Can I still become "good" at chess?

Old people are scary.

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.

The only part I will have difficulty is rhythm and playing pieces by ear. I am classically trained though.

I don't know if I'm talented with the piano, but I learn it fairly well to be honest. And obviously just saying I've made tremendous progress doesn't mean much because for all you know I only know a few chord songs.

So please tell me what you think I am talking about with 'tremendous progress'. What do you think I mean with that in terms of pieces/scales/etc?

The highest grade piece I can play right now is probably 5-6 (with grades going up to grade 8). Even so, my progress isn't lineair.

I don't like to discuss words like 'talent' and 'innate' things. I only believe in putting work into things and letting it flourish. So far that has rewarded me beyond my expectations in terms of academics, piano and even recently chess.

I did violin for two months and I progressed well with that as well, though I had to quit because of commitments to other things.

Maybe I do have a have talent: a talent for hard work. Dattebayo.

It's important to know why starting something openworldly as chess at an older age would indeed normally give you a dissadvantage. Despite this, the advantage a younger player accumulates can be matched and eventually overcomed over time and practice.

I just wrote an article about this that might be right up your ally and hopefully motivate you into making this a possibility. It's suprsiingly not as over-whelming as it may seem when you really know why this is a common problem.

http://maddchess.blogspot.com/2014/01/learning-at-older-age.html

1. Good point, chess it is like life! But that does't means that you are bad in life :)

2. At first, don't bother yourself with thoughts like "im stupid, i can't beat him at easy level" or something like that. Trust me, it's better to play one good game when you are not tired, than playing 30 games in a row with bad attitude and frustration. Don't worry, it's normal to feel like that. But, there is always some "but", it's much better to spend one hour on chess 4-5 per week, than 4-5 hours straight in a single day one a week! Also, lock'n'load yourself with patience and nerves, that is important to!

3. Don't think about 6 or 10yo kids who have 1600+ elo! Don't think about gradnmasters and how they think! Think about your playin' technique, analyze your games and someone others games. Don't be afraid to lose (this is very important)! Risk! Think free, don't bother yourself with "calculations" you heard of or something like that. Just gues what is the best moves. If it's one move than it's one move. But in next opportunity think about two best moves for both sides, next time three moves and so on...and don't rush! (think like you have all the time of this world)

4. By my opinion best chess software for learning is Shredder classical 4 or Shredder 12 with native GUI, (you can find more here www.shredderchess.com) 'couse you can track your progress game by game, step by step. It is the best way to improve your game! Shredder 12 with native GUI automatically adjust to your strength and by every won he rise engine ELO for few. It is good to improve your self-confidence while you playin' chess. Trust me, that is very important, 'couse if you have self esteem you have more time to think and better ideas what to do on the board! :)

5. Every day play at least 3 chess puzzels! You can find it some on http://www.shredderchess.com/daily-chess-puzzle.html

If you do everything as I wrote you can expect progress in a one month! 

That's my tips. Good luck!

no progress is linear. except, perhaps, trivial ideas of progress like 'progress at peeling a potato', which may be linear. But certainly not in any skill development. 

hehe, ahem, you don't know who you're talking to! But tell me, what is this 'professional certificate'? Is it equivalent in your mind to what kuroku1 says about being 'concert pianist'? I doubt it, since you say 'one level away from professional certificate'. Concert pianist does not talk about 'professional certificates'!

I think this forum looks very similar to more than a few others ive seen.

'teaching license' and 'concert pianist' are not the same thing anywhere, neither Bolivia, Canada, nowhere. Why would 'standards for classical piano in Bolivia be different than in Canada'? Standards for classical music performance are international, just as standards for chess performance are international. Teaching certificate in any field has nothing to do with competition performance, only achieving certain minimum standards of knowledge, achievement, and pedagogical competence. You're comparing apples and oranges. If kuoku1 was talking about 'teaching', which he wasn't...he could start teaching anytime. He said concert performance, 'concert pianist'. There's someone on chess.com who is offering his coaching services on chess.com with something like a 1000 chess.com rating!

A concert pianist "can play" a grade 5-6 piece also, but I assure you, much differently than you can. Unfortunately, saying you "can play" a grade 5-6 piece has no meaning. Music is not a binary thing, it's not a yes you can do something or a no you can't. I know, every single person in the world "can play" Fur Elise. Their performance reveals that they can hit the first 15 notes of the piece in the right order. Amazing huh? So, you are correct that your words mean nothing of your skill level. And saying that you are learning something "fairly well" again has little meaning. There are a few similarities between learning chess and learning a musical instrument. One is that both aren't too difficult to become decent at, but both take a lifetime to master -- and some people, no matter how hard they try -- will never be as good as other people.

