Can intelligent person suck at chess, forever?

If u don't have it by 20 ur a goner? sorry I don't agree with that..some people just have to work hard at it like me..I wasn"t brought into playing chess at all when I was little. Im 20 now and just started playing the game when i was 18 years old. Some people are naturally talented when their younger...others aren't.

One thing that always amazes me, yet it is so true.

Many people think they are intelligent. Some of them are. Some of them aren't.

Remember in The Godfather: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYabrQrXt4A

And, yes, there are different kinds of intelligence. Notwithstanding...I've known a lot of people (and if anyone reading this has played much chess...I believe you've probably also) who think that:

a. I'm smart.

b. I'll take up chess.

c. Due to a., I'll be really good at it.

The part that amazes me, they have no idea how much time it takes...study, reading, practice, strategics, tactics...

They simply think because they are "smart", that's all that is needed. Some even do little else other than play thousands of games of bullet or blitz.

I have studied and played chess (on and off) for over 50 years...and I'm still studying, still learning, still improving. And, I am in awe of the depth of chess. The more I improve, the more I realize how much more I need to learn.

These guys who think they are shmart...and that that's pretty much enough...are simply ignorant fools. And, they may ask for advice...but they never take it.

I learned 40 years ago: "Never give free advice." Someday, I must start applying this. Meanwhile, I feel that I am the bigger fool for doing so...including with my adult children (who happen to "know it all"). lol

in my lifetime (65yrs) i have learned this about myself and thru experience seems to apply generally among ppl.  that my brain is indeed divided into two hemispheres.  one can solve compex and difficult problems and the other one is retarded.  so far in trying to learn this game over at such a late date the arrow in my mind is pointing towards retarded but as they said in the movie galaxy quest...never give up never surrender  :)

tactics trainer, that's the key.  do 25 a day for a year and watch your brain just pump up!

@e4nf3 Re the people who think they are smart and that's enough - this is why they recommend telling kids after doing a good job that they are hard workers, not telling them how smart they are. I liked your post.

Thanks. Coming from you, that's a real compliment.

Prove it.

I don't think I have to prove anything...because in general some people are talented  than others...so to say a statement if u don't have it by 20 ur a goner that's just your opinion not a fact.

It may be a bit of an over generalization, but it's pretty well supported by both precedent and science.

That said, your proof is at least possible -- one counter example will do it. Proving the converse, however, is not. As mentioned, there's a lot of evidence pointing in that direction, but at the end of the day absence of evidence (of a counter example) is not evidence of absence.

I won't believe that you can't become a strong chess player just because you didn't start when you were a kid. If you believe it it certainly won't happen. You might learn more slowly, but that just means you'll have to work harder.

There's also a decline in the ability for deep calculation that typically sets in sometime in your 30s. Tough to make hay with that so much closer on the horizon.

Older chess players just dont seem to take it seriously, the OP for example spends way too much time playing bullet games

"Suck" is a relative term. I have a girlfriend who's a genius at Scrabble, but hopeless at directions. Just the way she's wired. She will remember a word forever, but couldn't tell you which way west was if she on the beach in San Diego.

I play on the computer, study a little, play more on the computer, work chess problems. I picked up a book on "modern" openings written 90 years ago. There are simple beginning sequences that will help keep you out of trouble. I've discovered. Bon chance.

I believe that studying has to have a purpose, so one can study like you do and not really get much out of it if there's no purpose to what you are studying. It's like training|weight-lifting, if someone just goes through the motion, they are working out but they will not really get all the benefit if they have a goal and does not plan their workouts to maximize their potental.

I guess my point is 1) go ahead and study but make sure you have a goal in mind on what you want to learn during that study time. Tiger Woods for example, has a goal in mind everytime he goes to practice his game, whether you are a fan or not, he is/was a very good golfer; I'm not a fan.

2) Read a good beginner's book.

3) Stop playing Bullet and Blitz games, they are for good players already, not those trying to learn the game. Occasional Bullet or Blitz are ok, but don't use it as your learning time; use it to practice what you already know if that's even possible at your level.

4) First thing to study, imho, are endgames; if you don't know how to finish off won games, then there's no point in trying to learn anything more complex. If you can't learn endgames, or if you refuse to learn it for any reason, then maybe hanging it up might be the best option because advancing without a good fundamental understanding of endgames really leads to nowhere fast.

Good luck.

BTW, this is my personal opinion on how to learn chess, and suggestion not knowing exactly what you mean by "intelligent"; what exactly is "intelligent" in your mind, any particular IQ score?

