I think age definitely matters when you are considering one's ability to improve. The brain is able to absorb more when you are young. (especially early childhood) Same reason it's easier to learn a foreign language the younger you are. Personally I started when I was 5 or 6 and I'm nearly 25 now and I've accepted that I'll never be a GM. I never studied as serious as I should of and frankly imo most people don't have the talent to be a GM myself included... (I would like to go for NM but maybe it's too late for that too) At the end of the day it's just a title just enjoy the game and have fun.
Chess and AGE
Sort:
It is my opinion that "the bow can't always be stretched" after a time of intense studying one has to stop and take a leave for a while and occupy one's mind with other things, things. I found out that there is only so much a mind can take in until a kind of numbness sets in and the gained knowledges has to be internalized and somehow come to rest in one's subconsciousness. For example, I know that it would be good if I would lay off chess for a couple of weeks and then come back to it. I would have a fresh outlook on top of the things I learned. But I just keep on playing every day because I like to play and I'm playing in quite a few tournaments where I have to make a move almost every day, so I can't take a break. I didn't realise that tournaments could take a year or so to complete. So I feel that I'm stuck somewhat and I need a fresh outlook. To forget everything I learned for a while.
May 13, 2018
0
#24
ChessCat80 wrote:
Personally I started when I was 5 or 6 and I'm nearly 25 now and I've accepted that I'll never be a GM. I never studied as serious as I should of and frankly imo most people don't have the talent to be a GM myself included... (I would like to go for NM but maybe it's too late for that too) At the end of the day it's just a title just enjoy the game and have fun.
Whether or not it is too late to go for NM depends on what your current USCF rating is (if you have one). When I was your age (25) roughly five years ago, after taking a 5-year hiatus from chess to focus on school and other aspects of life, I peaked at 2110 USCF. I haven't really gone anywhere since then.
Coming from someone who started playing chess at the age of 7 or 8 (slightly later than you) and playing in a USCF-rated tourney for the first time at the age of 9 (achieving an initial rating of roughly 800), it took me roughly 8 years and playing in a little over 100 USCF-rated tourneys to crack 2000. At that point, it took playing in an additional 16 USCF-rated tourneys to crack 2100 USCF. Since cracking 2100 roughly 5 years ago at the age of 25, I have played in an additional 18 USCF-rated tourneys and I have yet to crack 2200 USCF.
My point is that if you didn't start out and improve at the rate as described in the previous paragraph, then your chances of making NM are relatively slim in comparison to mine pending upon what your current USCF rating is. But if you have the ability and dedication in terms of training and playing in tournaments frequently enough, I say that you can make NM within 15-20 years from now if you care enough to work at it.
May 13, 2018
0
#25
I think chess is like any academic works. It is no harder than getting a PhD in science. What we need is time to study and money to buy book or hire a coach. If you spend 16hr a day with a GM as your coach, you will improve fast and reach the next levek.
May 13, 2018
0
#26
isabela14 wrote:
Does anyone know of someone that started to learn the game around the age of 30 and beyond and became a GM?
I think I heard somewhere that there was someone that started at about 21. I want to say Korchnoi, but not sure. But 21 is still not 30.
May 13, 2018
0
#27
catdogorb wrote:
mini_VAN wrote:
I think chess is like any academic works. It is no harder than getting a PhD in science. What we need is time to study and money to buy book or hire a coach. If you spend 16hr a day with a GM as your coach, you will improve fast and reach the next levek.
Nope. Chess is more than knowledge, it's performance.
Otherwise Kramnik and Anand would have stayed world numbers 1 and 2 until retirement.
I think it is hard to say that. Performance is how we apply knowledge and turn it into skills. I would not separate chess from academic work because it involves brain power.
WilliamJohnB wrote:
I'm about 1400 USCF but in reality I'd say I'm closer to 1600. (I haven't played OTB in about 5 years but I believe I've gotten better since then with study and online and that 1400 is still provisional although barely) Thanks for the note and good luck on NM!
