Can I still become "good" at chess?
Sort:
To the OP, my advice is, stop playing chess and work hard at something you are good at. It doesn't matter if you enjoy it. There is a book called "So Good They Can't Ignore You", read it. The idea is, most adults do not constantly try to improve their skills, and if you continually improve at your work, you will be a top performer in your field. This is only true because most fields are not competitive. At this point you will be making very good money. Next read "Early Retirement Extreme", where you will learn how to save 50-80% of your income, lower your living expenses significantly, and you can retire and live off of your investments. This should take you 10 years or more. Yes, you could be 27 and never have to work another day in your life! At this point, you will be able to devote yourself full time to studying chess. Also never get married or have children. You can't be a good spouse or parent and devote so much time to chess. If you try it any other way than I have described, I don't see it happening for you.
Jan 5, 2014
0
#82
ChrisWainscott wrote:
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).
thank you very much Chris. Interesting that you use the alphabet analogy. I used preciselly the same analogy, in the exact same way, talking to a friend a few days ago. That I need to learn tactics such that I know them like letters in the alphabet, and don't have to think about how they sound, just recognize them immediately, so that I can then read and write words and sentences with these letters. Spot on. Nice. thanks again.
Somebodysson wrote:
ChrisWainscott wrote:
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).
thank you very much Chris. Interesting that you use the alphabet analogy. I used preciselly the same analogy, in the exact same way, talking to a friend a few days ago. That I need to learn tactics such that I know them like letters in the alphabet, and don't have to think about how they sound, just recognize them immediately, so that I can then read and write words and sentences with these letters. Spot on. Nice. thanks again.
I'll have to try that one.
In some years you will laught about it.
When you was 6 years old you want to be pilot, some years later work at firedepartement - and now you want to be chessmaster.
Use your energie (and testosteron!) for other things!
rtr1129 hat geschrieben:
To the OP, my advice is, stop playing chess and work hard at something you are good at.
?
Jan 5, 2014
0
#86
I just happened on this member: he is ranked 2070 and is a concert pianist. thought some of you might be interested. He has a youtube channel and a web page too. Plus he makes some really good posts and points on forums.
http://www.chess.com/members/view/solskytz
Another musician here, play electric guitar 10 years ago. Practice hours and hours to realize that i will never be a proffesional musician and even worst, i am not interested in that. Real good music is hidden for the population, the more famous a band are, the most stupid is the music. Thats the general rule.
The only way a musician can make a living? Teach or perform crappy stuff for a stupid public. There is no justice in music, pianist's like lang lang are very very famous meanwhile nobody knows who is marc andre hamelin which is a better pianist by far (just one example, there are plenty others). And not to mention about composers, that is just a dramatic history of a lot of amazing composers forgotten (stanchinsky, alkan,hugo wolf, lourié, boris lyatoshynsky ... just to mention a few randomly). When i think in the history of the music i really get mad, how can this supreme art end like this. Anyway this is a chess forum so ..................
I think that in chess there are fair justice, first of all is not subjective like music, if you are very very good, nobody will put you on doubt. So is some kind of a free path for the genius. I think chess is one of our last pure "art" that cannot be corrupted.
Can you be very good at chess¿ God only knows. Its very drastic to say that you can't. For me is just a hobby, i enjoy more playing some blitz games and follow top tournaments, than play CoD or crappy videogames.
Some good observations there.
I think hobbyism is under-rated. You can love something very much and get very good at it, while it still being "just" a hobby.
Being a professional at anything sort of enslaves you to that particular thing. For example, in music performance, you have to take the gigs that come your way, even if you don't want to. Same with chess -- you have to play and/or teach on a constant basis.
If you're a hobbyist, however, you are free to pursue the interest as you wish. You can do things however you want, on your own schedule, and you don't have to answer to anyone else. I enjoy my hobbies. 
Jan 5, 2014
0
#89
dadam wrote:
In some years you will laught about it.
When you was 6 years old you want to be pilot, some years later work at firedepartement - and now you want to be chessmaster.
Use your energie (and testosteron!) for other things!
