But, just a nickels worth of free advice from me to you.. Make sure you know why you want a title. If it's so people will think you're cool on chess.com, or just in general, then you're probably going
to quit after a few months once you realize it takes work to get even 100 points much less 1200, and that when chess is just a fun hobby you'd be lucky to get there in 10 years.
Come on people. The defeatism in a lot of these posts is very strange.
The OP said "master." He did not say "World Champion" or "Grandmaster" or even "FIDE titled player."
A late starter can absolutely become a master (2200 USCF/2100 FIDE) if they have a decent study plan and are able to play good tournaments, and if they are willing to make it the primary focus of their life. Most people delude themselves into thinking they work hard at chess, but they don't.
Here's a personal tip: the MORE you play tournaments and the LESS losses bother you, the higher the level you can reach.
Hear, hear!
@OP: becoming a national master is entirely reasonable, but don't expect it to be done within a year. Chances are two or three years of decent study (read: dropping out of university, which I would not recommend) will not be enough.
If you expect to make a living out of chess, the only option to consider by a landslide is teacher. Not journalist, and even less professional player.
If you really want to have a shot at that, I would encourage you to take on some intensive study during one of your vacations. If you get bored after a week you will know that you should reconsider the career plan. Take small steps before making a huge commitment.
I think it is fair to say you can take most opinions about your ability to be a master with a grain of salt.
The nay-sayers are basing their opinions on chess BEFORE the internet. Back when your only source for information was something called a 'book'
and your only access to games were in week clubs or tournaments.
Now, unlike 20 years ago, you have access to so many more resources as well as easier access to playing chess with other strong players.
As for the age thing. There is still some truth to the older you get the slower you learn things. However, it is not as difficult as once believed. You can do a quick Google search and find plenty of examples of people who mastered skills at a 'late' age.
I think it is fair to say you can take most opinions about your ability to be a master with a grain of salt.
The nay-sayers are basing their opinions on chess BEFORE the internet. Back when your only source for information was something called a 'book' and your only access to games were in week clubs or tournaments.
Now, unlike 20 years ago, you have access to so many more resources as well as easier access to playing chess with other strong players.
Meh, I don't know, maybe you have something here, but two points against it:
1) It's a bit of information overload... even worse, much of it is not high quality info. What you really need (after you learn the basics) is access to stronger players who will destroy you and then talk about it after the game (or just a coach).
2) But even so, everyone has it easier. If it's easier for everyone, then the difficulty of getting to the top few percent hasn't changed for the individual.
You can do a quick Google search and find plenty of examples of people who mastered skills at a 'late' age.
What kind of skills? Chess skills? Sure, there are names... just be sure they weren't a phenom, rated 2199 at 10 years old, then at age 40, after a year or two of chess, broke 2200. Give me a name of an adult beginner who went on to earn a title, I'd like to know!
As for the age thing. There is still some truth to the older you get the slower you learn things. However, it is not as difficult as once believed. You can do a quick Google search and find plenty of examples of people who mastered skills at a 'late' age.
Anecdotal evidence. Everyone agrees that it is possible in that it does not violate physical laws, the question is rather whether it is plausible.
I think it is fair to say you can take most opinions about your ability to be a master with a grain of salt.
The nay-sayers are basing their opinions on chess BEFORE the internet. Back when your only source for information was something called a 'book' and your only access to games were in week clubs or tournaments.
Now, unlike 20 years ago, you have access to so many more resources as well as easier access to playing chess with other strong players.
Meh, I don't know, maybe you have something here, but two points against it:
1) It's a bit of information overload... even worse, much of it is not high quality info. What you really need (after you learn the basics) is access to stronger players who will destroy you and then talk about it after the game (or just a coach).
2) But even so, everyone has this. If it's easier for everyone, then the difficulty of getting to the top few percent hasn't changed for the individual.
You can do a quick Google search and find plenty of examples of people who mastered skills at a 'late' age.
What kind of skills? Chess skills? Sure, there are names... just be sure they weren't a phenom, rated 2199 at 10 years old, then at age 40, after a year or two of chess, broke 2200. Give me a name of an adult beginner who went on to earn a title, I'd like to know!
Thanks for your response.
I agree about the information overload. When I first began studying back in December, I was all over the place. However, since then I have learned the trick is to determine through your play and feedback from others the specific information to look for. Once you know this, you can go and find it and determine what are good sources. For example, I wanted to improve my basic knowledge of opening lines. After searching, I found ChessOpenings.com and TheChessWebsite.com both have excellent videos for openings. This was after going through about a dozen sources.
Also, when I mentioned easier access to information, I was also including things like analysis by other players on sites like Chess.com. This, I believe, is generally useful and of good quality.
It is much easier now to find 1) higher rated players who will give you good feedback and 2) chess choaches. Before, you might have a chess club you could go to, but there were a limited number of strong players who could help. And most were lucky if a chess coach lived near enough to work with.
For your point #2, I'm not sure what you are saying. A master title in chess, unlike professional sports, is not limited by available slots. It is based on a rating that anyone with the skills can achieve.
My Google reference was not limited to chess. The point was just that age does not have the restrictions people once believed. That, in fact, it is being proven again and again that an old dog CAN learn new tricks.
I have a sneaky suspicion this is going to turn into one of those skill vs talent threads.
I'll respond to #2 (because I think it's more important).
What I mean is, master is relative to the competition. If only you have it easier, then you're right, it's easier to be master than it was 50 years ago.
But if your competition also has it easier, then the situation hasn't improved compared to 50 years ago.
