A response to Andrew Martin

I wish to respond to this on chess.com:

Chess.com member DAVAD265 Andrew, I am hoping you can help me out. I am a 44 year old man who never played Chess in his life until a few years ago. What I want to know is: what can I read or watch etc to become world class?  I am willing to sit down and watch a training video or read books, whatever it takes.  I want to be able to play a strong game, to be a sometime winner with higher ranked players, to be feared, to boldly go where I have yet to go, and to drive my enemies before me!  ;-)

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

My advice is to forget about becoming world-class. At your age it simply isn't going to happen. It's unrealistic and even quite impossible. Your main barrier is your age. Your second barrier is your talent; to release the talent if it is there would take a level of energy a middle-aged man has long since lost. Your third barrier is time. Do you really have the time to study chess to the exclusion of everything else?

What you must concentrate on is enjoying playing and studying chess, not results. The game will then open up its secrets to you and you will realise your potential. If you continue wanting to be 'world class', you will soon become demoralised at the apparent lack of progress and give up.  

 **************

Now, I like Andrew Martin. I enjoy his DVDs. But here I really, really have to diagree with him.

I DO agree with Martin that for a beginner ideas of becoming "world class" are a bit premature. I mean, you can't know at that stage if you enjoy chess - especially in a competitive sense.

But I have to disagree with many other points.

First, let's try to look at what "world class" means. It can mean many things.

- becoming a titled player?

- playing online only and getting an online rating above 2000?

- playing at home against Rbyka or another engine and beating it?

To me all of the above are valid. I was disappointed in  Martin that he didn't address this. The poster has to answer for him or herself what "world class" means to them.

Whatever the aim, age is NEVER - and i repeat NEVER - a barrier. I've lost otb to a good player who's 90 years young!! Sure, your IQ won't be at 44 what it was at 20. But that doesn't matter. You are prepared to learn and that's what matters.

OK, here's what I would do if I were the OP author.

1. Buy an engine. I'd recommend shredder classic 4. It's easy to use. It is great at telling you your mistakes. And it is fairly cheap [30 euros from memory] While you are at it get the free stuff as well - SCID and arena are both excellent and download them on the net.

2. Learn BOTH algebraic and English descriptive notation. Only algebraic is legal in otb events. But there is a method to my madness. See below.

3. Go to your local public library. Go to the chess section. Borrow 5 books on chess. Doesn't matter what they are at this stage. Use [2] to read them and play through the positions and ideas on your engine [which could be the free arena - thats fine]. You might not understand too much. That's fine too. But you will - if you are reading sincerely - be absorbing concepts.

[4] Play about 100 games against the engine. Span these games out. Don't burn yourself out. Use the engine to learn from your mistakes.

[5] From then on try to develop a balanced skill set in all phases. At this point you will be preferring some openings to others and have a style [solid, aggressive etc] of sorts. I'd recommend any chess books by Emanuel Lasker or Max Euwe. They will be in descriptive so [2] will be useful!

[6] Join an online chess site [FICS or ICC] and play there.

[7] After about 5 years of the above, possibly with some paid coaching from a titled player who's at l;east 2100 ELO, you will - if you have learnt from your mistakes - be within striking distance of any of the definitions of "world class". You will be a very, very good player at that point. I daresay at that stage practical and emotional skills may be all that's left: determination, clock-management, diet etc.

I wish the OP author the absolute best in his or her chess life. Chess is an awesome game. I am 37. I learnt when I was 8. I still find tactics that absolutely blow my mind - ideas that I never thought of.

Andrew Martin's response showed a clear lack of intelligence. That surprised me. I would have expected better.

Age is never a barrier!!!!!!!!!! Never!

We have many world class chess players who still play strongly at such an advanced age. Smyslov, Yusupov, Lasker, and Karpov are just some of them. I am pretty sure that Kasparov can still kick all of our butts. Chess is not a physical sport, so the effect of age is not that significant. In fact, I think older people tend to have more time in their hands and thus more time to devote to chess, compared to us youngsters who still have to juggle with work, wife, young children, etc.

How about Korchnoi?

i am trying to think of a "late starter" who got within distance of being a world champion. Only one who comes to mind is Howard Staunton who learnt the moves when he was about 20. Not that becoming a world champion in needed to be world class.

IGM is very, very unlikely at 44. But FM or IM is ceratinly possible with 5 years of well-directed play and study. It's also worth adding that we don't know the games bakcground of the OP. Prior games like Go or checkers may have provided a logiccal basis that makes chess a bit easier to get good at.

Got any proof?

