maybe you should ask an IM on how he/she did it. you map out their path to the title. then you follow everything that they did. example: if they played # of tournaments a year, you do the same.
can I be an IM before i die?
Sort:
All this talk about studying 8 hours a day for years, etc, is banana oil, there is a point of diminishing returns, you can study all you want but if you don't have the aptitude and talent for it, you simply are not going to get much above the point your natural gift for the game has taken you. A person who has played chess for years and is 1500 can become a chess monk and study all day long for decades, he may get a lot better or he may just barely improve.
You can study until you are blue in the face, but if you don't have a talent for chess you just ain't gonna get that good. Anybody who's played OTB or spent time in a Chess Club can attest to knowing people that eat sleep and breathe chess but are stuck at 1400. (But to hear them talk chess you'd think they were 2500 players)
If you've played in 3 otb tournaments and have won only one game than I'd say your innate ability is at best average. IM FM and GM types are as noted above in the top .02 %. Play chess and have fun. Learn it well and teach someone else. Sorry little Johnny, you can't grow up to be president.
well just found out certain names which do give me a ray of hope...
Larry Kaufman became GM at 60
George Thomas became IM at 69
Edward Lasker and Norman Whitaker became IM at 75
Mario Monticelli became GM at 83
Jacquest Mieses became GM at 85
Enrico Paoli became GM at 88
just wonder when they started playing seriously, and whether they slugged it out inch by inch, or the amount of natural talent they must have had..
sky_is_the_limit wrote:
well just found out certain names which do give me a ray of hope...
Larry Kaufman became GM at 60
George Thomas became IM at 69
Edward Lasker and Norman Whitaker became IM at 75
Mario Monticelli became GM at 83
Jacquest Mieses became GM at 85
Enrico Paoli became GM at 88
just wonder when they started playing seriously, and whether they slugged it out inch by inch, or the amount of natural talent they must have had..
OMG dude they were that old when the ELO rating system was instituted and they got those ratings after the fact, they were strong GM's and IM's when they were in their 20's and 30's, long before the ELO rating system was developed. .
I'd have to check, but it wouldn't surprise me if some of those people had been long dead when they were given those ratings. Giving ratings to people who died before ELO came out is done by chessmetrics, I think it's called.
in fact i hadnt bothered to look up when they played or who they were...just found it somewhere...apologies if that was misleading
sky_is_the_limit wrote:
in fact i hadnt bothered to look up when they played or who they were...just found it somewhere...apologies if that was misleading
It was an honest mistake, I only knew it because I recognized some of the names as people being active a looooooong time ago.
If you are going to have a chance to be an IM I am guessing you will show fairly impressive results early in your chess life. Such as winning from an expert the very first game you play or winning a chess tournament early.
If you start at say 1000 and progress to say 1500 after a couple of years--chances are you will not become an IM.
[IMs correct me if I am wrong]
I think you need to create a more realistic goal for yourself. Something along the lines of breaking 1600 in 2 years is much more reasonable. It takes alot of work and study just to break 2000. Very few become master level players. Even fewer make IM and GM so posting here with a 1000 rating asking whetheror not you can acheive an IM title is a little ridiculous. Take baby steps.
Scottrf wrote:
Nobody studies their masters subject for 15 to 20 years full time either. They are in education, spending the majority of their time on unrelated subjects.
Even in university, for the majority of courses calling it full time, at least here in the UK is inaccurate. Most students don't spend anything like 40 hours a week.
To this point, if you want a master's understanding of position and attack, you build it upon a layperson's understanding of tactics and themes. If you want a Carlsenian understanding of the endgame and all its nuance, you build it upon a layperson's understanding of endgames, tactics, checkmates, etc.
All great understanding is built upon fundamentals, and those fundamentals are the first part of a lifelong committment to learning.
The academic equivalent would be that if you intend to be a NASA level aeornautic engineer, you first need a good grounding in physics. If you want a good grounding in physics, you first need a good grounding in calculus. If you want a good grounding in calc, you first need a rock solid understanding of algebra. And that, of course, goes back to arithmetic and the start of your formal education. None of which is relevant to chess, but all of which is relevant to high-level academic performance, and is the work of decades.
And no, of course not everyone approaches their education as a full time job. But those who succeed at it at the highest levels do. Once again, giving a direct correlate to chess education and performance.
Lots of people half ass their way through school, and find their way into day-to-day jobs and lives. Some regard it as an obsession, and become shining stars of the academic or professional universes. It's rare. Just as lots of people half ass their way through tactics and endgames, and after a while settle in as 1500-1800's with enough practice. But those who obsess over these things move on to greater and greater understanding and eventual mastery.