I agree that dedication is good, but some peoples' warnings serve a good purpose: to bring forth the practical viewpoint of setting out to become "the best" at some particular thing. It's just not practical or possible (even if those are the same thing) for 99.9999% of people.

This sort of thing seems to be a source of constant unhinging and misunderstanding in this whole thread.

It's a far different thing being a professionally good concert pianist, or a grandmaster level chess player, than it is to be one of the world's top handful of either.

Nobody here is saying that everybody can be better than everybody else, no matter how hard everyone works.  That makes no sense.  The very top echelon of every field is filled with people who are dedicated to that thing, as well as insanely talented/gifted.

But there's an awful lot of room below that level where you can still be eilte relative to almost everyone, while not being elite among your peers.

There is an awful lot of room below the very top. But even to get to GM or concert pianist level, that is impractical if not impossible for most people. I frequently see people underestimating what it would really take to get to that level.

yes DrChekevertim and I agree, I just (initially) tried to be a bit nicer about it, but Chekevertim is totally correct. Hitting the notes at Grade 5/6 level means nothing, and the pro will play anything, three single notes, differently than the amateur will.

And to our resident know-it-all harryz who says that I don't know much about piano because he is 'just one level away from getting his teaching license'  lol!!!, big deal, teaching license. I guess you know a lot about piano!! People sometimes argue on here for no purpose other than to be argumentative; the irony is that when they try to come off sounding knowledgeable or establishing their credentials as an authority they usually prove the opposite. 

harryz, I assure you, you don't know much about piano. And who knows if that teaching license is even attainable by you, ever!! In Bolivia or in Canada!! No more Mr Nice guy. Now look at what you made me do. I'm now less nice than DrCheckvertim.

The one thing I differ with DrChekvertim on is that with both chess and piano it is very difficult to become decent at them. Yes, its easy to be a hack 1600 chess player or a hack Chopin massacerer, i.e. one can learn to play the moves in chess as with an instrument without too much difficulty, but to become an artist is very very difficult with both probably in equal measure.  I hope to become a hack 1600 chessplayer someday!

To put it in context with academic performance, just about anyone can get a PhD, just about. Having a PhD proves nothing really except that you wanted to get a PhD.  But very very very few people can play an instrument or play chess brilliantly, even with burning desire. Anybody who is asking the question do I have a chance of becoming a professional chessplayer or a professional concert pianist on here or anywhere will very likely never achieve either.  I realize some of the English syntax might be wrong here, but I don't have a PhD in English 

    Hey Somebodysson; Harryz said he's getting his teaching lisence? or teaching DEGREE?  Either way, your right; he doesn't know the piano; he knows how to teach. I got your back!

yes. When I started playing chess a year and a few months ago my chess buddy talked about being a 'positional player' and said I was a 'tactical player'. I knew we were neither; I knew we were both terrible players, and that was the only description that fit us. More recently my chess buddy talked about us becoming GMs! I looked at him and said 'are you kidding?' and he said "okay, maybe IMs'. I said forget it. You're dreaming. Forget about that nonsense. 

Its good to have dreams and hopes and all, but why is it that when someone starts to be able to get one mover checkmate puzzles with some regularity they start thinking about becoming a "GM or maybe an IM"!

I find that a more interesting question than all the other stuff. Why is it that when we learn to crawl we so quickly start thinking of running hurdles? any ideas? 

      The first time I picked up a pair of drum sticks, I knew I was going to be the next Buddy Rich.  40 yrs later--"I COULD OF BEEN A CONTENDER!"

Depends what you mean by "decent." It is certainly orders of magnitude easier than becoming GM/concert pianist.  :)

Anyways, I wasn't trying to be mean or rude, I'm sorry if anyone thought I was being that way. Just trying to be objective.

nice. I probably could have been the next Buddy Rich too, if I had only picked up a set of drumsticks! I have a cousin who is a professional drummer; I've gone to hear him a few times and he's amazing, totally amazing. He really is a sort of Buddy Rich, just a heavy metal Buddy Rich. Playing drums has gotta be the most fun of anything!!! And I've never played drums. But piano is a sort of drum, just with lots of tuning, so I got some of my dream. 

I like that thing about the buddy rich thing.

I don't understand why people think that 17 is such a late start.  That's ridiculous.

Will someone starting at the age of 17 becoming a world class player?  I suppose it's theoretically possible but not very liklely.

But can they become a porfessional?  Sure.  In order to be a professional one simply have to make their living from something.  A 17 year old could become a master and then teach chess for a living.

This idea that so many people seem to have these days, which is that without loads of natural talent and an early start nothing is possible, just seems off base to me.

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.

The ironic thing is that when I make it I don't expect too many people to understand that it was hard work that made it possible.  It will be dismissed with "he's just a natural talent" type BS.

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.