Can I become a CM/FM/IM/GM?

An_asparagusic_acid
TeacherOfPain wrote:

Ok back to the discussion juat rememeber this, I said this earlier but I believe it is true and you have wait it takes if you just do it:

@checkmateohwait, you definintley can become a CM or 2000 rated. It doesn't take superhuman genetics and crazy gifts for that. 

Yes it does take a lot of skill,dedication and most of all hard work and study. However it is more than possible for those who take the time to do the grind. It is not like you want to become a GM or IM. You just want to become a CM and arguably if most people dedicated themselves to chess, a lot would find out they could become a 2000 rated player or above. 

Yes I know I am not a 2000 rated player(yet hopefully) but I know with most things if you put the time, the grind, the study and the care you will reach that goal of becoming a CM and maybe a NM if you work even harder. 

But I will say this though, it will not be an easy journey at first especially on your level, however once you get the learning and the understanding down packed, everything else will build on itself and it will become more easier than in your first days of playing,. That is all I can say and I am saying this from experience, as experience is one of the best guides in Chess also and it will get you to better places if you learn from them properly.

 

Peace everyone this discussion is getting out of hand I said my piece, good journeys to all of you. 

Reaching 2000 isn't that hard, if you start at 10 and put in an hour of work per day.

Account_Suspended

I like the idea of playing without studying. Does a person need a PhD degree? Lots more could get one if spending enough time and money. There is this thing called life where there are other things to do, mowing lawns, picking weeds, cooking, cleaning, etc. How any of these contrived constructs provide meaning to your life is something you have to sort out.

An_asparagusic_acid
toomtoom wrote:

I like the idea of playing without studying. Does a person need a PhD degree? Lots more could get one if spending enough time and money. There is this thing called life where there are other things to do, mowing lawns, picking weeds, cooking, cleaning, etc. How any of these contrived constructs provide meaning to your life is something you have to sort out.

I would rather be poor and happy, than rich and depressed.

SNUDOO
An_asparagusic_acid wrote:
toomtoom wrote:

I like the idea of playing without studying. Does a person need a PhD degree? Lots more could get one if spending enough time and money. There is this thing called life where there are other things to do, mowing lawns, picking weeds, cooking, cleaning, etc. How any of these contrived constructs provide meaning to your life is something you have to sort out.

I would rather be poor and happy, than rich and depressed.

I would rather be rich and happy rather than poor and depressed. Wouldn't you?

An_asparagusic_acid
SNUDOO wrote:
An_asparagusic_acid wrote:
toomtoom wrote:

I like the idea of playing without studying. Does a person need a PhD degree? Lots more could get one if spending enough time and money. There is this thing called life where there are other things to do, mowing lawns, picking weeds, cooking, cleaning, etc. How any of these contrived constructs provide meaning to your life is something you have to sort out.

I would rather be poor and happy, than rich and depressed.

I would rather be rich and happy rather than poor and depressed. Wouldn't you?

Nope.

Account_Suspended

Apart from the hypothetical everyone in chess getting to 2000 which would then be an impossibility as the ratings distribution would force the issue, a 2000 rating is totally achievable for those with average intelligence, though some would have to work harder than others and starting at an early age and with a teacher could greatly facilitate it. But the greater question is why? What's the point? For some it's a big ego boost, and to others it's how they become defined as a person. To me it's not that great of an accomplishment. Knowing it can be done is enough for myself. I was there momentarily long ago and the fun aspect was gone. You could play darts and there'd be enjoyment no matter how good you get, imo.

An_asparagusic_acid
toomtoom wrote:

Apart from the hypothetical everyone in chess getting to 2000 which would then be an impossibility as the ratings distribution would force the issue, a 2000 rating is totally achievable for those with average intelligence, though some would have to work harder than others and starting at an early age and with a teacher could greatly facilitate it. But the greater question is why? What's the point? For some it's a big ego boost, and to others it's how they become defined as a person. To me it's not that great of an accomplishment. Knowing it can be done is enough for myself. I was there momentarily long ago and the fun aspect was gone. You could play darts and there'd be enjoyment no matter how good you get, imo.

My iq is 80, and I reached 2000 in 3 years, with little effort.

Account_Suspended

That's nice. You happen to have taken up well with the game. Some play Yahtzee better than others, and some who are not good at that may do better at jigsaw puzzles. There's no direct correlation with everything.