The definition of World Class is relative and probably he should have asked him what he meant but he was brutally honest about the possibility of becoming a GM.

IGM is not possible for all the reasons that Martin listed.. Sorry you can disagree all you want but the brain can simply not learn enough to create a GM for someone that starts at 44. (the reduction and reinforcement of dendrites is MUCH slower past the age of 25 for males it still can occur but takes a great deal more effort. lets say that it takes 2x as much effort and study to create the same learning talented kids take roughly 12 years to reach GM from the start of playing serious chess. If that is double for adults then 24 years of serious study and play puts a 44 year old at 68.... That said I do think that 2000-2100 is a fairly good possibility for anyone who invests serious time and energy and that definitely puts a player in the top percentile of players.  FM is also probably for a talented player.

I think that the players that have made GM past the age of say 35 are the result of winning the Senior World championship. resulting in an Instant GM title. 

Rating: 1337 (Live Blitz)

woot woot

The word "proof" is a poor choice in this context. I am making a judgement based upon my experience in chess and thinking of my attempts to get better. Then based on all of that I am reaching what - to me - is a reasonable quantification for someone of normal ability and intelligence who takes chess seriously. I am also taking into account the study-tools such as engines that enhance chess learning in ways that a 1980's player like myself can only have dreamt of.

I mainly think that IGM is unlikely at 44 for practical reasons relative to other players: you would have to "catch up" to the knowledge of other players to such an extent when they have been playing since they were teens or before.

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.

incidentally, Andy Martin isn't the sort of person who jerks people about. He has been playing, writing and teaching in the British chess scene for decades so he does know that it takes something out of the ordinary, something extremely rare, for even youngsters to win titles. When you see 12 year olds at tournaments, with ratings higher than you, but who nonetheless aren't even close to as talented as Giri, Carlsen, Karjakin and Radjabov at that age you begin to get the idea.

I think -given the proper resources and with the proper effort- they can get to a GM level with no problem. The time spent for chess study is not a reliable yardstick on how far one needs to go in order to become a GM. For instance, if a person has access to being coached by a strong GM, that person will likely to improve much much faster compared to a person who learn from books/computers and try things out on his own. Environment plays an important part. If they are serious about improving chess, they may want to join a chess club that has many strong players.

A child or young person's mind is not the same as an adult's. We  know that language acquisition is much easier for kids, and there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that a similar differential exists for learning to play chess well.

Consider all the talented and hard-working IMs who don't make GM. Do you really think the average adult can start from scratch and get to GM while those IMs can't?

To say so is just some low-rated player's fairy tale.

I agree with Andrew Martin :-)

Simon, I won't embarass Andrew Martin in a public forum. But while I have never met him I have spoken to British chess players who know him extremely well- as well as you may do. And their reports of him as a person were not..ahem...that he is the nicest person on the planet. I will leave it at that. Of course as a player he is great and he communcates ideas very well.

I am 37. I won't play well on this site until I fix up the board that to me has eye-busting colours that drive me mental. I have advantages that I never had when I was playing at say, 14. I have a lot more humility; I accept constructive mistakes and constructive critique of my games from other players. I would - honestly - feel more comfortable now if I wanted to be a world class chess player than I did when I was 14.

Martin is correct. Even 14 is too late probably. "World class" usually means a super-GM, i.e. 2700+. To have a decent chance of getting to that level you've got to be over 2000 by the time you are 10.

I am aware of FMs who learned the game as adults, but not of any player stronger than that. And even then, adults in their 20s, not 40s or 50s.

2700, or even 2500, is so inconceivibly strong that there is no point even thinking about it. Just play, study the game and you will improve, but not to that level. None of us will.

Where in the OP did the person say that he or she wanted to be a super 2700 GM? Andrew Martin himself says in a DVD of his that I have that David Navarra [2550 ?] has a high rating by anyone's standard. So Martin cannot restrict "world class" to 2700+ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I doubt any of us is the nicest person on the planet. You certainly aren't. And neither am I. But "niceness" is not the issue here - it's whether he's right or wrong about the necessity to start learning chess when young in order to become a "world class" player, or even a GM (which I personally would consider to be "world class").

Showing us the GMs who started playing chess when they were adults would strengthen the argument that it can be done considerably. 

P.S. I agree that Andrew Martin communicates ideas very well, albeit in a funny accent.

No player who is a beginner at 44 will ever make GM.

And I will happily bet any amount on that.

Look, if you want to prove Andrew Martin wrong, then prove Andrew Martin wrong. Until that happens all this debating is just pissing at the wind.