A lot of people start out playing as children, but never even approach GM though, so starting out young isn't the only requirement.
Right. It's what they call in philosophy a "necessary" but not a "sufficient" condition. :-)
A lot of people start out playing as children, but never even approach GM though, so starting out young isn't the only requirement.
Right. It's what they call in philosophy a "necessary" but not a "sufficient" condition. :-)
Good discription.
+1
Anyone can become a GM.
[I quoted the integrality of post 538]
No, they cannot.
Ok, I guess the debate is over after those compelling arguments.
Anyone can become a GM.
[I quoted the integrality of post 538]
No, they cannot.
Is this a description or a prescription?
Regarding learning a new language, it's not just about the hard work and time you've invested; it's also about from whom you learned and how determined you are.
Trust me, I tried. If where you're learning from is not good, there's no way you're gonna be good unless you're a miracle worker and somehow manage to talk like a native.
On to nerd-stuff. Studies show that adults learn better than children. It's a technique (I forgot its name) where you're given a picture and a caption where one word is in the language you're trying to learn.
For instance, I might show a photo of a dog on the street and the caption says "There is a dog on the ulitsa". Immeiately you'll know that ulitsa means street and eventually learn new words for your arsenal.
Determination
Interest
Good resources
I'm sure with enough work and opportunity for immersion upon could achieve fluency, or near fluency in a new language.
There's ample evidence that people who learn languages later in life (after about age 20-25) for the first time will almost always remain distinguishable from a native speaker even with a lifetime of total immersion. There are some idioms, expressions
No you're wrong. It's totally possible to learn a new language up to native speaker level, in only few years of efforts and starting as an adult.
I know it because I've done it.
You could distinguish my accent . . .
So, apart from the fact that you can be distinguished from a native speaker because your pronunciations involve an accent you can't change, you can't be distinguished from a native speaker, and so that means that what I said is incorrect.
Got it.
You should get off your high horse.
If you came here in the UK I bet you wouldn't be able to hide the fact that you're american because of your accent. You would still be considered a native speaker, English would still be your mother tongue.
Anyone can become a GM.
[I quoted the integrality of post 538]
No, they cannot.
Is this a description or a prescription?
Funny!
If you came here in the UK I bet you wouldn't be able to hide the fact that you're american because of your accent. You would still be considered a native speaker, English would still be your mother tongue.
Ummm, yes because I speak in a native American English accent and American English is my native language. But I would immediately stand out as not a native speaker of Brittish English. And no matter how many times I would try to change it, I'd still call a wrench a wrench and not a spanner, I'd still go on vacation not on holiday, and so forth.
So even within dialects, what I said holds true.
You can tell the native speakers from those who learned later in life.
the real question is, can you actually tell the chess players who learned later in life??
Truth hurts. I now understand why everything Kingpatzer says gives me pain. Bye GM dream!
the real question is, can you actually tell the chess players who learned later in life??
Probably not. While chess is a semiotic puzzle, it isn't itself a language, so there are limits to the comparison.
Botvinnik, Rubinstein, Lasker, Tartakower were some GM who didn't start as a kid
I'd love to believe you and hate those (kingpatzer for one) who say we can't be GM due to age but I have a book written by Tartakower himself saying he learned the game at the age of 10 and played a master level international tournament in 1905 - at the age of 18.
Yeah i can become one, might lose the wife, kids, house, car and job but i will become GM by putting all my time into it!
Yeah i can become one, might lose the wife, kids, house, car and job but i will become GM by putting all my time into it!
...or lose wife, kids, house, car and job, and play chess for money in public parks.
It's funny how all the hopelessly optimistic and clueless folks on here think that anyone can become a GM. Without paraphrasing much of what's already been said, don't you guys think that if it's that easy, you would see plenty of guys make rating jumps later on in their life? That almost never happens because the progression of chess in terms of age is similar to a reverse U curve where you learn the fastest and understand chess as a language the best when you are a kid and eventually peak out in your 20s.
Once you're in your 20s, there's life, responsibilities and a whole bunch of other things you have to deal with as well as your brain just getting dumber and slower over the years. Theroretically it's possible to maintain your current strength or maybe get a bit better but no 1600 here should ever claim that getting to GM is possible as that type of leap is just mathematically and practically impossibe. Ideal and theoretical positions are great until they are not. You don't base a possibility on that it's possible with perfect conditions - you base it if it's actually practical to accomplish. If I wanted to be a rich investment banker, talking about it all day on forums is not going to help me, I actually have to put in the work and study my ass off to get where I need to be. It's the same with chess, you won't find any aspiring kids who want to be GM's on a board like this.
And before someone starts quoting Tarkatower and any of the old legends of doing it when they're older, it's probably not a practical guide to becoming a GM as I don't know how strong they would be if compared to modern players and what qualified as a GM back in the day. Additionally, this is clearly a small sample size error and irrelevant to the masses.
I think this question should be left to individuals to answer for themselves, if they believe they can, they should find out for themselves whether they can or not.
To say with definiteness that you have knowledge beyond all doubt of what is possible and what is not, is perhaps over extending your province.
There have been many experts who have said a lot of things, if everyone listened to every one of these experts, we would still be feudal serfs drilling holes in the skull to cure headaches.
Just because we have so much information and technology we think we are at the pinnacle of know-it-all.
This question is usually asked by people who did not have a large interest in chess from early childhood and only took up the game later.
Now, with the advent of the internet and computer chess, they assume it is possible. Anything goes, these days....
The answer is no.
But, why work so hard to become a lowly GM nowadays? Even 2600 rating is nothing now.
I don't want to spend the next 10 years working my ass off in the belief I can become a GM. And if I do, become a low rated GM that nobody would care about, LOL.
I strongly believe that the best chance is in childhood. If you already show a strong interest and inclination during childhood, then maybe you can become a GM. Even a low rated one.
It is possible, but not assured.