An_asparagusic_acid
toomtoom wrote:

That's nice. You happen to have taken up well with the game. Some play Yahtzee better than others, and some who are not good at that may do better at jigsaw puzzles. There's no direct correlation with everything.

My son(who has an iq of 62) became master in one year with zero effort.

Adamo011

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

An_asparagusic_acid
Adamo011 wrote:

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

@Checkmateohwait block this spammer.

RolloOrollo

Chess knowledge is very acute on the spectrum of things one could become good at. In fact, it has been proven through multiple studies that excelling at chess does not correlate with how intelligent you are.

Much like any field of study, there's:

A: The bookworm who consume the knowledge of their predecessors and excels at memorization of lines and preparation for endgames. This person is calm, collected, dedicated, and passionate about their pursuit, without allowing their emotions to get in their way. This person is on a path to becoming a titled player, though they may need to adapt and expand their preparation as opponents become tougher, and soon they will hit a brick wall of draws. The FM wall of doom. This is the line that separates type A from type B.

B: The creative player knows a few lines here and there and has enough prep to smack around some titled players and get away with it. This person never had to work as hard as the bookwork to become as good as much of their chess knowledge comes intuitively, and they take it for granted. This person never really hits a brick wall and is always finding ways to adapt to evolving line studies and trying inventive ways to create opportunities in different situations and hold difficult positions. This person, however, will find themselves lagging behind the top players because they were never really able to dedicated the time and energy the bookworms did. Which leads to player C.

C: The meta player knows how to find balance in their life and chess. They have found a type of comfort that is never lazy and always critical. They have studied all the bookworms have and more, and they are more creative than most ambitious creative players. They are familiar with all the tricks, tactics, positional concepts, how to implement them, manage their time, prepare for their opponents, remain calm and collected, retain and enhance a repertoire, train with other likeminded individuals with varying styles, and simply dedicates most of their time to the game.

You can assign your favorite titled player to one of these 3 classes. In most cases, they will fit snugly into one category of another. If you want to get there, you will have to either study your heart out with a passion or be innately genius. Either way, if you put in the time and training you are likely to make it to Expert level, or 2000. Beyond that is an exercise in patience and learning.

An_asparagusic_acid
RolloOrollo wrote:

Chess knowledge is very acute on the spectrum of things one could become good at. In fact, it has been proven through multiple studies that excelling at chess does not correlate with how intelligent you are.

Much like any field of study, there's:

A: The bookworm who consume the knowledge of their predecessors and excels at memorization of lines and preparation for endgames. This person is calm, collected, dedicated, and passionate about their pursuit, without allowing their emotions to get in their way. This person is on a path to becoming a titled player, though they may need to adapt and expand their preparation as opponents become tougher, and soon they will hit a brick wall of draws. The FM wall of doom. This is the line that separates type A from type B.

B: The creative player knows a few lines here and there and has enough prep to smack around some titled players and get away with it. This person never had to work as hard as the bookwork to become as good as much of their chess knowledge comes intuitively, and they take it for granted. This person never really hits a brick wall and is always finding ways to adapt to evolving line studies and trying inventive ways to create opportunities in different situations and hold difficult positions. This person, however, will find themselves lagging behind the top players because they were never really able to dedicated the time and energy the bookworms did. Which leads to player C.

C: The meta player knows how to find balance in their life and chess. They have found a type of comfort that is never lazy and always critical. They have studied all the bookworms have and more, and they are more creative than most ambitious creative players. They are familiar with all the tricks, tactics, positional concepts, how to implement them, manage their time, prepare for their opponents, remain calm and collected, retain and enhance a repertoire, train with other likeminded individuals with varying styles, and simply dedicates most of their time to the game.

You can assign your favorite titled player to one of these 3 classes. In most cases, they will fit snugly into one category of another. If you want to get there, you will have to either study your heart out with a passion or be innately genius. Either way, if you put in the time and training you are likely to make it to Expert level, or 2000. Beyond that is an exercise in patience and learning.

I don't fit into any of those categories, I have nonexistent creativity, I rarely study, and I play the best chess possible.

Lion_kingkiller

And a decent selection of Cheat Engines, one might presume. 

An_asparagusic_acid
LionWillCrush wrote:

And a decent selection of Cheat Engines, one might presume. 

I am only 1600 bullet.

Lion_kingkiller

What?! Obviously... you don't have automatic grade then. Kind that do moves for you...

Lion_kingkiller

LOCK.