A response to Andrew Martin

On the plus side, he'd get into the Guinness book of records as the oldest person ever by some distance.

Anyone who starts playing at 44 and has aspirations of becoming a GM will become disillusioned rather quickly.

However, anyone who starts out playing at 44 and just wants to work hard to improve may be pleasantly surprised.

It is possible to improve as an adult.  I started playing chess again at the age of 37 after a layoff of 19 years (1992-2011) and three years later I have gained 300 rating points.

It's important to have goals, and to break them in to segments which are more easily attainable. 

My goal is to become a master, and has been since I was 1500 when I started playing again.  But I broke that down into smaller goals of getting to 1600, then 1800, which is where I am now.  Now the focus is getting to 2000.

However, for those saying that age is never a barrier, you are way wrong.  When I was younger it was much easier to study chess all day.  Now I have a job and a wife.  I still manage to study between 2-3 hours a day, and sometimes even 4-5 a day on weekends.  But it's harder to learn from those study sessions than it was 25 years ago.

However, as ponz pointed out, there are resources available today which weren't always around (for example, today I can easily access a database of millions of games...when I was a kid my "database" was games from old books and magazines that I'd copy down from the library on notepads...)

My point in all this is to be realistic and you will be able to make progress.  Be unrealistic and no one will get to tell you "I told you so" because you will just slink off into the night with your tail between your legs.

Also, the point made early on in this post that it's possible to become an IM in five years from starting to first play...yeah...ok...

Sounds like you're just mad he didnt feed into your ridiuclous dream.  World class can mean many things?? No it doesn't.  World class means exactly that, a top level GM.  Most chess players who start out at a young age don't become a GM so what makes you think you will at the age of 44.  This entire thread is ridiculous.

Dear Lionel Messi,

I am 30 years old and I am seeking your advice as to what it takes to become a world class soccer player.  I was wondering what drills you do, and what your exercise routine is.  I am willing to practice everyday.  My dream at 30 is to play in the next World Cup in 2018.  Can you help me?

mattyf9, I was going to add something similar:

How can NMs or CMs be "World Class" players, when they are playing in third division national leagues?

We wouldn´t consider a soccer player in Portugal´s third division a "world class" player, right?

"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..."

As an older player, I find this hunk of advice very compelling and on-target.  If, as the game does "open up its secrets" one is astounded at the progress, then it is time to re-evaluate.  There is always time to kick in the after-burners.  Meanwhile, revel in the fun, challenge and social aspects of the game.

For me, becoming highly rated would be going in a curious direction, as I truly enjoy being able to find meaningful competition without having to travel the world.  Although chess is the only "game" I look forward to playing (truly loving all the facets of it) I suppose it is easy to tell that my progress has never "astounded" me... Oh, well, I am still delighted that I discovered its beauty... 

This is what I was trying to argue earlier on in the thread. "World Class" in chess terms should mean 2700+

There are a lot of responses here and I admit I haven't read all of them. In my opinion, the only appropriate response to the original question is: What do you mean when you say 'world class'?

The definition is something like "among the best in the world", and within the context of chess, I've consistently heard the term used to describe super Grandmasters who are legitimate candidates for the world championship. If this is what the asker meant, then the truth is nobody knows the path and he shouldn't be asking an International Master. He's going to have to discover it himself or get advice from a world class player.

Martin's response was pretty frank, but the response given by the author of this post (working with a coach rated as low as 2100 ELO) can't possibly work unless we are using the term 'world class' in an unconventional way.

There are kids out there with NM titles or are close to them but they have a lot of exposure to chess culture, access to strong players that can point out issues immediately, and lots of time. I think it's unlikely that a 44-year old has any of those things, assuming he isn't retired or something. I don't think it's even necessary to bother debating about complicated things like peak ratings or talent. 

It's kind of like expecting to be a rocket scientist by reading some books in the library. You can learn some cool things but there are always going to be plenty of blind spots and misunderstanding of a lot of the material. I think it's a lot better to just enjoy what you are doing and improve as much as you can or want. 

Martin is correct.

I will add a person starting chess at age 44 will not even get to a national rating of 2500.

The person who responded to Martin really has no idea what it takes to get to be a world class player.

Well , what happened to that guy DAVAD265 all these time while anyway? perhaps he had given hope on chess? poor disillusion guy !

Judit Polgar was trained ludicrously hard from a very young age, her entire childhood was chess because her father wanted to make a champion... as expected she became a super-GM... but never became world champion.  So even her schedule may not be enough to win the championship in today's day and age.  And she's a genius but otherwise normal.

As more people play chess and playing strength improves (today's 1600 would be the equivalent of a CM in the late 19th century) then conditions become tighter and tighter for being world class.  Soon enough there won't be any neurotypicals (here used to mean without autism spectrum "disorder")  at the elite level (though even back in the day normal people couldn't be world class since it takes genius to reach such a level)

"I am 30 years old and I am seeking your advice as to what it takes to become a world class soccer player.  I was wondering what drills you do, and what your exercise routine is.  "

If an average athletic ability person adopted a world class soccer regimen he'd likely injure himself very badly and not even be capable of many of the drills.  Working out is a full time job at those levels simply because diminishing returns rears its ugly head the better you become, then you reach a point where it's all about maintenance. A soccer team can lose a game just because one of its members had a piece of cake or a Coke the previous day and the poor dietary choice for the moment kicks in a negative butterfly effect effecting the game's outcome. 

