Becoming a GM, too late?

diskamyl wrote:

That made me laugh. OK I see, but you could participate in tournaments perhaps? I think you should have reasonable chances of winning some?

 hard to say. well, of course I might win one coming in underrated, but it would take some time getting used to real pieces & live pressure. the pressure I think I could handle though, as I usually do very well in pressure. but it would probably take a few months before I could give my best.

I've played some drunken otb games with friends (1600-1800), and even though it wasn't a total disaster, it was pretty hard to see the board properly. it would definitely take some time to get used to a 3d board, and I really don't have any urge to do that.

wormstar wrote:

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).

Stereotypes don't go far. It depends where you go but I've yet to play anywhere like that. The people are all different and the age range is extremely varied. While it's true that the average age in most OTB clubs is probably 30-40, the tournaments in my area bring it down to about 15-20. In any case, chess transcends age and I don't see why this matters. Except for the prevalence of males, your other characterizations are equally foreign in my experience.

For me, socializing with a lot of interesting people is only a small part of the attraction. Mainly, it's the fact that I will be surrounded by people who love chess and take it seriously. Most of my other friends don't have a clue about chess and I can't share this passion with them. Moreover, this is real chess that makes me proud and may lead to officially recognized achievements like an Expert title. On the other hand, while online chess is fun and excellent training, it is not worth much as a representation of chess ability. There are hundreds of online chess websites with their own player pools, rating formulas and policies. In fact, when I was playing on uChess, I played White in virtually every game and canceled games if they were in openings I wasn't studying at the time or against opponents I had trouble with. Additionally, cheating is a problem and that's part of the reason why online chess is so skewed towards blitz (which is also not much of a measuring stick of chess ability). Finally, online chess is just far less competitive. For all I know, when I'm at peak alertness and concentration, I'm playing some guy in his underwear at 3:00 am in Poland while he's watching TV or browsing the web. I've actually been that guy sometimes. :p It's like the difference between playing basketball in your backyard and playing it on your school or college team (or online friends and real friends). I don't put much stock in an online rating. The player has to prove himself OTB. I wonder how seriously we would take Anand if he only played online. :P However, even if it weren't for this, OTB provides the most difficult, intense and rewarding chess struggle. Win or lose, it's the most fun I get from chess. While it's your choice, I hope you will change your mind. You're missing out on most of what chess offers if you don't play in OTB tournaments and clubs.

BTW: Online chess has its place too; I'm here after all. Most OTB players I know also play online. For example, I know a Class A player that just plays blitz and always tries different openings online. However, it is never taken in the same light as a standard rated OTB game.

TonightOnly wrote: I don't think anyone with an average I.Q. will ever become a chess Grandmaster.

I don't think IQ has much to do with it. I would wager that many, if not most, GMs have average IQs. One guy I play with really is a genius. He has an IQ of 165 and owns a software company. However despite his best efforts he can't seem to get his USCF rating over 1800. I can beat him pretty regularly despite the fact my IQ is only average.

GMs become GMs because they commit themselves to the game at a young age. 12 would be very old for a potential GM, most seem to be fully involved by 7 or 8. By the time a GM(or future GM) becomes an adult they probably have a solid decade of full time study, tournament play and professional instruction under their belt, all of which has taken place at those ages when we are best able to learn.

An interesting experiment would be to take a 25 year old, give him an experienced GM instructor and have him spend full time hours studying and playing chess for a whole decade.

exigentsky wrote:

 I get what you're saying, but I just feel differently about it. I don't care about titles, things like that don't motivate me. come to think of it, does a FIDE title cost something? because I'm pretty sure I wouldn't pay a dime for it even if I, hypothetically, made the norms.

and a rating is a rating. an otb rating is no more real than a rating from a mickey-mouse chess site like yahoo. it's just a number, it doesn't mean anything. it won't help you find a move, play an endgame correctly or stop from blundering. it's just a number, and won't affect the board in any way.

if you don't play seriously online, well that's your choice and right. but it isn't caused by the online site you're playing on, it's all you. it's like saying "I'm really a lot stronger, but I'm just moving too fast." -and I probably wouldn't play seriously in an otb tournament myself, I probably wouldn't even be sober. :)

now this type of otb action might get me interested:

http://www.blackpoolchess.org.uk/games/borchgrevink_2007_games.htm

Chigorin, Staunton took up chess being 24 and 26 respectively... playing at their level might not grant you a GM title but wouldn't be an embarassment either ;) Chess standars have gone up since, but so have learning/training opportunities.

