Svidler's advice:
Read as many books as you can, and play in as many OTB tournaments as you can.
Not as many as you like, but as many as you can.
Can I become an I.M. in 12 years?
Sort:
Oct 30, 2022
0
#3
llama36 wrote:
Svidler's advice:
Read as many books as you can, and play in as many OTB tournaments as you can.
Not as many as you like, but as many as you can.
Thanks! I'll keep this in mind.
Oct 30, 2022
0
#4
yea seeing ur current level u need to really work hard its hard but not impossible!
Oct 30, 2022
0
#5
solve puzzles and a book i would recommend is how to reasses ur chess by jeremy silman 4th edition u should definitely read that one
Bro I don't want to trash talk, but I saw your profil and in no world you can be IM in 12 years, even if you dedicate your life to that goal
Just enjoy your games, play a lot, try yo improve step by step and we'll see ! (best advice I can give you : don't waste your time into theory studies)
Oct 30, 2022
0
#7
indigorose83 wrote:
I'm 17 years old now and want to become an International Master one day. Is it reasonable to try to get to this level before 30 years old? If so, how long should I practice each day and what should that practice look like? Any info would be appreciated.
Can you? It is possible. Will you? Statistically, no probably not. If reaching that title is an ambition of yours then I believe you can do it and 12 years is a reasonable amount of time to get a chess title (general consensus seems to be that titled players typically get a their title after 10+ years of hard work on their chess if they get a title at all).
We must realize just how unlikely it is to get a chess title. Less than 1% of all chess players are titled players and all GMs and IMs COMBINED make up less than half of 1% of all chess players! There are also more billionaires in the world than chess Grandmasters, so I guess it depends on where your priorities are at. Unfortunately, chess players don't make much money at all and really only the top 100 chess players in the world or so actually make enough money on their chess skill alone to make a living at chess. This is why even accomplished chess players (even titled GMs) usually supplement their income with writing chess books, selling opening courses and offering chess coaching.
The chess players lucky enough to be titled typically get there because they LOVE chess and their hobby is where they devote their time and they become very strong as a result, but even GMs usually have "real jobs" to support themselves and chess is only their hobby or side income.
Can you become an IM? Technically possible and 12 years is a realistic timeline if you work super hard on your chess from now until then. However, 12 years is also a long time with lots of potential for things to change between now and then. Becoming titled isn't only about pure ability, but also having the ambition and drive to keep pursuing chess that competitively for that many years. You might be super motivated now (great!), but maybe 5 years or 10 years from now, your views on chess will shift slightly; not to say you'll give up the game or even give up playing, but maybe you'll be studying chess less often and prefer to invest your time into other things (school, job/career, family/marriage, other chess related things like chess writing/chess coaching or other non-chess hobbies etc.)
I feel like most just don't comprehend just how much work and effort it takes even talented players to earn a chess title and if you aren't naturally talented, then it takes even longer and even more work. When most realize this, they might decide the title isn't worth the effort and maybe it isn't worth it for most people, but for some people with a dream, it is still worth it to them and some of those people with that dream do become titled chess players 
I am not trying to discourage you; on the contrary, you can do it if you work enough towards your goals Besides, even if you never get a chess title (either by choice or lack of ability), you can still become a strong and successful chess player.
The average chess rating depends on player pool, rating system, chess organization and so on, but generally the "average" chess rating is about 800-1200. The chess.com global 50 percentile for rapid is currently in the 700s (close to 800). This means that on the largest chess site in the world (chess.com), of the active accounts for rapid (active meaning played a game within the last 90 days), a rating in the 700s at the 50 percentile means you are higher rated than half of all chess players in the world and also worse than half. We must keep in mind that this rating is skewed down a lot because there are MANY more children and beginners learning the rules of chess than there are titled chess players (and this brings down the average), but still. If you are able to reach 1500 chess.com rapid rating, that is something like 90 percentile or 95 percentile (I don't remember exactly). This means that 1500 is higher rated than 90-95% of all chess players in the world. This rating alone would be a massive accomplishment.
Granted, chess players who play in real chess tournaments are generally higher rated than your casual online player or coffee shop player, but regardless, the average chess rating is surprisingly lower than most expect.
