that was against the ToS.
I am 71 and have had severe set backs with my memory and spatial because of health problems.
While I am a "slow" player [the faster the play the worse I do]. I have been playing 15 minute games on another forum. This has always been where I am really poor.[playing a fast time limit] By studying various openings such as Bb5 lines vs the Sicilian and new theory in the Center Counter and theory I did not know in various other lines I have improved that rating by 200 points in the last year . It is still not so high as I play when drousy. But my point is once you reach a certain level there is still much to learn and I do not think it is all that hard to learn.
In my day-the olden days--we did not have the resources you all have now.
With the great resources I believe and guess that a player can improve fairly rapidly. And thus a 44 year old person who has not learned chess at all could learn chess and make steady progress to the 2000 level. If he was willing to spend 4 or 5 hours per day he might get there in maybe 5 or 6 years.
I know I am in a minority opinion on this.
5 or 6 years of serious study and work to reach USCF 2000 sounds about rigght to me.
But most folks (at any age) will "dial back" the time commitment long before reaching USCF 2000. Too much work.
Yes, this is a minority opinion. Except that you, @Ponz111, were a "killer," while I could only break 1800, repeatedly.
Thanks for your post. Always a pleasure to read.
Oh, it's you! You've changed, somehow moderated yourself. I mean you're still funny, but not like the old tonydal.
Yeah well, I went nuts (as explained on my profile page).
I'm afraid poor Firebrand is never gonna quite catch on...so I suppose we'll have to just leave it at that.
Too much chess, or Puffin-Stuff can sometimes do that to a person.
But it hasn't affected your rapier-like wit, @Clifton.
I think that Andrew Martin should have choosen his words better...nevertheless, what is this fixation to become "Worldclass", seems like over ambitious, and c´mom, "to be feared" lol... why not just enjoy the game and of course improve meanwhile. I mean i know people who have started playing classical Piano at a later age, and they enjoy that a lot and also with enthusiasm comes improvement etc. But to become "worldclass" classical pianist, when starting at +40, probably not happening. But i think that bashing somebodys dreams is not classy, whole life is just a dream anyway...
Graham Morrison from Scotland is an example of a player who reached IM strength in later life. Of course, Graham has been a pretty decent player for decades (an FM) but he got his first IM norm aged 50 and last norm aged 53. He only needs to get the rating to be awarded the IM title.
But that´s not easy.
He has not done it yet.
I think it's possible to get to 2000 but probably not far beyond that. I refer back to the case of poker legend Allen Cunningham, who had a bet with fellow poker legend Howard Lederer (himself a former expert that was over 2000 when he was young) that he could essentially go from 0 to 2100 within one year. Allen didn't make it in one year, didn't even get to 1800. But now 2.5 years later, he's at 1920, and probably will make 2000 in the near future.
Allen does have a big advantage in that he's a multi-millionaire that can do the requisite 4-6 hours of studying every day that is required to "catch up".
What's his age ? And did he play chess when he was young ?
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.
He stopped improving after getting to 1900+ level and then stopped playing in april 2012 being a 1920.
Yes, only is funny. As far as I'm concerned it's easier to make 10 IM norm than to ever reach 2400. Playing an occasional good tournament isn't a big thing, but for 2400 I would have to suddenly stop playing bad and even mediocre tournaments for quite awhile. Not going to happen.
Here's a good example of those 100+ threads or so that say "can I be a grandmaster" in 2 or 3 years or whatever they say, and people say that it would take 30 years and they are wrong...
It does not take a particular number of years because foremost it isn't a matter of study and knowledge. What matters is that you start out as early as possible, as intensive and efficient as possible. A 44-year old beginner could spend all his waking hours studying chess for 100 years and would never even get anywhere near GM strenght.
On the plus side, he'd get into the Guinness book of records as the oldest person ever by some distance.