Do I have a future in chess?

I am maybe too old to become GM. I was just day dreaming about it. Maybe I am wasted talent, who knows.

I'll beat you with no rooks bro

Guessing a rating is not considered to be something that can be done accurately by looking at the moves of a few games (selected by the player), and, certainly, nobody is going to know what rating might (with work) eventually be achieved. Anyone know if there is a way for this person to get a CAPS evaluation?

The short answer is - it depends on how long you've been studying chess seriously / somewhat seriously. Basically not just playing purely for fun. The time spans I've given are rather vague/not so well defined, but it's pretty reasonable. 

Considering the fact that you are probably older than a teenager, here's my evaluation (this is also based on your blitz games, which are a less biased sample, since you have losses there).

*If it's been 2-3 years or more, then no chance. I reached my current level in this time, and I have 0 chance of being a GM (nor would I want to be one), and I'm still in my teens. You might be able to be a master though, although it would take a huge amount of work.

*If it's been 1-2 years, still no. However, you can definitely be a master! And it would take a lot of work, but definitely doable.

*If it's been under 1 year, then I'm very impressed - chance is still low (it's GM after all), but you might be one of those rare adult GMs! You could certainly make it to like IM or something. 

*If it's been like 5 years or more, then unfortunately you probably will not be able to break even 2000 - I've seen these players before, and they're stuck at the same level no matter what... their accumulation of bad habits is just too much. 

Bottom line: So you might be able to be a master with some work - why not try for just some level of master instead? These days, the vast majority of improving adults have huge trouble even breaking 1800 OTB rating, let along 2000 and 2200, the lowest master level.  

I am not trying to show off. Here is a game that has stayed with me for a long time. My opponent had a big attack and I was supposed to have  compensation early on for that b-pawn yet it fizzled out pretty quickly. My opponent later got nervous and blundered.

I have been studying chess since Oct 2015. Just joined recently to the world of online chess. 

Ok, I am starting to realize being GM is a serious thing. 

I am curious, just for the chit-chat, what would your guesses be about my rating?

Thanks, why do you think I am very good? I thought being GM was just a matter of time. I was wrong.

Also, do some ratings history research on the masters at this site.

All the GMs, you'll notice, started out very early.

A lot of the NMs started very early too, with some exceptions, and those early starters quickly reached club level, but then after reaching like 1900, took like 5 years to get up to just 2200. It's very tricky stuff.

As another estimate, Hikaru Nakamura became a GM at age 15 - by age 10 Hikaru had already beaten a GM, and was an NM. It took him 5 more years after *already* being a master, and he's pretty much at the level of highest talent. 

My blitz games are horrible. I am not used to 3 minute games which seem to be the rule here, it just makes me go mad to lose against such crap players. I have some 5 min games, I think they are much better.

All the games posted in this thread were at least 30 min games.

You make good points Cherub. What would you think my USCF/FIDE rating would be?

I am more into fish-keeping than into chess, I thought that by giving chess 4 hours per day I could maybe reach GM in my 50th birthday.

So you fit into my "1-2 years" category. 

It means you're more talented than the average adult improver (definitely), but still I don't think you have a chance at GM. You do have a good shot at master level, with hard work. 

To find the answer to your question, join an otb tournament. If you get 7 points out of 7 rounds, you are a potential GM. 6.5 potential IM, 6 FM.

Thanks, why can't everyone become a GM? I am 27 right now and I thought it was reasonable to become GM by age 50. 

Those games were OTB but not rated. 

Thanks for your comment 2Q1C. Sounds too flattering to be true. I would not mind getting another bucket of cold water. Tell me what you really think about my games.

Would it make any difference if I was younger? Say 14-16. I guess it would, but how much? Would a kid at that age be able to make it to GM? I may teach chess to my nephews and sons, it is a fun game and we may find some talented players.

Like all other skills it's about starting young, working hard, and having at least some talent. Why should someone who starts at 30, and works a few hours a day (which admittedly would be a lot as an adult) be better than someone who started at 5, and has worked with professional trainers and cut their teeth playing in international tournaments all before they even hit puberty?

(1) Amateur = non-professional player... so Kasparov is an "amateur"  But yeah, you are below master level for sure. 

*You are underrated in blitz - Your rating is still going up, and you auto-resigned/had internet problems? against some players I noticed. You should be at least 1600 blitz. 

*We all have games where we do well, and those where we blunder horribly. Chess ratings count all of these games.  The strength of your opponent must also be considered. 

To give a rough estimate, I would rate you at least 1500-1600 FIDE. This is because your posted games show that you have at least this level of skill, yet I believe there are some embarrassing ones that haven't shown. 

(2) The problem with adult improvers is that first, I've never ever heard of someone who was at your level at 40 (around? even 30 is the same verdict) and became a GM, let alone an IM or even FM. I don't even think NM, although I'm sure there's been some. It just doesn't happen, and I don't know why. It seems like adults quickly learn the fundamentals and basics, but get stuck really quickly too. Again, I have no idea why - not a psychologist. You might break the trend though, who knows

(3) I believe one reason adults improve slowly, and I'm actually certain about this, is that they *form and hold on to preconceived notions and biases, and reject new, "weird" ways of thinking*. 

Little kids in chess are always taking in new knowledge, absorbing and experimenting without too much bias, which is critical in chess and chess improvement. Adults, I've noticed, are much more set in their way. I remember a 1400 USCF middle-aged player, and when I tried to tell him that doubled pawns in a certain position weren't a big deal, he kept arguing and refusing my advice. He's been at 1400 for many many years, no improvement, and for some reason he doesn't want to listen to someone above 1400? 

If there's one thing you don't want to do, it's be too set in your thinking. Always be willing to think outside the box and with new information.

(4) If you were 14-16, still no. Why? Because I was about your level, with about 1 year of semi-serious study at this exact age . I'm not really that talented to be a GM. But I know for a fact that I can become at least NM - at my rate, compared to that of other NMs, it's pretty expected for me to be an NM within a year or a few. 

Keep in mind that most GMs, when 14-16, were (a) already GMs or IMs, or (b) were very strong untitled players who had been playing for less than 1-2 years. There are very few exceptions. 

Hope this helps somewhat. You're better than the majority of adults for sure, especially the ones below your level who've been stuck there for a decade or so.