Madhacker there's no example of a person learning the game after age 30 becoming very strong. I'm willing to learn of one if you know of someone, but frankly, it just doesn't happen.
Can an average person ever break 2000?
Sort:
No.
Bluebird1964 -- I'm sorry -- cite some literature, give me teh scholarship showing your claim has any merit. You are making a claim that is frankly extrodinary. Either you have proof of that extrodinary claim or you don't. If you do not then everyone has an epistemic duty to disbelieve you.
I'll give you some references your claim would need to refute:
Campitelli and Gobet: "Deliberate Practice: Necessary But Not Sufficient," Current Directions in Psychological Science
Research specifically related to chess where researches looked at what common links in determining high levels of performance. Cognitive abilities and age of skill acquisition are shown to be important variables in determining final performance along with deliberate practice.
Ericsson adn Ward: "Captureing the Naturally Occuring Superior Performance of Experts in the Laboratory: Toward a Science of Expert adn Exceptional Performance" Current Directions in Psychological Science
It is noted that the necessary adaptions required to obtain superior performance are age related.
Ericsoon, Prietula and Cokely "The Making of an Expert" Harvard Business Review (A summary of current research)
"
So what does correlate with success? One thing emerges very clearly from Bloom’s work: All the superb performers he investigated had practiced intensively, had studied with devoted teachers, and had been supported enthusiasti- cally by their families throughout their devel- oping years."
Ericsson "The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise adn Expert Performance," 2010
900 pages of articles from 100 different scholars looking at what makes for expert performance.
I could go on (and on and on) but hopefully you get the point.
This isn't an opinion issue. You are factually, demonstrably and clearly wrong -- and without evidence to actually back up your statement, people need to ignore you.
Ah, so you are making a claim about the cognitive ability of the population but you want to do so without any actual evidence and by wilfully ignorning all existing scholarship and data on the topic.
Got it.
Bluebird1964 wrote:
Kingpatzer - no people need to ignore you.
Is this, like, "no people" need to ignore you, or "no, people need to ignore you"?
So is age a barrier to getting 2000? I certainly hope not 
Bluebird1964 wrote:
All the existing data is being proved wrong by your own scientists Kingpatzer and I quote:
"Recently, researchers have found that brain, as it traverses middle age, gets better at recognizing the central ideas, the big picture. If kept in good shape, the brain will continue to build pathways that help its owner recognize patterns and, as a consequence, see significance and even solutions much faster than a young person can.
The trick is finding ways to keep brain connections in good condition and to grow more of them.
“We were wrong, the brain continues to change, not getting bigger but allowing for greater complexity and deeper understanding,” says Kathleen Taylor, a professor at St. Mary’s College of California, who has studied ways to teach adults effectively. “As adults we are able to learn just as fast and be set up for this next developmental step.”
Today's your birthday AND doomsday! Anyway, what you say may be true, but I still think youngsters have an edge.
Dec 21, 2012
0
#169
Bluebird's argument can be summed up: I can do it therefore anybody can do it.
Adrian Peterson has run for 164 yards per NFL football game in the last four games. Since he can do that, an average person should be able to rush for at least half that, shouldn't they?
Bluebird has not shown that he is "average" in any way. In fact, he has shown that he's anything but average. He may not be Adrian Peterson, but then I'm not sure that AP is human.
You haven't heard me say someone can't learn effectively. You've heard me say that adult beginners can't reach the top quintile of performance in a field reliably.
Adult academic learning is not the same as adult's seeking expert skill development. You can be an 'A' student as an adult. I haven't denied that.
But you won't win the Nobel Prize if you start studying physics at the age of 30 for the first time.
Ericsson outlines the specific question about what constitutes expertise in a field.
Bluebird1964 wrote:
Conflagration Planet - youngsters have an edge? Why because they wear nappies and suck their thumbs. Chess is also a psychological game and I know of several good players who HATE playing kids.
Its all in the phycho, ignore they are kids and play the board.
Their insecure egos can't stand losing to a kid, cause they can't think logically enough to play the rating, not the kid. But what I was saying is that there is always an advantage in starting young. They've proven it with language learning ability. Though, that's not saying adult brains aren't more elastic than they used to think.
Bluebird1964 wrote:
Look I agree completely that learning at a young age has massive advantages but just because we are old or older we are not ready for "carousel" Im 48 and I feel fine both health and cognitive functions!
I also agree that adults aren't the hopless cases they used to think they were, when it comes to learning new skills.
i thought uk was usa and planet,WHY????!!!!!
etc2000chess wrote:
i thought uk was usa and planet,WHY????!!!!!
Cause kids brains are still growing, and able to adapt very quickly.
I recently came across the term dysrationalia and it reminded me of this 
All you AVERAGE losers need to stop thinking you're going to be masters. Masters are masters because they are masters. Average players are averages players because they are average players. Masters cannot become average players, and average players cannot become masters. An average player playing masterfully is no longer average, and a master playing averagely is no longer masterful. It is imperitive that all you masterfully average morons stop pretending to be more than average and believing that you can achieve masterhood through average means. It takes true mastering to become the master average that most average players try to master. It CERTAINLY isn't 2000 because that's a round number.
Bluebird1964 wrote:
Any average player can become an IM with effort.
If he or she works like a dog for 2 - 3 years (and I mean 6 - 8 hours a day), develops a very sound opening repertoire as black - has a balanced repertoire with white (be prepared to play lines to try and seize the initiative) you WILL succeed. Im a 2300 FM and to be perfectly honest in 1989/90 had I "pushed on" I would have made GM. Now I am going after my IM title which I will get within the next 2 years. So yes, if you put the time in you will be rewarded.
FM Robin Moss
http://ratings.fide.com/id.phtml?event=401331
I doubt seriously you will make IM in 2 years given this graph of yours that shows how little you play . It appears that you didnt play for several years then in 2003 after making FM and a 2300 rating you dropped your rating in your very next event and havent played since then .
DippinChicken wrote:
All you AVERAGE losers need to stop thinking you're going to be masters. Masters are masters because they are masters. Average players are averages players because they are average players. Masters cannot become average players, and average players cannot become masters. An average player playing masterfully is no longer average, and a master playing averagely is no longer masterful. It is imperitive that all you masterfully average morons stop pretending to be more than average and believing that you can achieve masterhood through average means. It takes true mastering to become the master average that most average players try to master. It CERTAINLY isn't 2000 because that's a round number.
It's obvious by your average reading and comprehension skills that you either did not take the time to read the posts before commenting or just didn't understand them. Perhaps if your totally average rating where above the 2000 mark your statement would carry some wieght. 2000 being just a round number and all it should be no problem for you to cross. Think thats something you can master? if not why, enlighten me with your average insights and above average means...
I wonder if the "nobody who started beyond 30 became a master" cannot be documented has more to do with lifestyle choices rather than ability. Adults who start a new hobby while in the busy height of work and family probably will not be able to pursue chess at the same way a kid can. To switch from harried dad, over worked employee, and flustered spouse to fulltime dedicated chess player would be hard to say the least.
It's easier to learn new things as a child, not just chess, anything. This is well known and widely accepted. Think, for example, how much more quickly children pick up new languages than adults do.
So it is a disadvantage to have learned chess as an adult, but not neccessarily one that can't be overcome. There have been a few examples given on this thread of players who learned as adults and became very strong. It could be asked whether they would have been even stronger if they learned earlier. Possibly, but since there's no way of testing this without a time machine then it's a little academic.