An interesting story.  Here's his chess.com profile:

http://www.chess.com/members/view/Mydogeatschess#games

I'll have to go through the 2+2 thread to see if he posted his training regimen.  The part that should be of interest to most adults, is that he got to 1700+ within a year of picking up the game.

Looks like he's still an active blitz player here.

Looks like the bet wasn't that he could get to 2100 after a year, but that he could train for a year and beat a 2100 USCF player who hadn't played in a decade.  Considering his strength after 1 year, I'd say that could've been a decent challenge.  Almost certainly could've done it after he got to 1900.

This was his initial training plan:

"What do you guys think are the benefits of hiring a live coach? At present I only plan to use an online site to send games for criticism, and of course I'll look at chess engine analysis. I've simply researched my own lesson plan and will gather the appropriate books and software as needed. "

I'll go ahead and offer my current study plan for digestion. I start every day with two hours of tactics puzzles for breakfast. Right now I'm using Back to Basics: Tactics and Chess Tactics for Champions, both of which I've gone through once and will do a couple more times before moving on to a more advanced set. Usually I find time to sit down for another 2-3 hours and do more. 

Midday I play at least one G/30-45 online game and dozen correspondence game moves and analyze my games for missed tactics (any move rated as -1 pawn or more by the computer). I also spend about 20min seeing where my opponent or I diverged in the opening and try to figure out why the book move is better.

For dinner, I spend spend at least an hour going through themed instructional material that features high level games. My current line up for that is Winning Chess Strategies -> The Art of Planning in Chess -> Reassess Your Chess -> Understanding Chess Move by Move. I'm going through each a couple times before moving on and am currently on my second reading of WCS.

"
Miscellaneously, I plan to play the weekly tournament at a local club every week and a large tournament once a month. I own Silman's endgame book and occasionally review it up to chapter C but probably won't start seriously with the endgame or openings for several months. I think I should get my general chess ability up there first. Programs such as ct-art have been recommended to me as more efficient but I just enjoy using books and I'm on the computer so much anyways so to hell with it. The bet is now 2 week old and I've started up seriously in chess for about 4 months. I'd say I've improved in that time such than I'd never lose to myself of four months ago."

Biological facts first: 1) neurons slow down processing speed, which is very likely what it is that makes calculating difficult for older players, including top-level players. 2) neural pathways are structured, generally, by reverse engineering, i.e., via the winnowing away of neurons when humans are infants up to about the range of 18-25; and so, given the small degree to which adults experience neurogenesis, acquiring patterns is exponentially harder for people over, say, 25.  There are other biological constraints, but I will leave it at these.

Empirical evidence:  Aside from online chess ratings, I've never known anyone to begin playing chess at or after the age of 25 and break 2000, wehter USCF or FIDE.  (Note: some rather miraculous things happen for those "late bloomers" in online chess, but no such results have been reproduced in sanctioned OTB in my experience.)  The two best stories I have are bleak, compared to numbers of other older players I've see devote serious time to the game.  I have a friend, Abe, who is nearing 2000 at 86 years old.  Spending about 30 hours per week for about the past 36 years, when he retired at 50, he has gained a solid 21 OTB rating points per year.  His current peak is 1968, I believe.  He played briefly when he was 20-25 years old, acquiring a 1200-ish rating, which is where he picked things back up, when he retired.

The other major success story is a known commodity in Cambridge.  He told me he began as an adult --a story which has found no corroboration, however--, and he pushed his rating to the 1700's by 40.  When he became homeless, he was able to push his rating to the 2100 range, but some of his results have bordered on GM performances, taking out multiple players in a single tournament who were rated 2300+ and as high as the 2500's.  If he were to play more rated games, he might be able to make 2200, but I think his results, at about 60 years old, have been spotty lately.  Keep in mind that this fellow plays and studies chess for about 14 or 16 hours daily, and I've seen him playing more than a 24-hour stretch.

Putting these stories against the two hundred other players I know, at various intellectual levels and playing strengths, who have made very little progress, I think it is fair to say that IM Andrew Martin was very kind in his comments, being so honest.  What I would expect any top player, whose livelihood rests on the minds of adults thinking that they or their kids will be GMs, to say that everyone can become a strong GM... that you just need to pay them for coaching, pay for their videos, and purchase lots of books.

Of course, we all have the opportunity to attempt to defy fate; but the proof is always in the pudding.

I recently did a blog post on Becoming a Grandmaster which might be relevant. As I'm a bit dim it took me a quarter of a century to do it...

its very sad that you left.

Pal Benko knew a great deal about chess. At his peak, he was around the top 10 in the world. He said, "I have never known anyone who started with chess after the age of 20 and became a grandmaster." https://en.chessbase.com/post/trump-kramnik-botvinnik-junge-benko Note that "grandmaster" is a lesser status than "world class," which implies that you can successfully compete with the best players in the world. The fellow who took up chess around age 40 has essentially zero chance of ever becoming a GM, let alone world class. Sorry, but that's the way it is. Older people (of whom I am one) still can learn new skills, absolutely. But there are limitations.