Can I still become "good" at chess?

there are many stories like yours. The key is you say you picked up chess again three years ago 'after a layoff of 19 years'. What was your chess level 19 years ago when you took your layoff? That is key. Youth does have a role to play, and if you doubt that, you are the doubter. Would you care to say what your chess level was 19 years ago?

What a weird thread.

It's much easier to pick up a few extra bucks in bar bands than to become a chess professional (or a full-time music professional).

There is a need to balance encouragement with a practical realism. It would be foolish to not give a student an accurate picture of the professional world, if that's where they've set their hopes.

My rating was roughly 1500 when I stopped playing in 92.  I was 19 years old.

Youth has something to do with how far you can go, that is for sure.  But I think that far too many people in this thread are confusing being a professional with being an upper echelon 2700+ GM.

Someone who plays in bar bands frequently and gets paid to do so is a professional.  Someone who does that and teaches music is a full time professional.  That doesn't make them Keith Richards, playing to sold out arena's worldwide every time they get the urge.

yes, yes, and yes. 

<ChrisWainscott  

Making a living as a bar band guy / private music instructor is a rather difficult life and it generally doesn't pay so well. I know because I have many friends/colleagues who do this (or have tried). Also I am a semi-professional performing musician. Believe me when I say the money is sparse and fleeting in that world.

I believe it's similar for chess, but possibly even more difficult. There is an even lesser demand for chess than music. I wonder how many NMs make a living off chess? It's to my understanding that to be a chess professional you need to be at least an IM, or a very exceptional/lucky NM with good teaching & business management skills. Please correct if I am wrong. Chess and music performance are simply two areas that are very tough to be a full-time professional.

no Drchekervertim, you're right, for both chess and for music professional. I'm a music professional and what you say is totally true. And being an IM certainly does not guarantee success in begin a chess professional. Being a chess professional probably requires something along the lines of being something like 1700 or 1800 and teaching young children in schools, that kind of thing. Sort of like in music if you really want to be a music professional and can read half decent and have a way with kids get a public school teaching credential and teach music in school. Money for chess 'performance' and for music 'performance' is sparse, and rare. 

At this point I'm not really interested in the 'professional' question, since its pretty much settled. I think what DrChekervertim has written is really the last word on the issue; people can get better, etc but talking about making a living at chess or at music is something that very few who post to these threads know anything about, and when someone posts who knows something about it, like DrCheckervertim and me, we are dismissed as doubters. Oh well, I wish all the non-doubters luck. Make sure to have fun and to love what you're doing, whatever you do.

I do, however, have an interest in hearing from Chris Wainscott about his experience and whether he is blogging. I wonder if he is publishing his methods and his progress. Sounds interesting. There are some awesome bloggers, templschlucker, empirical rabbit, these are some that I read from time to time...maybe this Wainscott has a blog. 

Please speak up Chris Wainscott when you have the chance. Thanks. 

I'm not saying anyone will make a killing, lol.  Just that you can become a professional.

Somebodysson, you may read my daily blog at http://www.chessiq.com/blog/ where I detail what it is that I am doing to improve.  I analyze my own games, as well as post things that are interesting to me or that I am working on, etc.

I haven't gained 400 points.  I have gained 300.  My peak rating is 1796,  Currently it's 1779.  So I have 421 points to go to make my NM title.

For those in the US who subscribe to Chess Life I wrote an article which appears in the current issue (starting on page 28 of the January issue).

Improvement is all about hard work.  If you are willing to do the work you will improve.  You need some innate talent in order to become a world class player, that's for sure.  But to get better than you are now?  To become a master?  Hard work and lots of it.

I don't sit in front of the TV for hours every day and stare out into space.  I sit up in my study and work on tactics.  I analyze my games.  I try to identify weaknesses and how I can improve them.

Yes, I still take time to watch TV with my wife and to have other interests outside of chess, but I make sure to put in a couple of hours a day of working on my game.

If you have a reasonable goal and are willing to put in the work you can achieve.

@chrisWainscott: is PathtochessMastery.blogspot. your blog. If so, it is very good. 

oh, I posted the above before I saw your post. I'll go check it out now. Thanks ChrisWainscott. 

This was my original blog: http://ontheroadtochessmaster.blogspot.com/

It's inactive these days since I write daily for ChessIQ.  There was no real point in writing multiple blogs.

DrCheckevertim - I agree with you.  A NM who would make a living from chess would need good teaching and business management skills.

well, here's another great blog everyone. Very very good blod.  pathtochessmastery

pathtochessmastery.blogspot.com

I've read that guys blog.  In fact, I link to it on my ontheroadtochessmaster blog.  I think he does a nice job, although I do believe he relies too much on computer analysis.

@ChrisWainscott: I realize this is off topic, but I'm actually more interested in talking with you about your experience and methods than about whether people can get 'get good' at chess. When I was studying music there was always lots of talk about who was going to 'make it'...and the people doing the talking weren't the ones who 'made it' it was the ones who were in the sound booths practicing away 

So I have a question about thinking process and tactics puzzles; completely off topic, I know, but now that I know you're here and reading I figure your answer might be beneficial for other readers of this thread. 

Do you apply a complete thought process when working on tactics puzzles, esp difficult tactics puzzles. Do you ask what is my opponents plan when doing a tactics puzzle. Do you ask 'what can my opponent do with his last move' when solving a tactics puzzle.

Or is doing a tactics puzzle a modified version of ta thinking process, looking for cct, looking for hanging pieces, looking for weaknesses, assembling a handful of candidates, and falsifying.

Please comment. Thanks. 

Check the noob suvival guide

Tactics puzzles are all about developing pattern recognition. 

So your "modified version of the thinking process" is spot on.  When solving a tactical puzzle essentially I perform a quick mental check to see if there are any patterns I inherently recognize.  For example a bank rank weakness.  Or perhaps a loose piece. 

I tend to use books to work on tactics, so typically I know the theme (i.e. fork, pin, skewer, detroying the defenses, etc.) which narrows it down. The idea isn't to then start calculating (although often that is what it takes to learn a new pattern) but to get to a point where you instinctively recognize in a real game that "something is there" and that you should start searching for a tactic.

One of the more amazing things to me is when I'm analyzing games with my coach, NM Nolan Hendrickson and he sees tactical ideas and then finds tactics simply by spotting a certain type of weakness.  For example, he'll spot that my opponents queen is guarding two separate pieces and then start looking for ways in which to exploit the overworked queen.  Even when there is no way to take advantage of it he takes notice of it so that if later on there is a tactical shot he will find it effortlessly.

So to try to succinctly answer your question, solving tactics should be viewed the same as learning to write the alphabet.  At first you are struggling to write each letter, but eventually you can write them without thinking since you've done it so many times.  Because once you can write all of the letters individually (tactics) you can write words (find tactics in a game) and the more words you learn the better story you can tell (i.e. improve your playing strength).

As for working on the process of selecting candidate moves I solve endgame studies for that.  I also play guess the move.

I'm not saying he can become world class.  I'm saying he can become good.  i.e. a master.