I'm sure you mean well, but I've been hearing this since I first started playing again in 2011. I was told that if I was lucky I *might* be able to gain 100 rating points. All along the way people have said that. I gained 100 they said I was done. I gained another 100 they said I was lucky. I've gained another 100 and I should accept that it won't happen.
Sorry, but you're wrong. There is no reason to assume I'm anywhere close to being done.
You should just accept that you're not willing to work as hard as I am and that that's ok. Doesn't make you a bad person or me a good person. It just makes it what it is.
Jan 5, 2014
0
#90
Lang Lang is an awesome, absolutely kick-ass pianist. To see him live is quite an experience. You picked the wrong example :-) This guy definitely rules, and deserves every success he's got.
Guys like him set the standards for excellence in today's classical piano world - in stage presence, manners, personality and charm, piano technique and perfection.
Of course interpretation and understanding is individual, and his may or may not be to every taste - but he's always original and always has something to say in his playing.
Jan 5, 2014
0
#91
Oh, Somebodysson :-) only now I see your presentation of me a few posts back :-)
Jan 5, 2014
0
#92
of hobbyism: Marc Taimanov had a successful career as a concert pianist and as a chessplayer, as people on here might know. He was fond of a particular 'story' he told whenever interviewers asked him 'how do you manage not one, but two demanding intense professions, as a chessplayer and as a busy concert pianist'. Taimanov loved answering 'when I'm playing chess I'm not playing piano. and when I'm playing piano I'm not playing chess. So I'm always on vacation" 
solskytz wrote:
Lang Lang is an awesome, absolutely kick-ass pianist. To see him live is quite an experience. You picked the wrong example :-) This guy definitely rules, and deserves every success he's got.
Guys like him set the standards for excellence in today's classical piano world - in stage presence, manners, personality and charm, piano technique and perfection.
Of course interpretation and understanding is individual, and his may or may not be to every taste - but he's always original and always has something to say in his playing.
Sorry i disagree. Of course he is a incredible pianist but there are much better performers than him, now, and along the history. He dont deserve to be that famous, thats why he have lot of haters or critics against him. Anyway i dont want to argue about this in a chess forum, listening to more performers and more music is all i can tell you.
Jan 5, 2014
0
#94
de gustibus non est disputandum. There's no accounting for taste. Chacun a son gout. stop arguing and come to dinner.
letsplaychess1996 wrote:
rtr1129 hat geschrieben:
To the OP, my advice is, stop playing chess and work hard at something you are good at.
?
?
ChrisWainscott wrote:
I'm sure you mean well, but I've been hearing this since I first started playing again in 2011. I was told that if I was lucky I *might* be able to gain 100 rating points. All along the way people have said that. I gained 100 they said I was done. I gained another 100 they said I was lucky. I've gained another 100 and I should accept that it won't happen.
Sorry, but you're wrong. There is no reason to assume I'm anywhere close to being done.
You should just accept that you're not willing to work as hard as I am and that that's ok. Doesn't make you a bad person or me a good person. It just makes it what it is.
I played chess a little bit in high school and stopped playing for several years after that. I was not great by any means, and did exactly 0 "studying" of chess during that time. When I started playing again, a year and a half ago, I estimate my rating was around 1300. Now I estimate my current rating around 1500-1600. I need to play OTB more to confirm, but I'm pretty sure that's accurate. I believe that I will reach expert level in 5 years or less if I keep playing and studying a bit.
The people who said you wont gain more than 100 rating points from 1500 were wrong, I honestly don't know who would make that claim anyways. People who say you can't improve much... yes, those people are wrong. But that's a different argument than the one I (and some others) were presenting. You are still a far cry from taking up chess as a profession.
Jan 5, 2014
0
#98
DrCheckevertim wrote:
ChrisWainscott wrote:
I'm sure you mean well, but I've been hearing this since I first started playing again in 2011. I was told that if I was lucky I *might* be able to gain 100 rating points. All along the way people have said that. I gained 100 they said I was done. I gained another 100 they said I was lucky. I've gained another 100 and I should accept that it won't happen.