Frankly put, quite how people learned to play in times of Chigorin, without chess engines, games databases and the Internet, is unfathomable to me.

No kidding!! :)

'and a rating is a rating. an otb rating is no more real than a rating from a mickey-mouse chess site like yahoo. it's just a number, it doesn't mean anything."

Now, be serious. This is an absolutely ridiculous claim. I even gave a handful of examples why an OTB rating would be an excellent representation of chess strength while online ones are not but there are hundreds. My online rating on ICC and other sites was close to 500 points over my OTB rating, but even with self-interest, claiming they are just as meaningful or representative is a bit too insane for me.

Moreover, rating does mean a GREAT DEAL OTB under standard conditions. Don't let your bias seep into your logic. A rating represents your performance history and that correlates with your strength very well if given sufficient time. It is in fact the only accurate and objective measure of chess strength and improvement. After all, what is improvement or strength if it does not eventually lead to better performance? I can lose all my games and be stuck at 800 and claim all day that I'm a great player and ratings are meaningless but it's in fact my claims that are meaningless. Someone with a high rating will likely find better moves and win more games given equal opposition. In fact,  Igor Khmelnitsky's excellent Chess Exam has been tested on rating groups of all levels and the higher rated players consistently do much better in all these diverse problems. Additionally, I score close to 100% against 1400s these days but the most I've gotten against 2200s are draws.

I understand that you don't want to play serious chess OTB and are not genuinely interested in improving (since you don't care about your rating), but don't disparage OTB play or the measure of ratings. Their status and meaning do not change based on your whims. It seems like you're making excuses. You are not confident in your ability for real chess and so you disparage it. It would be like me claiming that it's not that I can't become a World Chess Champion, it's just that it's a meaningless title and I'd never want it if I got it.  After all, why would I want to be forced to play long matches on a schedule against those smelly and ugly people that eat roadkill for breakfast when I can get everything out of Yahoo! Chess at any time I want? After all, it's clear I'm just as strong since I'm the best in Yahoo! Chess's beginner section. Ok, so even there I don't have the best rating, but I'm telling you it doesn't matter and I know I'm stronger than those fools. Etc. In other words, the attitude of a bitter loser that refuses to confront reality.

bowanza wrote:

OTB?

Over the Board: Rated face to face play with clocks, standard chess pieces and boards as per the rules of the overseeing federation for your country and supervised by a qualified tournament director. It usually refers to time controls an hour or longer per side (often two hours for 40 moves) but it can apply to blitz too. Although when one refers to OTB in the context of serious chess, they mean long time controls.

Vibovit wrote:

Frankly put, quite how people learned to play in times of Chigorin, without chess engines, games databases and the Internet, is unfathomable to me.

OTB?

bowanza wrote:

Vibovit wrote:

Frankly put, quite how people learned to play in times of Chigorin, without chess engines, games databases and the Internet, is unfathomable to me.

OTB?

Yes, that was certainly the principal way.

BTW: Why did you delete your previous "OTB?" post?

exigentsky wrote:

1) the elo rating system was designed to be independent of what you measure with it. hence, in statistical sense, it's absolutely irrelevant whether you measure otb or online play with it. it's just a statistical number, describing the average performance of a player's past games. it's also bound to the pool it's calcucated in, so statements like "My online rating on ICC and other sites was close to 500 points over my OTB rating" make fundamentally no sense whatsoever. you're comparing meters to feet, pounds to kilograms, it's a different metric altogether. your icc-rating is meaningful if and only if it's compared to other icc-ratings on a single variant.

