That is even more ridiculous - What on earth do you mean that the average is the starting point????????? Are you suggesting that some people START playing chess at a score above others. So errr Carlsen's first ELO would have been let's say 1950????
Can an average person ever break 2000?
Sort:
Jan 1, 2013
0
#604
kiwichesskiwi wrote:
That is even more ridiculous - What on earth do you mean that the average is the starting point????????? Are you suggesting that some people START playing chess at a score above others. So errr Carlsen's first ELO would have been let's say 1950????
His first FIDE rating, April 2001, appears to be 2064.
http://ratings.fide.com/id.phtml?event=1503014
kiwichesskiwi wrote:
That is even more ridiculous - What on earth do you mean that the average is the starting point????????? Are you suggesting that some people START playing chess at a score above others. So errr Carlsen's first ELO would have been let's say 1950????
Why don't you read some of the thread instead of jumping in right and the end with comments that have been repeated at least 10 times? The main question in the thread is very simple - can an average sort of person achieve 2000? Obviously if someone is 2000 then they are not average AT THAT POINT, we are talking about average from the starting point as in - can a person who is 'average' (and let's not debate what average means again) at the start, you know a 'typical' sort of fellow, not born with genius etc, etc, put in hard work and dedication and then reach 2000. That's it. It's not much more complicated as that. There are other questions arrising such as adult learning vs learning as a child - the difficulty of adult learning etc, and pictures of cats and camels, but as far as I am aware that is the main question in the thread. (Feel free to copy and paste this post when we get to page 116 and someone says 2000 is not average.)
One year ago from now I took up chess again from my years as a kid.
In a tournament a few days ago 90 min + 30 sec I had a performance rating of 1944, beating one guy above 2000 and drawing several 1900s.
Soo I would say it's definetly not impossible for the average human since I'm pretty sure I'm not talented.
(EDIT) This is OTB LASK Swedish rating.
gfile_destroyer wrote:
ScorpionPackAttack wrote:
Here is a percentile listing of runners vs. FIDE to have an equivalent:
http://www.pace-calculator.com/5k-pace-comparison.php?pace=389
As far as the 5k is concerned a 6:29 minute mile is expert when weighed against the general public.
http://www.pace-calculator.com/5k-pace-comparison.php?pace=328
Is at high master before reaching IM, which looks about right for a 5:29 5k. Doing hills for over an hour and a half every other day is a good way of getting there, though to break through that wall I think sprinting exercises are needed.
I was looking for a FIDE percentile list, but you'd be surprised at how ineffective Google is so I had to settle for USCF equivalent.
Nice so I was a "high master" at running the mile when I was 13!
5k is much different than one mile, which is mostly just a fast running pace with a sprint at the end whereas the 5k is more about pacing.
Jan 1, 2013
0
#608
When I was in high school, I ran a 4:34 mile. I wasn't even good enough to qualify for my state's high school championship.
Right ater high school I ran a cross-country 10K in 36:02.
If you are +2000 and you are 18, you are one of the top 50 chess players in the United States for your age group.
And no, I wasn't an average runner.
I suppose I could claim I was average. Apparently that's the only proof needed by some people.
If a person reaches 2000, they have pretty compelling evidence that they are not average, either in intelligence or in motivation.
Jan 1, 2013
0
#609
plutonia wrote:
Benedictine wrote:
In terms of the other question of adults learning chess we don't seem to have any adult learners above 2000. This is a bit of a blow and I can't believe that such a person doesn't exist to break this rule as there must be someone out there who has done it at some point - though maybe if they are around they are well above average!
Well, I have my own explanation for that:
Learning chess is painful. Because at first you lose and you lose and you lose. And you know that those who beat you 100% of the times will be beaten 100% of the times by somebody that will be beaten by 100% of the times by anybody who heard Carlsen fart through a walkie-talkie.
Now that a look at our society: we want to win, and we want to win fast. We're a fast food society. Hardly anybody would have the patience and commitment to go through the long "pain period" that chess will require from an adult learner.
For a child is different: a child gets into the world and he's used to be taught from adults. If a 12 years old kid is beaten at chess by his father he considers it normal: it's the natural way of life that kids learn from others. If a 30 years old is beaten at chess, especially by somebody younger or maybe even less successful in life than he is, he will consider the experience to be humiliating. And this is because people are convinced that chess reflects your intelligence (or lack thereof). Not many reasons to withstand such "pain" just to learn a game with no practical applications.
You know why poker has become so popular? because you can win RIGHT NOW. Of course a good player will beat a worse player in the long run but anybody stands a chance to win. I myself got a full house and won a big pot in my first try at poker. That would be like one walking in a chess club and checkmating somebody with a Tactic Trainer combo. Not going to happen.
In sum, the adult learners will be really few. Out of those few, then of course the percentage of those reaching 2000 will be small so we would really have trouble finding an adult learner 2000 in a chess club.
But that doesn't tell anything about the POTENTIAL. Even if very, very few people do it, that doesn't tell us that it can't be done.
Happy New Year! I began with thoughts of a walkie talkie that needs some air.
