Becoming a GM, too late?

Let's say that you have 26 years of age, you have an average I.Q (as far agility goes) and you also have a fulltime 10-12 hours local business.

 How much do you think someone with such average background would take to become a Master at chess, perhaps a GM?

Perhaps a stupid question, but an interesting one for the ones who started early. Master title will be great, just obsessed with the game lately and the obsession keeps growing. So far 1 hour a day are all my studies without prior learning.

Your thoughts?

Nocturno> How much do you think someone with such average background would take to become a Master at chess, perhaps a GM?

A GM? Never. I am sorry, but that is the truth. An NM? I think you would need to spend more than 1 hour/day (so the original question is moot) but it's possible you could eventually reach this level if you make chess a priority.

  I think grasshoppppper you should first focus on A. what your rating is...

   I don't wish to get into your the content of your post for I see no reason for it.

   An average player should rise 100 points a year in rating if progressing... 

 All this jazz about iq, and hours spent is nice but one must start at point A...

 if your point A...  is a rating of 1500 then I would play allof of chess club chess and review your games, play diffrent times, read books, and study moves from the masters....

    If in a year you are 1800 level, well I think your post has some merit to it...

this would be odd... but see it's not the total picture... one may jump 1 time

in rating and then level off never to climb 1 more point...  see this is why years

are taken into account for all aspects of the landscape of chess and the pathway to becoming a master... let along GM...  So, my friend... I would tone down your post and just try to play strong at where you are now... be blessed if you reach

1800... ( and play at that level i.e in tourney play )   and every 50 points in rating you gain from there... I would keep doing what works... i.e tearing apart games

from the best in the game... your own games, reading books, playing often...

etc... good luck...i.e if you get to 2000 it could be shocking... see the other

700 points to becoming the worlds best are brutal points... it's so very what open, was 15 moves ahead you saw, photo graphic memory etc...

 - in fact if you just read about the subject of what it takes to become a G.M

I think your post would be presented diffrently...

Appreciate the replies. Indeed a dumb question, however, it seem to trigger the right answers. Wanted some opinions quickly, appreciate your time guys.

Thanks,

JM

If you care more about the title than about the game you are playing, it will never happen.  Try to just have fun and if you never get your title you still will have done your best.  At some point you may also have to decide whether your main passion is for chess or a special someone ...  The odds are against you.

AnthonyCG> It is possible to become a GM at any age but you've gotta be able to invest a lot of time into it. I think that somewhere along the lines we forget that we can do anything if we put our minds to it and have the tools to succeed.

I can't think of a single GM who begain playing chess at age 25+, and many have tried very hard and failed to achieve the title. So while I concede anything may be possible, the odds are stacked very heavily against it.

well,i believe in chess you seek your own level..and have  fun with it,i have seen way to many people chasing that dream and end up with zip,anyway there are alot of 10yr[and younger] ... playing the game now that will make you want to take your board  to a corner by yourself.my personal experince i lived there where you live went to PAPA JUAN XXIII,played chess in school was good,never studied much got into the va state tournament won unrated state,thought i would study but i quickly realized no matter how high you go there is somebody better,so i just play with the computer now and enjoy talking a good game,in short put your time into learning a skill  that pays and just play for fun.......hope all goes well 4 u.manny

I know many club players who are extremely dedicated to the game (books, videos, GM coaching, tactics etc.) and have played for 25 years and never achieved an Expert title, let along any Master title. Surely the average person can go from Class D to C and from C to B with sufficient effort. However, it gets progressively harder after that. It is much like school grades in this respect. Thus, while I wish you the best of luck, I am skeptical about your realistic prospects. However, chess is a fantastic game and one's skill shouldn't compromise the enjoyment and challenge (above Class D anyway). Similarly, I play tennis frequently and enjoy it without aspirations of breaking into the top .01%.

BTW: Of course, chess is a game of perfect information and entirely in the realm of the mind so the heights of performance must have a connection to at least some phenomenal and specialized intelligence. After all, many have tried to become GMs and very few have succeeded. Still, while I'm sure that most GMs have an above average IQ, it is not a sufficiently complex test to accurately predict chess potential. Thus, don't let that worry you too much.

likesforests wrote:

AnthonyCG> It is possible to become a GM at any age but you've gotta be able to invest a lot of time into it. I think that somewhere along the lines we forget that we can do anything if we put our minds to it and have the tools to succeed.

I can't think of a single GM who begain playing chess at age 25+, and many have tried very hard and failed to achieve the title. So while I concede anything may be possible, the odds are stacked very heavily against it.

 while this is true, there is always a first,who know?

you could get blind when u look into the internet by the way when u want to spend time internationally besides u can only see games on the internet any way

Well with to many losses in a day of chess game, it will be even more difficult. Either way, it's all about pushing your mind into great limits with the game, loving your improvements and like Susan Polgar says in her brilliant mind; "growing genious by getting nurtured with the play"

One fascinated thing notice, is how time can control a mind. Not from my competitors, but by just playing 10 minute games. The urgency in moving, even if you're a beginner and the motivation a rating can do over your learning.

Lots of magnificient phychological factors in play, just like in business. I know this for sure, if this were to be my career - I will probably go broke! Either way I yet don't know a International Master or grand master that has become multi-millionaire from such game or art in the game. As experience go(my opinion), I just it just depends how deep you want to go in the game and how personal you take the game for scaling up your game play to higher achievements in the chess industry.

