With a some natural talent I think a person could make expert by only playing and then looking at their games to see where they went wrong. An average person probably wont make it much past class A though, which is just under expert.
With Soviet/Polgar like study a person could make expert in less than 2 years I'd think. Of course this would be like a full time job of study + play, just trying to give the two extremes.
With a some natural talent I think a person could make expert by only playing and then looking at their games to see where they went wrong. An average person probably wont make it much past class A though, which is just under expert.
With Soviet/Polgar like study a person could make expert in less than 2 years I'd think. Of course this would be like a full time job of study + play, just trying to give the two extremes.
ok thanks
how long did it take you to reach expert/A class,if you don't mind me asking?
as for reviewing my games I tried several times running my games through Fritz but more times than not I don't understand the lines lol.I would think getting a coach is more beneficial right?a coach could easily spot some patterns in the flaws in my game that I can't detect
as for talent...I dunno.I been playing for a little over 2 years lol.
If you want to compare yourself to me, I think you're ahead of where I was after 2 year of play. Also I think you could reach master within 10 years of play (8 years to go) something I don't think I can do anymore.
Without getting into my life story, I'd guess about 7 years for me to reach class A. Currently though, I'm still class A, I don't think I'm an expert yet. If I keep going to tournaments though I'll be able to base it off my national rating. My area gets about 10 good tourneys a year, so a little less than 1 a month. Next month I'm entering a 5 rounder, G90 +30 (if I remember). Hopefully I'll officially break into class A. I need about 50 more points. My last 2 tourneys together have bumped me up 160 points (80 each), so as long as I play at my level (and face higher rated people) I think it's possible.
If not, no big deal. It's more about what you learn than your rating. As long as I continue to play my moves, the rating will come eventually... just in case you think I'm obsessed with points 
It's a combination of experience (playing serious games, slow OTB or correspondence chess) and study, but that isn't all. You won't maintain an Expert rating for long unless you know basic endings, for example. But some people study and play all their lives and never get there - in fact I think it's about 1% of active players, or used to be. So there's a natural talent aspect involved, too.
I think with intensive study (no job, no family, just chess) the average person could reach at least close to IM level -- something like 2400. It may be true less than 1% of active players are expert or above, but most players can't devote much time to study between family and jobs... what I mean is, it's far from their true potential.
I don't think you need to know a lot of basics to reach expert. Practically speaking, yes, you're almost forced to, but theoretically if you simply became incredibly tactically proficient I think an average person would make expert on that alone. Of course take the same amount of time it took to reach such tactical proficiency and put it into a balanced study plan and you'd be rated that much higher...
I guess I'm just saying that I think certain levels of mastery aren't as mysterious or hard to get as some people tend to think -- provided you love the game and are willing to put a lot of time into it.
As in most things, it is much more achievable to overcome a lack of talent with hard work than to overcome a lack of hard work with talent alone.
You should also approach your study time with enthusiasm, seeking to improve, and not with dread or resignation like schoolwork in courses you hate.
One other thing I would mention about the entire journey: improving at chess isn't a linear thing . . .
The most important thing is to have fun and enjoy yourself as you discover the ever-deeper wonders of this magical game.
Great stuff, I definitely agree... quotes cut down for space reasons, if you find this good be sure to read his whole posts 
as for reviewing my games I tried several times running my games through Fritz but more times than not I don't understand the lines lol.I would think getting a coach is more beneficial right?a coach could easily spot some patterns in the flaws in my game that I can't detect
I think some titled player (might have been WGM Pogonina) somewhere on this site stated that players under master strength should not use computer engines at all! I wouldn't necessarily be that categorical but I would still say that under master strength you don't really need to use a computer engine. Computer probably will be able to point out some things that you missed but even if you use computer you should still try to do a detailed analysis using your own brains before swithching on the electronic brains. The rule is this: one learns by analysing not so much from the result of analysis.
You can certainly become expert or even master without a coach but having one could significantly speed up the process. Coach can evaluate your game and see blind spots in a way no computer engine can.
Very true and I have said this many times to people. There is no point in using a computer if you don't understand why it is telling you that something is better. Many people just take it's word for granted and as a result will never learn to work such positions out on their own in a game.
