Play plenty of hard games against good and very good opponents, the only way to learn the game!
Achieving the NM title
Sort:
I like all the NM's comments. It's seems so far off when you start, but all NMs I guess were once beginners studying a few hours a day... after a long enough time if you keep at it, you're a NM 
I find it so amazing how hard non talents have to work to become something that say Fischer already was with very little effort. I think the only talent going for me is the ability to solve problems, and being good at math, but it doesn't seem to be specifically in chess.
Tonydal said it took him 9 years. That's quite a journey if you're working really hard. It's actually a breath of fresh air compared to all the top GM's saying it only took them a few years to become GM lol. So far I've been able to "keep at it" with patience, but it hasn't even been two years for me of serious study. I'm not surprised that many people make the goal of NM but don't achieve it.
This is why I don't shoot for such high goals. I'm in the 1700's now (USCF), and my goal is 1900. I play guys in the 1900's often enough to know what the difference in playing ability is between us, so I know I can catch up. Once I get there, I'll have to compare myself to the 2000-2100 players and see if I think I can make up that difference, then set some new goals. One thing at a time.
Fromper wrote:
This is why I don't shoot for such high goals. I'm in the 1700's now (USCF), and my goal is 1900. I play guys in the 1900's often enough to know what the difference in playing ability is between us, so I know I can catch up. Once I get there, I'll have to compare myself to the 2000-2100 players and see if I think I can make up that difference, then set some new goals. One thing at a time.
Heh, that's kind of how I do it too. I play people 200 points higher and think, I could do that eventually. Right now 2100 is about 300 points above me, and I think it's not an unreasonable goal. 2200 players seem incredibly solid, so I just don't know about that yet, but in another 5-10 years who knows 
I'm hoping I can get a NM title by the time I'm out of college. I'm 17 now but I've never played a real tournament. But I have a few aquaintences that do and I consistantly destroy them and the best amongst them has a 1850 rating so I'm hoping that would put me around 1900. Maybe I can meet my goal? I hope so.
I'll make you a deal. If you do it so will I!
FirebrandX wrote:
thesexyknight wrote:
... But I have a few aquaintences that do and I consistantly destroy them and the best amongst them has a 1850 rating so I'm hoping that would put me around 1900.
Then I guess you must be light-years better at longer games than blitz. Your rating for live is in the 1300's, and I see you losing to 1200's in many of your games. The 1800's I know and play would never lose to 1200's in blitz.
My blitz rating averages between 1750 and 1830, and yet I cannot "destroy" the 1800's I face OTB. It's usually a very difficult battle for me and my opponent.
Why go out of your way to research and then belittle a teenage kid?
I guess I would consider myself a beginner at chess. I started playing and learning theory about a year ago. I have never played in a tournament but I guess my rating from chess.com to be around 700-800. While I do own a few books and study chess regularly I have only slightly improved over the last 6 months. There are no chess coaches around my area that I know of to help me get better. I find myself constantly making mistakes and blunders.
In Israel you have to reach 2300 ICF rating to be a national master.. right now I'm 15 and my rating is 1900 which just feel so very far away.. my goal is currently 2100 in 2.5 years
FirebrandX wrote:
I'm kind of curious as to which NM you actually are, "Tony". I looked up the entire list of USCF players where the last name started with D-A-L and not a one of them was an NM with the first name of Tony.
The NM stands for natural mustard.
Zug wrote:
I earned my NM title in 1980 after having played in my first tournament in 1970. There were fewer opportunities to play back then and there were, of course, no computer databases, etc. However, I worked hard at the game and studied many books. So, I think that 10 years could be considered an average time to make the NM title if you are not some sort of chess prodigy, or at least particularly gifted for the game.
I played in my first tournament in 2007, so I still have 7 years to go! It seems so far away!
bobobbob wrote:
I am 14 years old with a USCF rating of 1570. My goal is to achieve the NM title, which can be achieved by attaining a 2200+ USCF rating. My question is, how much time do I need to put into chess every day to reach my goal, and how long will it take for me to get there? Any help is greatly appreciated!
Does anyone know if the USCF ratings based NM is still available along with the norm based Life Master?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_titles (Wikipedia article current as of 2010 06 11)
"The USCF currently gives a national title for achieving 5 norms of that level. The titles are the following: (note these are national titles and are not recognized by FIDE)"
- Life Senior Master: 2400
- Life Master: 2200
- Candidate Master: 2000
- 1st Category: 1800 (note 1st Category Titles and lower do not require the listed rating)
- 2nd Category: 1600
- 3rd Category: 1400
- 4th Category: 1200
See http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/uscf-nm-title-dead-and-quietly-buried for more details.
"Master" is still the ratings class for anyone with a USCF rating of 2200+. I'm not sure if they still mail certificates, but the norms based titles wouldn't have impacted that. They may have stopped mailing them years ago.
FirebrandX wrote:
thesexyknight wrote:
... But I have a few aquaintences that do and I consistantly destroy them and the best amongst them has a 1850 rating so I'm hoping that would put me around 1900.
Then I guess you must be light-years better at longer games than blitz. Your rating for live is in the 1300's, and I see you losing to 1200's in many of your games. The 1800's I know and play would never lose to 1200's in blitz.
My blitz rating averages between 1750 and 1830, and yet I cannot "destroy" the 1800's I face OTB. It's usually a very difficult battle for me and my opponent.
Unfortunately it doesn't say what time I normally play those games at or what I'm doing during those games. It normally consists of homework and texting my girlfriend. I can't really play "long" games because I share a computer with other people in the house and may need to get off at any given time. For this reason CC fits my needs perfectly and I focus most of my efforts there.