I think what is most important is at what age you got familiar with the game. I only started playing seriously end of last year/beginning of this year. My understanding of the game is now at a level I'm comfortable with. But I was allready familiar with the game because I learned how to play at a young age. I'm sure that had only started to learn the rules now, I would not have gotten there in this time span.

How can someone intelligent be so stupid?

The IQ score must be way off. You seem to have the intelligence of a rat.

At least learn to type. 

You are correct, of course.  You like being right, don't you?

I have learned that you have to get an opening that will "work" for you. I've lost so many games from bad openings. I like to just come out and develop from what I see and let the opponent lose the game, which for me doesn't happen too much.  I try to be sneaky and trap king sometimes. Seems like most good games are won by advancing pawns to promotion or at least making opponent lose piece to stop pawn. 8 potential queens in each of them, I like pawns more than any other piece. Chess is like a train, you have the opening engine that drives the whole thing but it would be useless without the middle freight cars and the caboose is for looking forward to see if everything is in order. Or maybe it is the other way around?

I sympathise strongly with the original poster...

I'm an intelligent guy, qualified to join Mensa (but balked at the joining fee lol!)... and I'm a "natural" with logic and information systems - a computer programmer that has designed some pretty deep and detailed strategy games with solid long-term userbases, and modelled very complex business systems...

My best friend plays chess often, and every year or two I get up the courage to challenge him again....and always fail miserably. So then I decide to start a few weeks of studious Chessmaster tournaments against the computer opponents hoping to improve my abilities....and my ranking seldom gets above 800!

In response to some of the other observations in this thread, well, although as a nerdy mathsy child I "understood" chess, I didn't ever play the game against anyone. I just didn't have any other nerdy friends. Probably played my first live game of chess in my mid-20s, and maybe another 5 live games in the 15 years since then.

I think my problem is that I just don't have a deep enough "vision" of the board to see any impending trouble....and even worse, I really have trouble mounting any sort of sustained attack. I can't remember the last time I had a close victory against a computer opponent - if I don't have a 4-5 piece advantage in end-game, I really struggle to achieve mate.

I'd love to be good at chess.....it's such an elegant game.... but I'm just not.

I think a lot of it comes down to studying..  Playing chess can be studying if one is really trying to understand what is happening and why..  Mostly people just try to win though, without much thought to how or why.

A person could be the most intelligent person that ever lived, and when he put his mind to understanding why the game is playing out the way it is, he would understand far more, much faster than an average individual.. But if he never put his mind to that, which admittedly would be difficult to accomplish in the absolute sense, he would not improve.  More probably he would occasionally ask himself things like, "Wow, that knight came out of no where.. Why didn't I see it coming.." and his intelligence would enable him to quickly see the discovered attacks and forced moves that arose from some chess principles like control the center.  So compared to the average person he might still improve at a good clip, without seemingly much effort.

Us lesser mortals might not grasp as much of the situation when it occurs, and forget it more readily.  But even the most mundane intelligence would improve with concerted effort towards understanding the why of it.. As fun as playing chess may be for many, most still don't want to put forth much effort towards thinking about chess, winning is more interesting.  As counter-intuitive as it may seem, thinking about how to win a chess game, and thinking about chess are fairly different.

I think the first obstacle most people need to overcome in order to improve, is to learn how to learn about chess.   Without a mental framework to attach everything to, it's easy for the knowledge to become a jumbled mess from which no clear plan can grow.

Everyone seems to have a different opinion on what to learn first, some people suggest the endgame because that enables you to win a pawn and then trade down into a winnable situation.

Others suggest the middle game because chess is 90% tactics, and knowing tactics will enable you to win that pawn and much more while preventing your opponent from doing the same.

Others will suggest you start studying with a single opening line, since there's no guarantee the game will even make it to the middle game, let alone the endgame.

I would suggest a person start with principles, things like control the center as quickly as possible, don't move a piece more than once when developing your pieces, trade down when ahead, blockade passed pawns with knights, lead and perform jobs with your least valuable pieces first, trade weakness for strength (trade bishop for knight on closed board, bad bishop for good) etc..  While following principles blindly can lead to trouble, they serve as pegs upon which to hang ones understanding of why an opening move is best, ways to go about bringing your tactics to bear, and how a given endgame might be reached. They make it all come together.

In addition I would suggest learning ways to calculate development and board control.. (# pieces off the back rank, # of moves to connect your rooks, # of squares you control on opponents side vs # opponent controls on yours), thereby leading to an understanding of tempo and expanding your board vision to see the situation at large rather than as groups of little skirmishes on various parts of the board.

Beyond that I would suggest a balanced approach, maybe 25% endgame, 25% opening, and 50% tactics.  One theme tends to build on the others, cementing your understanding and keeping it a cohesive organized unit..