A better argument of that type would be to say scholastic chess pumps rating points into the system (when kids join, lose lots of games, then quit).
But actually it's more the opposite... kids with 800 ratings play in non-USCF events for 10 years and then suck out points as they're forced into adult tournaments before quitting some time in their college years.
A better argument of that type would be to say scholastic chess pumps rating points into the system (when kids join, lose lots of games, then quit).
But actually it's more the opposite... kids with 800 ratings play in non-USCF events for 10 years and then suck out points as they're forced into adult tournaments before quitting some time in their college years.
I disagree. I play in scholastic tournaments a lot, and I would almost always rather play an adult rated 1600 than a kid rated 1600. The kid is still improving. The adult most likely isn't. I do better in adult and open tournaments than scholastic tournaments almost always, and I don't think I'm an exception.
Ok, so, do I take the time to explain how you completely missed my point, and if anything you've argued in support of what I said?
Can it be called a discussion if all I'm doing to bringing _____ up to speed?
Does it say more about me or them when I'm failing to communicate?
Am I blowing it out of proportion because I'm tired and easily frustrated?
The forum is such a silly place.
On topic, I never see someone fail to follow the discussion who has a big fat rating. Is it because on chess.com the topic is often chess, so titled players have an advantage? Or is it related to something like IQ? Even kid NMs follow along. I suspect it's some kind of intelligence.
Bye.
I'll respond to #2 (because I think it's more important).
What I mean is, master is relative to the competition. If only you have it easier, then you're right, it's easier to be master than it was 50 years ago.
But if your competition also has it easier, then the situation hasn't improved compared to 50 years ago.
Right. I see what you are saying now.
Let me try and say this part a different way.
Think of Leonardo da Vinci. Leonardo stands out in history because, at the time he lived, there were very few, if any, noteworthy inventors. Part of his success was his informal education in science and philosophy. Something the vast majority of people at the time didn't have access to.
Now, look today, it happens all the time that people are inventing great things. This is due to more people with great potential having access to education and resources.
Now,with greater access to chess resources, it stands to reason, there are going to be more people who now have access to the resources they need to exploit a possible 'talent' than there were before.
A better argument of that type would be to say scholastic chess pumps rating points into the system (when kids join, lose lots of games, then quit).
But actually it's more the opposite... kids with 800 ratings play in non-USCF events for 10 years and then suck out points as they're forced into adult tournaments before quitting some time in their college years.
I disagree. I play in scholastic tournaments a lot, and I would almost always rather play an adult rated 1600 than a kid rated 1600. The kid is still improving. The adult most likely isn't. I do better in adult and open tournaments than scholastic tournaments almost always, and I don't think I'm an exception.
I think he's agreeing with you.
He isn't
ARGUE!
He isn't
ARGUE!
Why is it it's always the little dogs trying to stir the crap?
Bordom, got tired with the bone
@ Jimmykay
Ok, here we go. Found a couple of minutes to look some stuff up.
My reactions/posts were to post #1, #3 just below it and the thread title. I did miss # 18. But as I said I was doing a lot of stuff at the same time. Can't go through each and every post on each thread. "wow, that was lazy of you" was totally uncalled for.
- The OP was clearly talking about improving as a chess player and about ratings and about "maybe" becoming a master (in post #1 and the thread title). So you say he was talking about becoming a NATIONAL master. He simply never said that. Before post # 18 that is, which I missed.
It's not what he started out with and not what I reacted to. He came up with that 15 posts later.
- I said zilch, and I mean it. I couldn't find the number of titleholders in the world but I did find that in januari 2014 there were approximately 1450 GM's in the world. Which probably translates into 4-6000 IM's and tens of thousands of FM's. Cm's and NM's? God knows how many. Must be like a 100.000 (If all federations use them, something I'm not sure about. Once I read a stat that said that over 80% of chessplayers were from the former Soviet-Union). If you know or can find the numbers please tell me. But the point is there are a lot!
If having a title is supposed to be something special, then they shouldn't hand out a title with each carton of milk you buy in the supermarket. (no arrogance intended) At the rate they're going now it means absolutely nothing to have one of the lower titles. (yes, including FM and maybe even IM).
Personally I feel they should just abolish all titles and just work with the GM title which still means something. Let's not forget that I come from an era when there were only something like 200/250 GM's and about 600 IM's in the world. It was something really special back then. When I reached my peak at around 2500 FIDE I was just inside the top 100 for a very short while. (world class players where just above 2600 back then). Nowadays with all the rating inflation you would probably not even be in the top 2500 with that rating. Correct me if I'm wrong.
- In the countries I played in I always played highest division and mostly in the best teams. (lets say top 3-4 teams) So yes, my clubs were always filled to the brink with 2100+ players. Giving you a list of the clubs I played? I don't think so, lol.
- False modesty? Nonsense! I'm not modest at all and nor should I be. I simply used my FM title to get full access to all the options in this site without having to pay for it. Why not? I even played here for 2 years without revealing to them who I was. Nothing to do with ego or anything at all. I only made myself known as an FM a few months ago.
- The incorrect reasoning was about that you said: "I agree that his goal of reaching NM is small. That was not his question. It IS possible. Becoming a GM? 100% impossible." You used 100% impossible which is nonsense. If he could become the one why wouldn't he by off-chance not be able to become the other. I said "EXTREMELY small" Just to allow for the off-chance we are dealing with a late-bloomer.
NR.
ps. This took a looooong time to look up, sort out and react too. Let's both keep the posts a bit shorter next time. This is costing me way too much time, thank you.
I can get there, right? I am mid-1400s USCF and age 15.
Being on the forum won't get you there.