The problem (and this is sort of a problem) is that most players don't really understand chess. Sure, they might know the rules, but what I mean is most players don't possess the high ability to look at any given chess position and be able to rattle off their thoughts on the evaluation and plans for each side ("understanding" the position). The level of understanding that requires is probably 1800-2000 level and even this won't get it perfect each time.
Without high accuracy standards for "correctness", I'd estimate that even a 1600 player possess enough positional insight to be able to list plans for both colors fairly accurately in any given position; they will be wrong a good amount of the time, but this is a judgement call on interpreting the position rather than lack of explaining how they arrived at their conclusion. The reason I deem this a problem is because if "understanding" chess on a proficient level requires 1800+ chess rating (estimate), then this means that roughly 98% (or however high 1800 percentile is) don't really understand chess! Sigh. It is a shame, but don't misinterpret what I say: even lower rated player "understand" somethings and some positions. Their limited understanding might still yield an appreciation and enjoyment of the game (and motivate them to keep learning and improving). It is just that the majority of chess players lack the ability and knowledge to correctly "understand" and evaluate most chess positions.
Oct 30, 2022
0
#8
ActionVolt wrote:
solve puzzles and a book i would recommend is how to reasses ur chess by jeremy silman 4th edition u should definitely read that one
How To Reassess Your Chess 4th Edition (Silman) is a chess classic and highly recommended. I've read it cover to cover and it is a quality book. I would however caution beginning with that book though. The book positions (diagrams presented like puzzles before explained) are rated 1400-2200 level (if I recall correctly, but it might have a few 2300, or level 2400 puzzles or something). I wouldn't recommend the book to anyone below 1400, since this is the level of the "easiest" positions (unless the reader was below 1400 rating, but likes challenging content and doesn't mind re-reading the book again when they gain more chess understanding). This is still a great chess book though
Oct 30, 2022
0
#9
KeSetoKaiba wrote:
ActionVolt wrote:
solve puzzles and a book i would recommend is how to reasses ur chess by jeremy silman 4th edition u should definitely read that one
How To Reassess Your Chess 4th Edition (Silman) is a chess classic and highly recommended. I've read it cover to cover and it is a quality book. I would however caution beginning with that book though. The book positions (diagrams presented like puzzles before explained) are rated 1400-2200 level (if I recall correctly, but it might have a few 2300, or level 2400 puzzles or something). I wouldn't recommend the book to anyone below 1400, since this is the level of the "easiest" positions (unless the reader was below 1400 rating, but likes challenging content and doesn't mind re-reading the book again when they gain more chess understanding). This is still a great chess book though
yea it has some advanced positions u need to get around 1200 to start reading and improving from that book and avoiding 1 move blunders
indigorose83 wrote:
I'm 17 years old now and want to become an International Master one day. Is it reasonable to try to get to this level before 30 years old? If so, how long should I practice each day and what should that practice look like? Any info would be appreciated.
Join a chess club. In person - preferrably.
Find an experienced, master-level coach (or make friends with some higher-level players who are willing to help you).
Go to the library, and grab whatever beginner-level chess books you can find.
Or go on YouTube, and watch whatever beginner-level instructional videos you can find.
The secret to chess improvement isn't practice - it's active learning.
Practice (through trial and error alone ... which is just playing games and trying to improve from your losses) is the slow path to improvement. It's neglecting all the available knowledge that's currently out there - ideas that have already been figured out by master-level players.
If you want to accelerate that path, your goal should be to actively learn, so that when you play, you are specifically practicing the things that you've studied ...
Oct 30, 2022
0
#11
IronSteam1 wrote:
...Join a chess club. In person - preferrably.
Find an experienced, master-level coach (or make friends with some higher-level players who are willing to help you).
Go to the library, and grab whatever beginner-level chess books you can find.
Or go on YouTube, and watch whatever beginner-level instructional videos you can find.
The secret to chess improvement isn't practice - it's active learning.
Practice (through trial and error alone ... which is just playing games and trying to improve from your losses) is the slow path to improvement. It's neglecting all the available knowledge that's currently out there - ideas that have already been figured out by master-level players.
If you want to accelerate that path, you're goal should be to actively learn, so that when you play, you are specifically practicing the things that you've studied ...
