Forums

Can I still become "good" at chess?

Sort:
SocialPanda
SocialPanda
Show your flair!
Jan 6, 2014
0
#101
fabelhaft wrote:
Oecleus wrote:
fabelhaft wrote:

Actually, if Blackburne had lived six and a half years longer he could have met the newborn Korchnoi. That's a bit scary considering that Korchnoi was supposed to have played a tournament the other week, while Blackburne was born when Mozart's wife was still alive.

can you explain how thats a bit scary i dont see the connection?

That a today active chess player almost could have met someone who was alive at the same time as Mozart's (who died in 1791) widow. But I think it's scary enough to realise that Korchnoi already was in his thirties when Rubinstein died.




SocialPanda
SocialPanda
Show your flair!
Jan 6, 2014
0
#102
ChrisWainscott wrote:

The other ironic thing is that many of the "you can't make it without natural talent" crowd also seem to worship Michael de la Maza, a guy who was all about hard work.

Look at the Buddy Rich analogy above.  Could you have been Buddy Rich?  No, not without a ton of natural ability to go with the hard work (and the last name of Rich to go along with parents who then named you Buddy!)  Could you play in bard bands on the weekends and pick up a few extra bucks as a professional?  Sure. 

So my message to the OP is ignore the doubters and make your own way.

But look how far from being a Master was Michael de la Maza...

And now a picture from him playing:

ChrisWainscott
ChrisWainscott
Show your flair!
Jan 6, 2014
0
#103

He was far from a master, but he retired immediately after making expert, so that doesn't mean much.

I'm sure he just wanted to write his book at that point.

Rumo75
FM Rumo75
Show your flair!
Jan 7, 2014
0
#104
ChrisWainscott hat geschrieben:

I started playing chess again three years ago after a layoff of 19 years.  I openly said my goal was to become a master.  I was told repeatedly by people, both in these forums and in person that it would not be possible.  That I should be content to maybe gain 100-200 points if I was somehow really lucky and then hold on to that.

Well, I've gained roughly 300 points since then and so far have not showed any signs of slowing down.  I need to gain another 421 to make my goal.  I will get there.  I work hard.  I spend a few hours each day working on chess.

Uh. But you do realize that the progress from 1500 to 1800 means back then you had zero chess understanding and blundered pieces all the time, and now you have zero chess understanding and blunder pieces only once in a while?

SocialPanda
SocialPanda
Show your flair!
Jan 7, 2014
0
#105

ChrisWainscott
ChrisWainscott
Show your flair!
Jan 7, 2014
0
#106
Rumo75 wrote:
ChrisWainscott hat geschrieben:

I started playing chess again three years ago after a layoff of 19 years.  I openly said my goal was to become a master.  I was told repeatedly by people, both in these forums and in person that it would not be possible.  That I should be content to maybe gain 100-200 points if I was somehow really lucky and then hold on to that.

Well, I've gained roughly 300 points since then and so far have not showed any signs of slowing down.  I need to gain another 421 to make my goal.  I will get there.  I work hard.  I spend a few hours each day working on chess.

Uh. But you do realize that the progress from 1500 to 1800 means back then you had zero chess understanding and blundered pieces all the time, and now you have zero chess understanding and blunder pieces only once in a while?

That's not entirely accurate, although to some degree you have a point.  The fact of the matter is that I have learned to calculate more accurately while improving my tactical ability considerably. 

Simultaneously I have managed to lay the groundwork to a better and deeper understanding of positional and strategic concepts.

If I plateau at 1800 and never progress then your point is valid, but if I continue to make progress then your point is simply incorrect.