ChessCat80 wrote:
Personally I started when I was 5 or 6 and I'm nearly 25 now and I've accepted that I'll never be a GM. I never studied as serious as I should of and frankly imo most people don't have the talent to be a GM myself included... (I would like to go for NM but maybe it's too late for that too) At the end of the day it's just a title just enjoy the game and have fun.
Whether or not it is too late to go for NM depends on what your current USCF rating is (if you have one). When I was your age (25) roughly five years ago, after taking a 5-year hiatus from chess to focus on school and other aspects of life, I peaked at 2110 USCF. I haven't really gone anywhere since then.
Coming from someone who started playing chess at the age of 7 or 8 (slightly later than you) and playing in a USCF-rated tourney for the first time at the age of 9 (achieving an initial rating of roughly 800), it took me roughly 8 years and playing in a little over 100 USCF-rated tourneys to crack 2000. At that point, it took playing in an additional 16 USCF-rated tourneys to crack 2100 USCF. Since cracking 2100 roughly 5 years ago at the age of 25, I have played in an additional 18 USCF-rated tourneys and I have yet to crack 2200 USCF.
My point is that if you didn't start out and improve at the rate as described in the previous paragraph, then your chances of making NM are relatively slim in comparison to mine pending upon what your current USCF rating is. But if you have the ability and dedication in terms of training and playing in tournaments frequently enough, I say that you can make NM within 15-20 years from now if you care enough to work at it.
AyoV wrote:
I am 62. Here are my thoughts on this.
I've played off and on (more off than on) since I was 8, but I never studied much, except for the simple basics.
It wasn't until I played against club players that I realised how poor my game was. I knew nothing about openings, strategies or tactics. The combinations I made were mostly intuïtive, which means they were mostly wrong or very superficial.
It wasn't till about a year ago that I wanted to learn more. When I joined chess.com I quickly dropped from 1370 to about 1050 I think. But looking at other people's games I thought that my rating should be about 1450. I don't know why I thought this, probably because I recognised the style of playing other people in that range had.
So I began to do some lessons, starting like a beginner and I learned some tricks I wasn't aware of, like how important the center was and other stuff that I won't mention here. So now after less than a year I've climbed to ~1400 and mostly because I didn't play against players above 1400 - 1500, so my progress was slow.
Now I think that with more study I could maybe reach 1600 or 1700. I don't say that I can't go higher, but it would be arrogant for me to say so, because I'm poitive that I wel never be a Master, let alone a Grand Master.
I think for that I would have had to start studying the game when I was a kid. Most Grand Master did so and furthermore were stimulated by their parents. If one has learned the game "with the porridge spoon" you will have gotten a much deeper and playful insight in the game than when older I think, because of the flexibilty of the young brain.
Also at a later age it is hard to overcome "bad habits" that you adopted when younger.
But leaving talent and natural insight aside, I have improved a great deal in the last year and in a while I will take up the lessons again and try to cross the 1500 barrier.
So you (OP) will definitely improve with lessons and advice/analysis from higher rated players. And also by playing a lot of games. With every game you will gain new insights (sometimes quite painful ) and make less mistakes, like letting pieces hang or giving away your queen. Scientists stay as bright and sharp as they were at younger age. Please coreect me if I am wrong. Someone like Donald Trump became the leader of the most powerful nation of the world at the age of 71.
So to conclude: there is no reason why you couldn't improve, depending on how much time and effort you put in the game. And how much fun it gives you. How high you can go is not up to me to say.
But then again, I have been shown players who were once very good, but somehow lost it. But they were in their eighties and one in his nineties. But I also know a player in his late eighties who still plays a mean game every time.
so far for my two cents.
Best post yet !
same
May 13, 2018
0
#31
I would say that if you have the talent and dedication, you might still progress and gain some improvement in the game. I have resumed playing since two months ago after 4 decades of inactivity. Way back then where I grew up, there was no computer to analyze the games, no mentor and had only an old hand me down chess book. But I am beating older men than me (I was young then).