Everyone always wants to hold up their preferred field of knowledge as somehow esoteric, and to downplay the common man as incapable of greatness. The world is full of high-achieving men and women with relatively little on the ball, who through commitment or blind providence have found their way to excellence though a years-or-decades long slog.
Chess ain't no different than math or science in this regard. It's just a different path.
Strange_Idiom wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
Nobody studies their masters subject for 15 to 20 years full time either. They are in education, spending the majority of their time on unrelated subjects.
Even in university, for the majority of courses calling it full time, at least here in the UK is inaccurate. Most students don't spend anything like 40 hours a week.
To this point, if you want a master's understanding of position and attack, you build it upon a layperson's understanding of tactics and themes. If you want a Carlsenian understanding of the endgame and all its nuance, you build it upon a layperson's understanding of endgames, tactics, checkmates, etc.
All great understanding is built upon fundamentals, and those fundamentals are the first part of a lifelong committment to learning.
The academic equivalent would be that if you intend to be a NASA level aeornautic engineer, you first need a good grounding in physics. If you want a good grounding in physics, you first need a good grounding in calculus. If you want a good grounding in calc, you first need a rock solid understanding of algebra. And that, of course, goes back to arithmetic and the start of your formal education. None of which is relevant to chess, but all of which is relevant to high-level academic performance, and is the work of decades.
And no, of course not everyone approaches their education as a full time job. But those who succeed at it at the highest levels do. Once again, giving a direct correlate to chess education and performance.
Lots of people half ass their way through school, and find their way into day-to-day jobs and lives. Some regard it as an obsession, and become shining stars of the academic or professional universes. It's rare. Just as lots of people half ass their way through tactics and endgames, and after a while settle in as 1500-1800's with enough practice. But those who obsess over these things move on to greater and greater understanding and eventual mastery.
Everyone always wants to hold up their preferred field of knowledge as somehow esoteric, and to downplay the common man as incapable of greatness. The world is full of high-achieving men and women with relatively little on the ball, who through commitment or blind providence have found their way to excellence though a years-or-decades long slog.
Chess ain't no different than math or science in this regard. It's just a different path.
Some people just love to hear themselves talk.
Strange_Idiom wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
Nobody studies their masters subject for 15 to 20 years full time either. They are in education, spending the majority of their time on unrelated subjects.
Even in university, for the majority of courses calling it full time, at least here in the UK is inaccurate. Most students don't spend anything like 40 hours a week.
The academic equivalent would be that if you intend to be a NASA level aeornautic engineer, you first need a good grounding in physics. If you want a good grounding in physics, you first need a good grounding in calculus. If you want a good grounding in calc, you first need a rock solid understanding of algebra. And that, of course, goes back to arithmetic and the start of your formal education. None of which is relevant to chess, but all of which is relevant to high-level academic performance, and is the work of decades.
Decades of something like 5 hours a week. The History, English, Geography you're also learning doesn't help your maths.
And I started learning the subject I got a degree in at 14.
People with a Masters aren't necessarily the elite of the academic world. They are just the ones who chose another year in University.
Scottrf wrote:
Strange_Idiom wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
Nobody studies their masters subject for 15 to 20 years full time either. They are in education, spending the majority of their time on unrelated subjects.
Even in university, for the majority of courses calling it full time, at least here in the UK is inaccurate. Most students don't spend anything like 40 hours a week.
The academic equivalent would be that if you intend to be a NASA level aeornautic engineer, you first need a good grounding in physics. If you want a good grounding in physics, you first need a good grounding in calculus. If you want a good grounding in calc, you first need a rock solid understanding of algebra. And that, of course, goes back to arithmetic and the start of your formal education. None of which is relevant to chess, but all of which is relevant to high-level academic performance, and is the work of decades.
Decades of something like 5 hours a week. The History, English, Geography you're also learning doesn't help your maths.
And I started learning the subject I got a degree in at 14.
People with a Masters aren't necessarily the elite of the academic world. They are just the ones who chose another year in University.
Couldn't agree more. A bachelors degree today is what a highschool diploma was 20 years ago. Everybody has one. A masters is simply what you said, 1 more year.
well to sum it up.... 4-5 hours a week make it nice hobby but thats about all no need to go and hope for anything too big but if you are person that likes such goals then just try to increase ranking from 1000 to 1100 and then 1200 and 1300 and so on and you can say your chess skill will slowly improve ^^ (at least according to rankings) most improtant is that you have fun :)
SupremeOverlord, you are wrong; it is has been proven that a player who has NO talent can become a decent player, by studying and working out his or her weakness. There are some players who have natural talent in chess but even those players need to work hard to reach the next level. I had the good fortune to start serious chess at seventeen and reach a decent level, expert level in three years becoming a master has been hard for me without study. So you can see for any player there is a barrier to their progress, if they don't study.