Sorry, but you're wrong. There is no reason to assume I'm anywhere close to being done.
You should just accept that you're not willing to work as hard as I am and that that's ok. Doesn't make you a bad person or me a good person. It just makes it what it is.
I played chess a little bit in high school and stopped playing for several years after that. I was not great by any means, and did exactly 0 "studying" of chess during that time. When I started playing again, a year and a half ago, I estimate my rating was around 1300. Now I estimate my current rating around 1500-1600. I need to play OTB more to confirm, but I'm pretty sure that's accurate. I believe that I will reach expert level in 5 years or less if I keep playing and studying a bit.
The people who said you wont gain more than 100 rating points from 1500 were wrong, I honestly don't know who would make that claim anyways. People who say you can't improve much... yes, those people are wrong. But that's a different argument than the one I (and some others) were presenting. You are still a far cry from taking up chess as a profession.
yes, and there is yet another variable, and one that has been written about at length. The rating you had when you gave up chess at 19, how did you achieve that rating? Was that the maximum rating you could have achieved at that time, or was it a rating achieved with very little work. The person's potential rating, or their maximum potential rating for a given amount of work is a variable that you are not taking into account. The claim that you are making, viz. I'm willing to work harder than you, just doens't hold water, is bad science, and smacks of self-righteousness too.
Mersaphe wrote:
I think he is implying the OP is not good at chess. A better way to say this is even if you are good at chess, chances are slim that you will ever be a grandmaster or make enough money from chess to compensate for all the long hours of hard work you invest in the game. Therefore it makes more sense to spend that time which you would normally give to chess and use that time in more constructive activities.
I'm not saying OP is not good at chess or that OP can't achieve this. I'm saying it's going to be an extremely hard life to try and do this while also having to work to support himself.
To reach the playing ability required to support yourself financially, it will require many years of full-time study. I would guess it would take between 5-10 years of full-time study (40+ hours per week or more) to get near that level. Or it could take longer. Or it might never happen.
In other words, the mere act of having a part-time job is enough to prohibit most people from engadging in serious chess study for 6-8 hours per day. The OP will have some kind of job in the 10 years he is studying to become a GM, so that means essentially every hour of his waking life is spoken for during the next 10 years. And lonely too, no time for friends or relationships. That's a tough road that's likely to not end with playing chess for a living. Some people would become depressed over having wasted 10 years of the prime of their life.
So instead, I'm suggesting he spend that time to become financially independent. Then he can spend 40+ hours per week on chess, and still enjoy having family, friends, and taking days off to relax. Also, if the chess thing doesn't work out, he is still highly skilled in his field of work and can go back to working if he chooses (or he can take up video games and beer full time, since he's now financially independent).
Jan 5, 2014
0
#100
Somebodysson wrote:
The claim that you are making, viz. I'm willing to work harder than you, just doens't hold water, is bad science, and smacks of self-righteousness too.
I disagree. I don't think that the willingness to work hard is the only factor in improving a skill set, whether it be in chess or anything else. However, it is the main one.
Being willing to work harder than the next guy doesn't make you better than they are, nor does it make them less than you are. It just accounts for much of the difference in how far each of you is able to advance.
At one point in my life I was a homeless drug addict. Now I have a good job as a manager in one of the departments for the company I work for. It wasn't innate talent that made that happen. It was hard work.
This experience has taught me that with enough dedication and hard work any reasonable goal is possible.
I think that in my case the goal is reasonable.
Now, if I was here telling you that anyone can become World Champion if they're willing to work harder than the next guy then yes, the science would be totally unsound.
You are also correct in that there is a maximum rating that can be achieved by each individual. But that maximum is probably well over 2200. Levon Aronian said talent is a part of the ability to improve at chess, but not until 2500. So essentially Lev is saying that anyone can become a 2500 player. I don't know if that's true because that's light years beyond where I want to be, but he would know better than I ever will.
I'm totally content with the goal of 2200. Once I get there I'll worry about what, if anything, should come next. I can tell you this though...even if I won the lottery and could study chess full time my goal would still be the same...2200. It seems reasonable to me.