Shakaali, it has been said by IM DPruess in comments to my recent column. I agree that one shouldn't rely too much on computer engines and try to use one's head more often rather than copy variations provided by a chess engine. However, the "no computer under master level" statement looks too harsh. Nowadays kids and strong club players who compete at tournaments use engines to analyze their games, study openings, etc. I don't think it makes sense to use only studying methods of the 70s when modern ones are available.
Shakaali, it has been said by IM DPruess in comments to my recent column. I agree that one shouldn't rely too much on computer engines and try to use one's head more often rather than copy variations provided by a chess engine.
i have to say that i agree to a certain point, but it does seem that it is usually masters that give this advice (since it is easier for them to use their mind and decide on good moves).
coming from a non-master point of view (and a pretty weak player's point of view at that), without computer analysis i would not even know which moves are strong or weak in certain positions. sometimes i'm okay (though i'd still like to check to make sure with an engine), but sometimes i definitely need to analyze the position with an engine otherwise i am completely lost.
Definitely agree that analyzing your games without a computer is the best practice. Getting a second opinion of your analysis from a better player (preferably a coach, but this is where a computer could be helpful if you don't have a coach or stronger chess playing friends to help you) is also beneficial - AFTER your own analysis.
Definitely agree that analyzing your games without a computer is the best practice. Getting a second opinion of your analysis from a better player (preferably a coach, but this is where a computer could be helpful if you don't have a coach or stronger chess playing friends to help you) is also beneficial - AFTER your own analysis.
okay, yeah i can agree with that. doing it first yourself is probably best. however, computer analysis afterwards is still necessary for some who are not knowledgeable enough.
Shakaali, it has been said by IM DPruess in comments to my recent column. I agree that one shouldn't rely too much on computer engines and try to use one's head more often rather than copy variations provided by a chess engine. However, the "no computer under master level" statement looks too harsh. Nowadays kids and strong club players who compete at tournaments use engines to analyze their games, study openings, etc. I don't think it makes sense to use only studying methods of the 70s when modern ones are available.
Ok, sorry I mixed that up. The reason I brought this comment up is that I get the feeling that these days many chess players rely too heavily on computer engines when analysing.
On the other hand, I must admit that I personaly wish chess engines would never have grown so strong as they are today. I've got no problem with most modern technology as such and I think databases, interactive learning tools and obviously internet are great help for any chess player. However, when any beginner with a modern engine can immediately state that a move played by say Anand is a mistake it makes me kind of sad. Takes away some of the mystique from the game.
I have done a combination of studying a lot and playing and trying to fix my weaknesses, and I went from about 1100 to now 1738 in just two years of serious chess but I think I'm in the class a range because I have been able to consistently outplay and beat 1800 players recently, but "real" ratings go up slow.
And it took a ton of work. For the average person you just have to put in a ton of work and discipline to get results, but as people say most people have the potential to make master with a ton of work it's even more plausible to make expert doing the same thing.
So I think it's very achievable, but also very hard and time consuming.
Well i have reached 1817 USCF which i suppose is a somewhat respectable rating and i just do not have a lot of time to study with work and everything else so it is entirely possible for someone to reach Expert if they have some natural ability and are willing to work. I am trying to find some time to work on my game and maybe reach Expert myself in the near future.Just wanted to say hang in there and keep giving it your best, who knows
If you just believe in yourself you can achieve anything!
I would post a rainbow but I don't do pics.
Just play 1...c6 2...d5 against everything and you too can become 1935 USCF.
^ What if my opponent plays the Sicilian Defense?... Or any other defense...?
Lasker dedicated some writing to this topic in his manual of chess, he claims that with 250 hours which he divides in various aspects of the game which I don't remember the exact amount for each but they werent equal, he said that with 250 focused and dedicated hours, with an allottment of this dedicated to each aspect of the game the way he divided it (tactics, endgame, openings, positional strategy etc.) that anyone who desired to could become a master.
Lasker dedicated some writing to this topic in his manual of chess, he claims that with 250 hours which he divides in various aspects of the game which I don't remember the exact amount for each but they werent equal, he said that with 250 focused and dedicated hours, with an allottment of this dedicated to each aspect of the game the way he divided it (tactics, endgame, openings, positional strategy etc.) that anyone who desired to could become a master.
Just add rainbows.
hi all,
just a question:what does it take to become expert strength?is a lot of studying required or can one achieve this strength through years of playing?