Agreed. Joining a local chess club for OTB chess (unrated club games as well as rated tournaments/events) can help a lot for gaining experience as well as giving you people to interact with and ask questions.
Even online, it is possible to find friendly chess players higher rated who are willing to go over games with you in post-game analysis or offer their free advice. It will take some searching to find these people, but they exist I assure you
Big difference between someone friendly willing to offer you some advice and help versus someone willing to give you structured lessons and learning though. The latter is more like formal chess coaching and you are likely to have to pay financially for this, but even making some chess friends to discuss positions with can help a lot and is free.
I could even play some unrated live chess with you (for learning) if you like @indigorose83 but if you want structured lessons consistently, then you are better off hiring a chess coach (which I currently am not due to lack of time and other responsibilities).
To become an IM? Probably yes. Why not, after all? It's not difficult, if you have the dedication, and work hard on it.
But you should really set for now a more realistic target- after one year and one month of playing here, you still play like a beginner, and you are rated below 600.
For the moment, all you need to do is learning and keeping faithfully chess principles (you are far from doing it, judging from a few rapid games you have played), and practice tactics, lots of tactics- starting from elementary, and very simple ones.
Oct 30, 2022
0
#13
pfren wrote:
To becomne an IM? Probably yes. Why not, after all? It's not difficult, if you have the dedication, and work hard on it...
That is a good one. Tell me another 
True, becoming an IM is not difficult at all once you've already achieved it xD
@1
"I'm 17 years old now and want to become an International Master one day. Is it reasonable to try to get to this level before 30 years old?" ++ Yes, IM in 13 years should be doable.
You are only 800 here now and IM is 2400+. That means +1600 or more i.e. +123 / year.
"how long should I practice each day" ++ Several hours
"what should that practice look like?"
++ Play, analysis of lost games, endgame study, study of annotated grandmaster games.
Oct 30, 2022
0
#15
I think reading Chess books is an excellent way to waste your time.
Those Jeremy Silman books that have been recommended on this thread?... Yeah, those SAME books with those SAME problems and exercises and examples are ALREADY ON THIS WEBSITE. You can either buy the book and read about how to solve the problems or you can actually do the lessons on this website that have those problems on here for you to solve.
Oct 30, 2022
0
#16
KeSetoKaiba wrote:
indigorose83 wrote:
I'm 17 years old now and want to become an International Master one day. Is it reasonable to try to get to this level before 30 years old? If so, how long should I practice each day and what should that practice look like? Any info would be appreciated.
Can you? It is possible. Will you? Statistically, no probably not. If reaching that title is an ambition of yours then I believe you can do it and 12 years is a reasonable amount of time to get a chess title (general consensus seems to be that titled players typically get a their title after 10+ years of hard work on their chess if they get a title at all).
We must realize just how unlikely it is to get a chess title. Less than 1% of all chess players are titled players and all GMs and IMs COMBINED make up less than half of 1% of all chess players! There are also more billionaires in the world than chess Grandmasters, so I guess it depends on where your priorities are at. Unfortunately, chess players don't make much money at all and really only the top 100 chess players in the world or so actually make enough money on their chess skill alone to make a living at chess. This is why even accomplished chess players (even titled GMs) usually supplement their income with writing chess books, selling opening courses and offering chess coaching.
The chess players lucky enough to be titled typically get there because they LOVE chess and their hobby is where they devote their time and they become very strong as a result, but even GMs usually have "real jobs" to support themselves and chess is only their hobby or side income.
Can you become an IM? Technically possible and 12 years is a realistic timeline if you work super hard on your chess from now until then. However, 12 years is also a long time with lots of potential for things to change between now and then. Becoming titled isn't only about pure ability, but also having the ambition and drive to keep pursuing chess that competitively for that many years. You might be super motivated now (great!), but maybe 5 years or 10 years from now, your views on chess will shift slightly; not to say you'll give up the game or even give up playing, but maybe you'll be studying chess less often and prefer to invest your time into other things (school, job/career, family/marriage, other chess related things like chess writing/chess coaching or other non-chess hobbies etc.)
