This, for sure. To very, very worse.
@Greekgift
We are talking about someone general 40 years old with wife, job, children. It is very different of a super talented young kid.
This, for sure. To very, very worse.
Joder! Why?
Check out my Path To Chess Prosperity series! I hope it gives you some inspiration! 
This, for sure. To very, very worse.
Joder! Why?
The bet could be about her breaking your neck before of after Easter...
@Greekgift
We are talking about someone general 40 years old with wife, job, children. It is very different of a super talented young kid.
That´s why this challenge could be interesting.
I wouldn´t bet against Magnus Carlsen, but against me... perhaps.
(ok it depends on the odds).
Wow bro if I get FIDE 2200 in a year I am happy
Greekgift, I sure you will make 2200 fide, maybe in two years or a little longer; you gauge a player by his tactics and Greekgift's TT is very high and also is blitz and bullet rating is high is the probability achieving is very good chance but the OP, no chance.
My otb rating 2011 uscf, a good goal will be 2100 uscf and I only achieve this once 2110 uscf and to do it again will require a lot hard work and that is only 90 points gain. To get 2200 it will take me two years and again that is a lot hard work and that is 190 points to get to 2200 uscf. To go from beginner to master you have to be a very talented kid, like Magnus; most of us we be lucky to get 1800 elo. In my chess club very few players ever achieve 1800 uscf and I think this is a worthy goal for any chess player, might take you two or three years, who knows really?
Almost completely impossible and definitely not worth striving for.
I completely agree, chess is not worth giving up your job, divorcing your wife and leaving children without a father; chess is a good hobby and we can get better by studying and improving but not giving up all for chess.
Improbable to achieve that in one year but we can help you get a head start via Chess University. Check out the Prodigy Program at https://ChessUniversity.com
Possibly of interest:
"... the NM title is an honor that only one percent of USCF members attain. ..." - IM John Donaldson (2015)
http://www.jeremysilman.com/shop/pc/Reaching-the-Top-77p3905.htm
What It Takes to Become a Chess Master by Andrew Soltis
"... going from good at tactics to great at tactics ... doesn't translate into much greater strength. ... You need a relatively good memory to reach average strength. But a much better memory isn't going to make you a master. ... there's a powerful law of diminishing returns in chess calculation, ... Your rating may have been steadily rising when suddenly it stops. ... One explanation for the wall is that most players got to where they are by learning how to not lose. ... Mastering chess ... requires a new set of skills and traits. ... Many of these attributes are kinds of know-how, such as understanding when to change the pawn structure or what a positionally won game looks like and how to deal with it. Some are habits, like always looking for targets. Others are refined senses, like recognizing a critical middlegame moment or feeling when time is on your side and when it isn't. ..." - GM Andrew Soltis (2012)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708093409/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review857.pdf
100 Chess Master Trade Secrets by Andrew Soltis
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708094523/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review916.pdf
Reaching the Top?! by Peter Kurzdorfer
"... On the one hand, your play needs to be purposeful much of the time; the ability to navigate through many different types of positions needs to be yours; your ability to calculate variations and find candidate moves needs to be present in at least an embryonic stage. On the other hand, it will be heart-warming and perhaps inspiring to realize that you do not need to give up blunders or misconceptions or a poor memory or sloppy calculating habits; that you do not need to know all the latest opening variations, or even know what they are called. You do not have to memorize hundreds of endgame positions or instantly recognize the proper procedure in a variety of pawn structures.
[To play at a master level consistently] is not an easy task, to be sure ..., but it is a possible one. ..." - NM Peter Kurzdorfer (2015)
http://www.thechessmind.net/blog/2015/11/16/book-notice-kurzdorfers-reaching-the-top.html
http://www.jeremysilman.com/shop/pc/Reaching-the-Top-77p3905.htm
"Yes, you can easily become a master. All you need to do is some serious, focused work on your play.
That 'chess is 99% tactics and blah-blah' thing is crap. Chess is several things (opening, endgame, middlegame strategy, positional play, tactics, psychology, time management...) which should be treated properly as a whole. getting just one element of lay and working exclusively on it is of very doubtful value, and at worst it may well turn out being a waste of time." - IM pfren (August 21, 2017)
"Every now and then someone advances the idea that one may gain success in chess by using shortcuts. 'Chess is 99% tactics' - proclaims one expert, suggesting that strategic understanding is overrated; 'Improvement in chess is all about opening knowledge' - declares another. A third self-appointed authority asserts that a thorough knowledge of endings is the key to becoming a master; while his expert-friend is puzzled by the mere thought that a player can achieve anything at all without championing pawn structures.
To me, such statements seem futile. You can't hope to gain mastery of any subject by specializing in only parts of it. ..." - FM Amatzia Avni (2008)
By the way... I have just won mathematically the first chess tournament of my live :-)
"... In a recently published issue of the journal 'Intelligence' there were numerous studies, analysis, and pieces on the 10,000hr rule. In particular, one study by David Hambrick and colleagues entitled 'Deliberate practice: Is that all it takes to become an expert', sought out to 'test Ericsson’s claim that "individual differences in ultimate performance can largely be accounted for by differential amounts of past and current levels of practice.' As a refresher, Ericsson was the original researcher who developed and then publicized the concepts, which then took off with Gladwell’s Outliers, Geoffrey Colvin’s Talent is Overrated, Daniel Coyle’s The Talent Code, and numerous others who jumped on the bandwagon with their own spin.
In there research Hambrick reanalyzed 12 studies looking at expert performance in chess and music. Similar to Ericsson’s original work, they simply looked at hours of deliberate practice for each and compared it to performance levels along their development. In the chess studies, they found that deliberate practice explained 34% of the variance in performance, and therefore 66% unexplained. Looking at the individual numbers is even more staggering. There were some people who had over 20,000 hours of deliberate practice yet never went beyond Intermediate, the lowest of the three levels (intermediate, expert, and master). Perhaps most striking, was the range of “masters” was 832 hours to 24,284hrs to reach mastery.
When looking at Music, the results were very similar. 29.9% of the variance in performance was explained by amount of deliberate practice.
The whole study is worth a read as it delves into intelligence, personality, and other factors related to reaching 'expertise.' However, the take away to me is simply common sense. Does practice make you better? Of course it does, but it isn’t the be all end all. And you know what, neither is genetics. ..."
http://www.scienceofrunning.com/2014/03/why-gladwells-10000-rule-is-just-plain.html
By the way... I have just won mathematically the first chess tournament of my live :-)
Good job! Over the board?
No, no... here on chess.com
By the way, there are a lot of discussions around OTB vs online chess. The same happens with poker...
Almost completely impossible and definitely not worth striving for.
I completely agree, chess is not worth giving up your job, divorcing your wife and leaving children without a father; chess is a good hobby and we can get better by studying and improving but not giving up all for chess.
Yuree...
This part was an ironic, a joke ;-)
Just an idea...
What do you thing would happen with your perspective about the challenge if would have said the same things but with this fictitious scenario...
- If I win the challenge I get a 10 Million US dollar price.
- I´m going to move with my family, my dog and my kids to a seven stars High Performance Center wherever we choose.
- I have a top preparation team:
A team with 7 top chess coaches (Dvoretsky is the leader of the coach team),
A mental coach
Medical team with an expert in ergogenic drugs
Sport and Conditioning Coach
A very good chef with a strict nutrition guideline
And all the best equipment needed for a super preparation and recovery
- All the leisure activities we want for me and my family.
- And so on...
Just one year - ELO 2200 or more
Do you still have the same perspective?
Stick with poker. Better money and better longevity.
Much better money but longevity... not with OTB poker ;-)