15 hours ago·Quote·#55
well thanks for your feedback...hopefully i will finish my 4 rated games this December in a tournament i plan to play..my initial rating will in all probability be in the 1300s or 1400s max..after that will have to slug it out tournament by tournament to see where it goes..ive found out that for my first 30 rated games, i will earn double the points (and also lose double) than wat i will after 30 games..i will target a rise of 50 points every year, atleast initially through 3 or 4 tournaments every year..after if i reach 2000 or so (in around 15 years), i will have a realistic idea on whether IM is up for grabs or not..
Sky_is_the_limit, believe me if you ever become an expert, you be one the top players in your chess club, it like being GM. If you study 14 hours a week and if you study every day for two hours, you reach a decent rating of 2000 to 2100; it might take you two to three years. To become a master is more hard work, that is how tough is to be master. To become a IM, you have to dedicate your life to chess and study a lot of hours and play a lot tournament and this my friend, I have no idea how to advice you. When I started serious chess at seventeen I wanted be a GM but my dedication wasn't there. I was lazy and play in my chess club and put some put some hours studying opening, middlegame, tactics and some endgame; what I know now I would redo everything I study and concentrate on tactics, endgame and middlegame and pawn structure and deeply analyze old masters and current GM games and might had a chance for at least IM. I still working on reach master but my dedication is not there, you cannot wish for something; there are other thing like girlfriends and a job and fun. If I dedicate five hours a week to becomea master, I might of just forget about my goal, I need at least 14 hours to reach my goal in becoming master and I am very close but far from my goal because I don't give at least two hours a day. My current rating is at 2011 USCF and my highest was at 2110 USCF, maybe a little dedication and I reach a solid 2200 USCF in two years. That is my current dream master level, now has an adult but has a kid GM.
[COMMENT DELETED]
harryz wrote:
yureesystem wrote:
SupremeOverlord, you are wrong; it is has been proven that a player who has NO talent can become a decent player, by studying and working out his or her weakness. There are some players who have natural talent in chess but even those players need to work hard to reach the next level. I had the good fortune to start serious chess at seventeen and reach a decent level, expert level in three years becoming a master has been hard for me without study. So you can see for any player there is a barrier to their progress, if they don't study.
Look at some other comments by SupremeOverlord and you'll see that he is just trolling around
I am sure he is no troll, not with a name like SupremeOverlord.
It would be almost impossible for an adult of average intelligence to pursue chess as his full time occupation for 15 to 20 years without attaining at least IM status. [...]
Well, I don't mean to be rude, but obviously you don't have the slightest idea of what you're talking about.
Nor do I mean to be, but sure I do. I get it. It's a chess site, and people are going to overvalue both the difficulty and the importance of the hobby.
How many people do you know who bypassed school growing up, who bypassed a career as adults, who instead devoted their entire developmental energies entirely to chess?
I know of tons of folks who anecdotally have said things like those mentioned above. E.g., "No matter how much I study, I can't get past this hurdle."
But they don't even come close to meaning, "no matter how much." They mean, instead, "no matter how often, within the part time hobby window I'm willing to devote to chess, while still being a full-time worker/student/parent/whatever."
That kind of pseudo-rigor won't raise you to elite status in anything. You don't pick up brain surgery by tinkering around with it an hour or two a night. Even if it's "every night." You devote most of the first thirty or so years of your life to it. The people who do that in chess are the Super GM's. The rest of us are just having a fun little go at it, and using words like "talent" to excuse ourselves from hard work or deny that we could have been more with focus and drive.
As I said before, it is the general misunderstanding that playing strenght (like knowledge in most academic fields) can be increased simply by study and practice. Nope, a mediocre chess player adult can study all he wants, 25 hours per day, know the content of all his opening, mid- and endgame literature by heart, and he will still get a thrashing from IMs and GMs most of the time. Having started at an early age, and usually been provided with effective training, their "chess-brains" are far superior: They calculate in a speed that you can only dream of, have more patterns internalized than can ever be fit into the head of an adult. They are chess native-speakers with a university degree in their language, while you are a foreigner who is happy when he can follow a conversation.
Just to avoid misunderstandings: If you impose a strict chess education on a child, chances are quite good that it will become IM or GM. But we are talking about adults in their mid-twenties, and here the answer is: No way.