I feel like most just don't comprehend just how much work and effort it takes even talented players to earn a chess title and if you aren't naturally talented, then it takes even longer and even more work. When most realize this, they might decide the title isn't worth the effort and maybe it isn't worth it for most people, but for some people with a dream, it is still worth it to them and some of those people with that dream do become titled chess players
I am not trying to discourage you; on the contrary, you can do it if you work enough towards your goals Besides, even if you never get a chess title (either by choice or lack of ability), you can still become a strong and successful chess player.
The average chess rating depends on player pool, rating system, chess organization and so on, but generally the "average" chess rating is about 800-1200. The chess.com global 50 percentile for rapid is currently in the 700s (close to 800). This means that on the largest chess site in the world (chess.com), of the active accounts for rapid (active meaning played a game within the last 90 days), a rating in the 700s at the 50 percentile means you are higher rated than half of all chess players in the world and also worse than half. We must keep in mind that this rating is skewed down a lot because there are MANY more children and beginners learning the rules of chess than there are titled chess players (and this brings down the average), but still. If you are able to reach 1500 chess.com rapid rating, that is something like 90 percentile or 95 percentile (I don't remember exactly). This means that 1500 is higher rated than 90-95% of all chess players in the world. This rating alone would be a massive accomplishment.
Granted, chess players who play in real chess tournaments are generally higher rated than your casual online player or coffee shop player, but regardless, the average chess rating is surprisingly lower than most expect.
The problem (and this is sort of a problem) is that most players don't really understand chess. Sure, they might know the rules, but what I mean is most players don't possess the high ability to look at any given chess position and be able to rattle off their thoughts on the evaluation and plans for each side ("understanding" the position). The level of understanding that requires is probably 1800-2000 level and even this won't get it perfect each time.
Without high accuracy standards for "correctness", I'd estimate that even a 1600 player possess enough positional insight to be able to list plans for both colors fairly accurately in any given position; they will be wrong a good amount of the time, but this is a judgement call on interpreting the position rather than lack of explaining how they arrived at their conclusion. The reason I deem this a problem is because if "understanding" chess on a proficient level requires 1800+ chess rating (estimate), then this means that roughly 98% (or however high 1800 percentile is) don't really understand chess! Sigh. It is a shame, but don't misinterpret what I say: even lower rated player "understand" somethings and some positions. Their limited understanding might still yield an appreciation and enjoyment of the game (and motivate them to keep learning and improving). It is just that the majority of chess players lack the ability and knowledge to correctly "understand" and evaluate most chess positions.
Also, if you spend your time on Chess.com writing something THIS long, rather than actually studying chess, playing games, doing puzzles, etc...
Then you'll definitely never be an IM.
Oct 30, 2022
0
#17
indigorose83 wrote:
Can I become an I.M. in 12 years?
I'm 17 years old now and want to become an International Master one day. Is it reasonable to try to get to this level before 30 years old? If so, how long should I practice each day and what should that practice look like? Any info would be appreciated.
But Why? Just curious
You are asking the wrong question. It's not how much you SHOULD practice. The question is how much you're willing to practice. People don't fail because they don't know how hard to work....they fail because they're not willing to work hard enough. If you're asking us how much you need to practice, you are off to a terrible start and I'm betting against you.
Depends. How much money and time can you spend on it?
Oct 30, 2022
0
#20
JohnNapierSanDiego wrote:
I think reading Chess books is an excellent way to waste your time...
It is not a waste of time and many high rated players recommend certain classics such as the Silman book mentioned. Are books as efficient use of time compared to analyzing your own games with an engine, taking an online course, or attempting online chess puzzles? Of course not! Books take months or even a year to read thoroughly cover to cover. Does longer mean waste of time though? Not necessarily and there is no substitute to a chess book's interactive learning as the player must constantly setup the positions on a physical board and therefore help reinforce the patterns they read about to memory.
Chess books are not my number one recommendation for fast learning, but I never said it was either. Becoming a titled player (like IM) within 12 years is a much more long-term goal, so what is wrong with long-term sources such as a chess book?
Chess books work for some people and don't work for other learning styles, but that is something the individual must experiment to discover for themselves; just because it isn't your own preference @JohnNapierSanDiego that doesn't mean it isn't right for everyone.
I'm 17 years old now and want to become an International Master one day. Is it reasonable to try to get to this level before 30 years old? If so, how long should I practice each day and what should that practice look like? Any info would be appreciated.