Jan 1, 2013
0
#610
kynas wrote:
I thought anyone in his 20's is considered an adult: he can drink alcohol, drive the car and so on. But I understand your point. For me it's also ridiculous idea that a person in 20's becomes stupid, his memory on the decline and he can't learn chess.
By the way, I learn the rules at 22 and played my first classical otb game at 25. So I consider myself adult learner and even more I am self-taught adult learner. I never had any coach.
In the United States, an adult can run for President (age 35). You remain a young adult through your 40s.
I expect to hit 2000 USCF at age 52 or 53.
In the USA it seems the many people still do not know what they will be when they grow up at 40.
kynas wrote:
about adult learners - I am adult learner (started playing at 22). ok, my newest FIDE rating is 1955, not above 2000, but I guess you are talking about USCF ratings, which is lower than FIDE. So I guess I'd be above 2000 if I'd play in USA. Besides, I'm pretty sure that I will break 2000 FIDE also. My last two tournment performances were 2045 and 2108. and I hope I'm not average :)
Actually you are not. We're using the term as a short hand for someone who started learning the game after the brain has completed forming. The average adult brain stops forming sometime around the age of 25. To account for slight differences between individuals, the term is usually used for people 30 and older.
You're close, but no cigar.
jbskaggs wrote:
In the USA it seems the many people still do not know what they will be when they grow up at 40.
Because deciding on a college major is a huge commitment, and college = your parent's money. You may commit to something that will be oversaturated and therefore have trouble finding work (or if you do then be underpaid), obsolete within your lifetime, or decide between things you may not like but foresee a reasonable demand for that major, so you go with one.
Jan 1, 2013
0
#614
good to know that I still have two years until 30 when I'll become totaly stupid and won't learn anything new. I just wonder why we are keeping all those old professors in universities when they can't learn anything new and so cannot teach something new also? I guess Nobel prizes also wins only young people?
kynas wrote:
good to know that I still have two years until 30 when I'll become totaly stupid and won't learn anything new. I just wonder why we are keeping all those old professors in universities when they can't learn anything new and so cannot teach something new also? I guess Nobel prizes also wins only young people?
*sigh*
Ok, for the last time:
1) The fact that development of exceptional performance is tied to age does not mean that someone past that age can't acheive anything past that age.
2) Knowledge and performance are different -- which is why IQ is not correllated to chess performance, music performance or any other arena where performance and knowledge are segmentable. Plenty of great coaches in plenty of fields were not themselves star performers.
As far as two specific "points" you make:
Old professors very rarely started studying their field in late adulthood. You don't have the time to become a professor if you start late in life. 8-10 years to get the doctorate after you get the BS, 2 or 3 decades in post-doc positions and non-tenure track positions and then you get that tenure slot. Do the math - if you start at 35, you'll be ready to retire before you can expect to be offered a tenure track position on average.
As to Nobel Prizes -- actually, most nobel prize winners do the work they are recognized for decades later as relatively young researchers. Those that don't have spent decades in their field, which they started as young post-docs.
But basically, you are taking one statement and reacting to a hyperbolic charicature of it. You might think that's an effective argument technique, but it really is just overtly sophomoric.
Jan 1, 2013
0
#616
Kingpatzer, you have arbitrarily determined that "average adult" means any adult over the age of 30 who hasn't started playing the game.
Then you call others "overtly sophomoric".
I accept that it is possible for an adult over the age of 30 to reach 2000. I do not accept that such a person is "average". All evidence shows that such a person would be quite extraordinary.
Furthermore, brain science has shown that the brain is capable of real growth at almost any age. The brain physically changes as new information is learned, and learning can occur as long as the brain is active.
Can a fella' be "covertly sophomoric"?
SmyslovFan - I am aware of how the brain changes as one ages. I did not say the brain stops changing. I said it stops developing. And it does. The way neuroconnections forms changes once the brain is fully developed.
Jan 1, 2013
0
#619
Of course my post was hyperbolic, but hyperbole is great rethorical literary device, so I don't see anything wrong with that.
But the point is that I'm really fed up with all those pessimistic statements "it's impossible", "it's unrealistic", "you are too old", "you have no talent" and so on. Actually when I read that something is impossible to learn, it's just motivate me more to prove otherwise. Chess is one such thing and I'm very determined to improve no matter what. I think it's just some elitistic ideological statements from titled players who wants to show that they are very exceptional so "don't even think about getting close to us you patzers". That's how this impossiblity myth is created. So I don't think that saying "impossible is possible" is overtly sophomoric.
Jan 1, 2013
0
#620
kynas wrote:
... I think it's just some elitistic ideological statements from titled players who wants to show that they are very exceptional so "don't even think about getting close to us you patzers". That's how this impossiblity myth is created. So I don't think that saying "impossible is possible" is overtly sophomoric.
For the record, chess is an elitist sport. Chess rewards the player who can see more deeply and clearly, and those who can remove all distractions to focus on the game.
I'm not saying it is impossible to reach +2000 as an adult starting out. I'm saying that if you accomplish this feat, you have done something truly remarkable and extraordinary. You will have shown that you are far from "average".
Hey offer a crack head some crack and he can figure out anything.
Yes i am serious. Ever see a crack head that looks normal not the ones that are dirty and homeless. Some are even millionaires/ celebrities.