NihilMonkey wrote:
FirebrandX wrote:
thesexyknight wrote:
... But I have a few aquaintences that do and I consistantly destroy them and the best amongst them has a 1850 rating so I'm hoping that would put me around 1900.
Then I guess you must be light-years better at longer games than blitz. Your rating for live is in the 1300's, and I see you losing to 1200's in many of your games. The 1800's I know and play would never lose to 1200's in blitz.
My blitz rating averages between 1750 and 1830, and yet I cannot "destroy" the 1800's I face OTB. It's usually a very difficult battle for me and my opponent.
Why go out of your way to research and then belittle a teenage kid?
Um. How does that say I'm belittling him? I'm trying to set a goal WITH him. Neither of us are NMs and we would both be crushed by master competition. I'm sorry to the starter of this thread if that's the way it appeared and I'm sorry to you too nihilmonkey. In hindsite my post did seem egotistical and quite plainly wrong without a human voice and tone to back it up.
My bad.
thesexyknight wrote:
NihilMonkey wrote:
FirebrandX wrote:
thesexyknight wrote:
... But I have a few aquaintences that do and I consistantly destroy them and the best amongst them has a 1850 rating so I'm hoping that would put me around 1900.
Then I guess you must be light-years better at longer games than blitz. Your rating for live is in the 1300's, and I see you losing to 1200's in many of your games. The 1800's I know and play would never lose to 1200's in blitz.
My blitz rating averages between 1750 and 1830, and yet I cannot "destroy" the 1800's I face OTB. It's usually a very difficult battle for me and my opponent.
Why go out of your way to research and then belittle a teenage kid?
Um. How does that say I'm belittling him? I'm trying to set a goal WITH him. Neither of us are NMs and we would both be crushed by master competition. I'm sorry to the starter of this thread if that's the way it appeared and I'm sorry to you too nihilmonkey. In hindsite my post did seem egotistical and quite plainly wrong without a human voice and tone to back it up.
My bad.
You need to re-read Firebrand's post. You were the one BEING belittled.
NihilMonkey wrote:
thesexyknight wrote:
NihilMonkey wrote:
FirebrandX wrote:
thesexyknight wrote:
... But I have a few aquaintences that do and I consistantly destroy them and the best amongst them has a 1850 rating so I'm hoping that would put me around 1900.
Then I guess you must be light-years better at longer games than blitz. Your rating for live is in the 1300's, and I see you losing to 1200's in many of your games. The 1800's I know and play would never lose to 1200's in blitz.
My blitz rating averages between 1750 and 1830, and yet I cannot "destroy" the 1800's I face OTB. It's usually a very difficult battle for me and my opponent.
Why go out of your way to research and then belittle a teenage kid?
Um. How does that say I'm belittling him? I'm trying to set a goal WITH him. Neither of us are NMs and we would both be crushed by master competition. I'm sorry to the starter of this thread if that's the way it appeared and I'm sorry to you too nihilmonkey. In hindsite my post did seem egotistical and quite plainly wrong without a human voice and tone to back it up.
My bad.
You need to re-read Firebrand's post. You were the one BEING belittled.
Oh that whole blitz rating thing. I've already explained that well enough I should think. Blitz means I'm in a restless mood which means I'm not really in a state to be playing well against anybody . And I can't play long games because my access to computers is limited due to others potentially needing the shared computer.
I don't mind if he belittles me though. Internet bullying is the latest craze. He probably feels really good about himself IF that was his intent (if not then I apologize)
Eric_C wrote:
You play at the Dallas Chess Club? Wednesdays or Fridays? I play there too.
Heck, I've probably even played you.
I go to Dallas a lot. Perhaps I've seen you, but certainly not in the chess club.
Nov 13, 2010
0
#40
I like to think I could reach master level. Unfortunately, I always seem to reach burnout after about 3 months of serious play/study. So, I'm curious, for those NM and higher that talk about 7+ years, was this constant focus?
Sometimes I think the biggest obstacle I need to overcome is balance. It seems that if I could keep myself from burning out, then I would continue to improve. In the 3-4 months that I'm back in the game, I'm constantly improving and at a good rate. Then I'll take a year or two off before coming back to the game. In which time, I've just about forgotten my opening repertoire. I'm making silly mistakes again. And, I've forgotten the details of the end-game theory I had learned. Definitely have to retune my combinational vision. Its almost like starting over.
I had many other goals in chess before deciding that becoming NM was my goal. My first goal was simply to be better than a certain individual and he was a B class player. It took me 11 years to make NM but I probably could have done it in half that time if I had lived in a place like NYC where there was much more opportunity, and stronger players, than rural Georgia. For many years I studied chess much more than played it simply because there was no opportunity to play very much.
I live in Dallas so maybe I could do it in half the time...
How many hours a day did you have to study?
I was 20 and single when I started playing serious chess ( tournaments ) in 1973. I had several other interests at the time as well as a job so I couldnt spend time every day on chess. I worked on my game 2 or 3 days a week and usually 2 to 4 hours each time. I discovered that if I worked more than 4 hours I didnt seem to retain as much as when I kept it to 4 hours or less and I would always take a break after a couple of hours. Its really a very individual thing and you will have to find what works best for you through trial and error. I have talked to others who spent more hours than 4 and they did well and a few that spent less than 4 hours when they worked on chess. Another thing I found out is that if I spent 12 hours a week working on chess I retained more if I worked 4 days for 3 hours each or 3 days for 4 hours rather than trying to do 6 hours for 2 days...... again, you might find just the opposite works for you.....