2) if you like, you can think it's your rating you play with. I prefer to use my skill. it's largely irrelevant to me what some statistical number predicts about a game that hasn't been played yet. if its prediction is wrong, it'll change, not my skill. which has or has not been there all along. get your cause and effect straight. skill is what matters, not the number. rating won't help you pick a single move.

you're 1772 on RHP, I'm 1988. if you like, you can think that means you'd have already lost before move 1. I've learned that such attitude would almost certainly win the game for me. or if I thought it would be an easy win for me, then I would likely lose it. I play the board, not the rating. it would serve you well to lose that fatalist attitude towards your opponents. obstacles are there to be overcome, not to be stopped by.

3) me not interested in improvement?? right. that's in perfect harmony with me doing 100K+ tactics, studying hours a day (5h today, not finished), and playing/analysing 2-6h on a normal day. I just don't give a crap about the superficial attributes of skill. I'm in for the meat, not the dressing. if you can't understand my frame of mind, well that's just too bad. my way works for me, and I don't care about anything else.

wormstar wrote:

exigentsky wrote:

1) the elo rating system was designed to be independent of what you measure with it. hence, in statistical sense, it's absolutely irrelevant whether you measure otb or online play with it. it's just a statistical number, describing the average performance of a player's past games. it's also bound to the pool it's calcucated in, so statements like "My online rating on ICC and other sites was close to 500 points over my OTB rating" make fundamentally no sense whatsoever. you're comparing meters to feet, pounds to kilograms, it's a different metric altogether. your icc-rating is meaningful if and only if it's compared to other icc-ratings on a single variant.

2) if you like, you can think it's your rating you play with. I prefer to use my skill. it's largely irrelevant to me what some statistical number predicts about a game that hasn't been played yet. if its prediction is wrong, it'll change, not my skill. which has or has not been there all along. get your cause and effect straight. skill is what matters, not the number. rating won't help you pick a single move.

you're 1772 on RHP, I'm 1988. if you like, you can think that means you'd have already lost before move 1. I've learned that such attitude would almost certainly win the game for me. or if I thought it would be an easy win for me, then I would likely lose it. I play the board, not the rating. it would serve you well to lose that fatalist attitude towards your opponents. obstacles are there to be overcome, not to be stopped by.

3) me not interested in improvement?? right. that's in perfect harmony with me doing 100K+ tactics, studying hours a day (5h today, not finished), and playing/analysing 2-6h on a normal day. I just don't give a crap about the superficial attributes of skill. I'm in for the meat, not the dressing. if you can't understand my frame of mind, well that's just too bad. my way works for me, and I don't care about anything else.

1. Yes, that's mostly my point, although most services make modifications on their ELO system. I've explained it a bit more in my other posts.

2. Rating is a reflection of skill as well as performance and is thus meaningful after sufficient games. Of course, it is not the same thing but it will eventually stabilize accurately. Moreover, it is clear that one should always approach every game with confidence and try one's best.  

3. Based on the work you put in, you're interested in improvement. However, if you think ratings are meaningless, it all seems rather vague and immeasurable. Not wanting to play OTB seems like shying away from yet another critical test of skill and improvement (in addition to the rewarding fun that it gives). This doesn't strike me as someone who is ambitious and determined to improve. Similarly, if I play basketball in my backyard and think I'm improving, I'd want to play on a team with other people that are good and care. You remind me of one of my friends who used to practice tennis frequently but didn't want to play a game with score. To each his own, I suppose.

BTW: I've mostly blitzed my RHP games and haven't played on there for almost a year. I was just interested in evaluating various openings and improving my preparation. Now, I do puzzles from PCT on RHP (great service!). I plan to play again but with a healthier and deepr approach to CC. Of all the online chess, I think correspondence helps the most in really understanding the game and maybe improving OTB.

wormstar wrote:

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. :)

 Your words denote experience as I can attest your smart wisdom to my businesses. One thing is for sure, even if ment indirectly...obsessive I am. It surely helps learning faster, my time in business have dimished greatly because of this game.

A newly discovered passion

I'm not sure how much an average or above average agility will help in chess.

So many long answers to just say "no".

Strangely, it's motivating me to become a GM.

Perhaps of interest:

https://www.chess.com/article/view/can-anyone-be-an-im-or-gm

Also:

What It Takes to Become a Grandmaster by GM Andrew Soltis

Dont let them bring you down believe in your heart.

Possibly of interest:

https://www.chess.com/article/view/am-i-too-old-for-chess