I only began playing chess last year, and I'm now 30. I know I'll never be anywhere near a master, but I do hope to at least become a strong, competent player eventually.
Could you become an IM?
Sort:
May 28, 2018
0
#23
darkunorthodox88 wrote:
hadzovic wrote:
BackrankK wrote:
also IQ clearly has something to do with it, anyone who says otherwise is just mad they have a low IQ
Absolutely does not! I took IQ test, the official one. It scored 133. I pretty much have never been higher that 1700 1800's. That is not this site or any other site ...
that says way more about your training regimen than iq.
What, the iq test?
May 28, 2018
0
#24
catdogorb wrote:
Thrones_and_Kings wrote:
I only began playing chess last year, and I'm now 30. I know I'll never be anywhere near a master, but I do hope to at least become a strong, competent player eventually.
What rating makes someone a "strong, competent player?"
It's an interesting question, and I've heard tons of opinions on the forums over the 8+ years I've been on this site (and from other sources as well).
Without writing 10 pages on why the usual answers are all wrong (hehe) I'll attempt to give an answer (which may ultimately be wrong in ways too).
A person is a strong competent player after they've seriously studied each of the basic aspects: openings, tactics, strategy, endgames, GM games. I give no rating for this, because it will be different for everyone. I'll define "seriously studied" as having read at least 1 book on the topic (GM games here meaning an annotated game collection), and played over every variation, taken notes, analyzed interesting bits on their own, that sort of thing. I.e. skimming a book doesn't count. Reading half a book doesn't count.
I'll say that, plus 10 OTB tournaments. Why not 9 or 11? Why not 20 or 100? Ok, that works too, but you get the idea. Theory isn't enough in chess, you have to play as you learn too. If during, and then after every book (from above) you play in a tournament, that's 10, and ten is a nice number
books? really? what is it with chess players and their obsessions with outdated forms of improvement. modern chess player are more opening databases and engine analysis then bronstein and nimzowitsch.
May 28, 2018
0
#25
HappyEverAfter93 wrote:
catdogorb wrote:
darkunorthodox88 wrote:
books? really? what is it with chess players and their obsessions with outdated forms of improvement. modern chess player are more opening databases and engine analysis then bronstein and nimzowitsch.
Sure, I have chessbase and stockfish.
But they'd be pretty useless to me without having gotten a basic strategic and endgame understanding, and solving lots of puzzles.
And I'd recommend Pachman over Nmizowitsch.
I suppose you could do Zurich 1953 online for free, minus Bronstein's commentary, but new players need commentary because in the beginning all moves look equally good / bad.
Books are human knowledge. Only ignorant people say that they don't need a book. Perhaps, they never read one.
human knowledge quickly evolves. i have never read a chess book from front to back. ( i admit to have read 3/4's of silman's endgame guide to go from 2100-2200 and have opening reference books if i cant figure out a good continuation between the engine and the databases).
capatalpunishment wrote:
I heard a GM say anyone could become an IM - if they devoted themselves to chess.
So, my question; What do you reckong? If you didn't have to work etc, could you become an IM?
If not, why not?
I think it's safe to say that most GMs can become IMs with some practice.
May 28, 2018
0
#27
if a player is truly serious about improving rapidly. mostly do two things. lots of chess tactics (And not just mate in X type, do chesstempo tactics, where the goal is a winning position) and do a postmortem of EVERY game you play extensively, not just put the engine on and see where you made a boboo, analyze every sideline imaginable. other things watching master games, studying some basic edngames, can surely help but the two things above should be 80+% of your chess time.
that will make your chess strength skyrocket. i have a seen too many class players slogging around kasparov and fischer books as if the secret to moving from class C is hidden in those pages. it is not. most people get stuck because they either not train hard enough or their training is simply inefficient (ahem too much theoretical knowedge or too much blitz)
Jenium έγραψε:
capatalpunishment wrote:
I heard a GM say anyone could become an IM - if they devoted themselves to chess.
So, my question; What do you reckong? If you didn't have to work etc, could you become an IM?
If not, why not?
I think it's safe to say that most GMs can become IMs with some practice.
No, it's not easy. The GM title is for life...
The only way is being caught cheating at a tournament, get stripped of your title, and after the ban period start playing again... 
capatalpunishment wrote:
Hi Danny,
That was my first question: Is it so easy for these guys that they can't imagine being us?
Yes, I think that factors into it.
You will notice the same thing with opening advice...
Kasparov thinks all openings are sound below the GM level. An IM will tell the CM that they have lots of fundamental deficiencies and to not to worry so much about opening theory until s/he reaches the IM alevel. A CM will tell the class A player not to worry about openings until s/he reaches the CM level. The class A player will tell the class C player not to worry about openings until s/he reaches the class A level, and so forth. The class C player will tell the class E player not to worry about openings until s/he reaches the class C level.
I am starting to see why the more concrete concepts like endgames and tactics need to be learned more gradually, painstakingly, and thoroughly before even beginning to look at things like openings or strategy. For the adult who never played chess as younger person, it may be all that s/he needs to be work on for a lifetime of maximal improvement.
also IQ clearly has something to do with it, anyone who says otherwise is just mad they have a low IQ
Absolutely does not! I took IQ test, the official one. It scored 133. I pretty much have never been higher that 1700 1800's. That is not this site or any other site ...
that says way more about your training regimen than iq.