I can't play blitz - that's too taxing for me and will cause me headache of thinking and moving fast. So I opted for the daily chess - 3 days/move and 2 days/move. This allows me to think more carefully and make better analysis before I make my move. But blunder still do happens! I started at 800, now I am at 1429. I have chess books to read and learn from. I have chess engines - but not sure how to help in analyzing games. This is still a work in progress.
I have more resources now - chess books, chess engines and chess.com. But I know that my memory is on longer as sharp or much better when I was younger. Heck, I could not even commit to memory the early moves of common chess openings. But the important thing is I am again enjoying playing this game. One more year and I will jump over to the senior level. Note that I have no official rating from USCF and will try to participate in rated tournaments in the coming months/years.
this game really is quite enjoyable, and I just started playing today! I'm not that good at playing chess but I'm working my way up. this is really good practice
May 13, 2018
0
#33
ChessCat80 wrote:
WilliamJohnB wrote:
ChessCat80 wrote:
Personally I started when I was 5 or 6 and I'm nearly 25 now and I've accepted that I'll never be a GM. I never studied as serious as I should of and frankly imo most people don't have the talent to be a GM myself included... (I would like to go for NM but maybe it's too late for that too) At the end of the day it's just a title just enjoy the game and have fun.
Whether or not it is too late to go for NM depends on what your current USCF rating is (if you have one). When I was your age (25) roughly five years ago, after taking a 5-year hiatus from chess to focus on school and other aspects of life, I peaked at 2110 USCF. I haven't really gone anywhere since then.
Coming from someone who started playing chess at the age of 7 or 8 (slightly later than you) and playing in a USCF-rated tourney for the first time at the age of 9 (achieving an initial rating of roughly 800), it took me roughly 8 years and playing in a little over 100 USCF-rated tourneys to crack 2000. At that point, it took playing in an additional 16 USCF-rated tourneys to crack 2100 USCF. Since cracking 2100 roughly 5 years ago at the age of 25, I have played in an additional 18 USCF-rated tourneys and I have yet to crack 2200 USCF.
My point is that if you didn't start out and improve at the rate as described in the previous paragraph, then your chances of making NM are relatively slim in comparison to mine pending upon what your current USCF rating is. But if you have the ability and dedication in terms of training and playing in tournaments frequently enough, I say that you can make NM within 15-20 years from now if you care enough to work at it.
I'm about 1400 USCF but in reality I'd say I'm closer to 1600. (I haven't played OTB in about 5 years but I believe I've gotten better since then with study and online and that 1400 is still provisional although barely) Thanks for the note and good luck on NM!
No problem. And thank you.
GM's are on a different level. I played Gata Kamsky in an OTB Game/30 tournament in New York some years back. He wasn't even looking at the board. He was just looking around the room. Every time I would make a move he would respond instantly. It was kind of comical and demoralizing at the same time.
They could at least act interested
May 13, 2018
0
#36
I think the largest impact of age is on timed matches. The shorter the game, the worse for the older player. The mind isn’t as quick as you age.
I want to correct a previous post. The dendrites are not the senders of electrical pulses between the neurons. The senders are the axons, the dendrites are the receivers of that pulse. But it doesn't change the gist of what I said.
ghost_of_pushwood schreef:
It does to me.
Why?
ghost_of_pushwood schreef:
lol
Angiejpr schreef:
this game really is quite enjoyable, and I just started playing today! I'm not that good at playing chess but I'm working my way up. this is really good practice
In my opinion 10 minute games are not a good way to improve unless you do an analysis on the games you played. Daily chess is much better. This way you can study different possibilities and/or look up information on the openings and such. Time pressure makes you make a move as soon as you find what you think is a good one (or not a bad one), while with a little thinking you would probably find a better one.
i'm a chess milf