Sport or art, it's lovely - and it's a pleasure playing with a bunch of people here.

Oye Manny123, I hear you buddy...tremendo juego eh. Que bueno que hay un puertorriqueño a gusto con mis posteos. Definitivamente crecía la curiosidad en preguntar.

Anthony CD, kco...thanks for confirming on the facts. Wanting the grandmaster glory and the joy that comes within such achievement will mean at my age; no marriage. No kids when the time comes. No "Lost", "Nip Tuck" or "Jericho" time and time again, and very possibly - less sex. But then of course disregard the last one

Time to up the ante with the training. Time is controlling me....erg.

All I can say to you is Work hard. If you have a job, use your spare time to study chess. Get to the ranking events and try and do it. It is no use sitting at home thinking if I put the work in I will be Great. You need to get up and do something about it. But If you fail to reach your goal, you know that you tried your hardest...

it's no different than starting to pursue a Phd at adult age, from scratch. not many do pull it off, but there are no real reason why it couldn't be done. sure it's easier to start the education process as a kid, like everyone else, with no family, job, or other distractions of adulthood. but it doesn't mean it's undoable. it's just knowled & experience, like anything else, and a staggering amount of it.

every single non-progressing amateur I've met slacks off on training. an hour a day is nothing, two hours a day is nothing. it's comfortable, sure, but it's not even close to being enough. in school terms, it gets you through high school, barely. not even close to enough to survive at the 'college level' of chess, not to mention getting your 'Phd' of chess. people simply underestimate the amount of daily work needed. by a huge margin.

I started chess at 30, three years ago. I'm getting at around 2000, and I've only scratched the amount of straigthtforward basic chess knowledge. I've still got huge areas to cover, I'm not even close to getting where the 'talent' comes to picture. there's no mystical hidden knowledge, no deep complicated truths which can be learned only by geniuses. it's just basic hard labour, getting trough the huge amount of 'required knowledge', and mastering it all one thing after another. no tricks, no shortcuts, just simple grueling work.

how did I get here? well I put in more hours daily than anyone I know. and yet, I'm not even close to the work load the masters put in. not even close.

young kids have one thing going for them, their brain learns slightly faster. but us adults have a far stronger advantage, we know how to study efficiently. we can teach ourselves anything far faster than a kid, they're not a match for us. a kid learns a language fast without trying, but he'll still take 15 years to be able to convey anything meaningfull with it. it takes a week to reach the verbal level of a kid in any new language, and in a year an adult can write a philosophical essay. kids are still at 'I like cats' level after a year, it's not that amazing when you start thinking of it, really.

it all comes down to will power, and no one can help you with that. IQ, talent or age, none of that matters. you either can sit your ass down and study the required amount, or you won't make it.

and it helps if you're an obsessive person, a nutcase. 'getting to GM' is not the thing to obsess about though, 'getting better' or 'knowing it all inside out' is. you need to be obsessing about the journey, not the destination. or you won't have the motivation to keep it up daily for the 10-15 years it takes to become a master (even if you started at 5 years old like all the teenage GMs have).

rant over. :)

Unlike many school subjects and getting a Phd (at least in the "softer" subjects), it may not be just about studying more and working harder. At a certain level in chess, you may just reach your maximum level of trainability and simply plateu. With enough training, improvements will still come but they will be negligible and won't be enough to push you to the next level. Still, we should all try to better ourselves.

BTW: A 2000 rating is quite unbelievable given your circumstances. I don't know anyone who jumped to 2000 three years after they learned to play (at any age). Is this OTB at long time controls? If not, please don't confuse real ratings with online ratings. I was just barely 2000 on ICC several times (mostly playing 10 7 or 8 10) and my first official OTB rating (after 25 games) was about 1500.

exigentsky wrote:

Unlike many school subjects and getting a Phd, it may not be just about studying more and working harder. At a certain level in chess, you may just reach your maximum level of trainability and simply plateu. With enough training, improvements will still come but they will be negligible and won't be enough to push you to the next level. Still, we should all try to better ourselves.

BTW: A 2000 rating is quite unbelievable given your circumstances. I don't know anyone who jumped to 2000 three years after they learned to play (at any age). Is this OTB at long time controls? If not, please don't confuse real ratings with online ratings. I was just barely 2000 on ICC several times (mostly playing 10 7 or 8 10) and my first official OTB rating (after 25 games) was about 1500.

 I'm not at 2000 yet, but getting there. you already know me as wormwood from rhp (if you're the same exigentsky), so you probably have an idea of my backgound. - I'm not talking about otb, in which I have absolutely no interest in, but correspondence chess.

diskamyl wrote:

... But having absolutely no interest? Why?

 bunch of borderline mental, sweaty, overweight, middleaged guys in a room, smoking, mostly drunk (in other words, guys like me, minus the smoking). somehow I fail to see the attraction.

and it's not that I didn't drink a lot myself, or that I cared about anyone's weight, but you know, I can't really see any reason why I wanted to be there. to discuss chess? I do that all day already. to study? I never was one for the group things. to socialize? I prefer to do that with close friends, none of whom share my addiction (not that I didn't try to infect them, but they're simply not interested, I'm sure we all know how that goes).