Anyone can improve based on the time put into it. Many of us who will never be masters still enjoy reaching a level where we can play a strong game that gives us pleasure in. I'm 66 and returned to chess this year after a decade plus away and I've improved in pattern recognition and applying it above any level I was at before (and I am 2116 USCF Correspondence from the pre-home-computer 1970's), thanks to the Tactics Trainers, Tactics videos, etc.
FACT: You can't improve at chess
Sort:
psylowade wrote:
glad I didn't know this when I first learned chess otherwise I would never improved so much.
This is going to be a very controversial post - but I strongly believe that once someone has a basic understanding of the game (knowing all the opening variations, basic strategies etc..) it's almost impossible to improve based on practice. I think we all have a natural ability that will dictate our skill level. It's why we see little kids rated as grandmasters but players who have put 20+ years in still struggle at 1500
This is why you see that majority of players, who have played for over 5 years ALWAYS hover around the same rating. You would think after 5 years of consistent practice the rating would gradually increase?
Every single graph I've looked at at long term players is within 200 rating points. I.e. if someone is rated 1900 they will have hovered between 1800-2000 for their entire careers. It makes me believe chess is based on genetic intelligence you're born with and nothing more. Yes you can sharpen your skill but you're not going to go from struggling at 1000 to 2500 in 10 years.
I know the majority of you are thinking "what an idiot of course you can improve" - Show me a graph of a player who has consistently improved over time. It doesn't exist. It's usually rapid increase or decrease at the beginning then just hovering around a rating forever. Give me a player profile graph and show me slow, long term improvement
Jun 23, 2017
0
#64
bb_gum234 wrote:
Lionofgd wrote:
bb_gum234 wrote:
Lionofgd wrote:
psylowade, if you were to play for six hours of chess every day for the next twenty years, I am quite confident that you could be a grandmaster
If it were that easy, we'd have grandmasters everywhere.
Also, as you somewhat found out with Carlsen, it's very rare to keep improving for as long as 10 years.
That's true. The point is that it's possible.
I believe that grandmaster status is comfortably within everyone's natural ability. Also, that's exactly how people become grandmasters - through decades of practice.
I don't know a single grandmaster who required "decades" of practice. They either make it or they don't after around 8 to 10 years. The world champion is in his 20s, like every other dominant world champion before him.
By the way people who are very strong IMs at age 18 then finally got around to norm hunting at age 40 to get a GM title don't count
And people who say anyone can be GM misunderstand what GM is.
But talking is pretty pointless. If you want to show anyone can do it, get some students, make them all GMs, and prove it to the world. As the best trainer in the history of chess, you'll easily make a living from this.
GM examples never seemed relevant to me anyway. Everyone that becomes a GM these days has GM trainers, professional level sparring partners, training regimens created by the best players in the world and relevant experience. The onus is on them to use it. The average player has none of this on top of having to put in the work. It's easy to see why the number of GMs in the world is so small. Hell, there are countries in the Olympiad that don't even have GMs.
I mean seriously, what's the likelyhood of becoming professional at anything by reading books and articles? It's pretty low unless it's a soft subject. The average player just hits a wall and with no way to know how to pass it they just don't.
That's why talk of talent and genetics has never been relevant imo. Without the means to hone talent it's not going to be used anyway.
Jun 23, 2017
0
#65
The original post that started this thread pointed out that if you look at the chess results for many people you will notice that almost all do not greatly improve their ratings.Many people believe that genetics, aptitude, and such are irrelevant. They argue that if you study effectively and play enough great improvement is possible. That is the basics of this thread
Jun 23, 2017
0
#66
Ekrabin wrote:
The original post that started this thread pointed out that if you look at the chess results for many people you will notice that almost all do not greatly improve their ratings.Many people believe that genetics, aptitude, and such are irrelevant. They argue that if you study effectively and play enough great improvement is possible. That is the basics of this thread
Sure but how do you even know if what you're studying is best for you? Study is good. But should I be studying dark-square complexes and 3 pawn+R endgames at say 1400? What about 1600? 2100? 2121? Who knows... And that's just the rub. So people just buy books that may or may not be good for them in the hopes that they improve, kinda like firing blind. I've heard about books like "My System" by Aron Nimzowitch and "Logical Chess Move By Move" by Irning Chernev praised as much as they have been criticized.
And even so, a lot of strong players say that tactics are the most important thing anyway and I of course agree. If you still blunder in your games then nothing else you'll ever do will matter because it'll just be spoiled by a blunder.
If you ask me the only relevant thing to improvement is tactics with a really REALLY low emphasis on openings and endgames. If you blunder in the opening (by far the biggest compliant of players that learn chess, and especially those that quit) there won't be a middlegame or an ending. I'm reminded of Judit Polgar who, despite her training, was admittedly not so great in the opening and just managed to defeat her opponents in complications in the middlegame. And in fact she gained a reputation for her tactical ability.
And the talk of players getting to 2000 on mostly tactics and a little bit of everything else isn't just folks bragging either. They really do it. I knew a guy that got to 1900 just playing 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 with the White pieces. And this is an opening that is almost universally shunned on chess forums. Anyway, that's the way I see it.
penandpaper0089 wrote:
Sure but how do you even know if what you're studying is best for you? Study is good. But should I be studying dark-square complexes and 3 pawn+R endgames at say 1400? What about 1600? 2100? 2121? Who knows... And that's just the rub. So people just buy books that may or may not be good for them in the hopes that they improve, kinda like firing blind. I've heard about books like "My System" by Aron Nimzowitch and "Logical Chess Move By Move" by Irning Chernev praised as much as they have been criticized.
And even so, a lot of strong players say that tactics are the most important thing anyway and I of course agree. If you still blunder in your games then nothing else you'll ever do will matter because it'll just be spoiled by a blunder.
If you ask me the only relevant thing to improvement is tactics with a really REALLY low emphasis on openings and endgames. If you blunder in the opening (by far the biggest compliant of players that learn chess, and especially those that quit) there won't be a middlegame or an ending. I'm reminded of Judit Polgar who, despite her training, was admittedly not so great in the opening and just managed to defeat her opponents in complications in the middlegame. And in fact she gained a reputation for her tactical ability.
And the talk of players getting to 2000 on mostly tactics and a little bit of everything else isn't just folks bragging either. They really do it. I knew a guy that got to 1900 just playing 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 with the White pieces. And this is an opening that is almost universally shunned on chess forums. Anyway, that's the way I see it.
Tactics are important, but so are endgames. Especially at the higher levels, during 40/2 or 30/90 tournaments. You can't become a IM or a GM without studying endgame theory. Knowing how to turn a loss into a draw or a draw into a win, with good endgame technique, is critical at the higher levels, at standard time controls. Endgames are not as critical for 1400 players who only play blitz and bullet chess though. That's all about speed and tactics (I call that "Beat the Clock", not real chess). However, they will never become GM's by just doing tactics trainer and playing blitz games.
Jun 23, 2017
0
#68
JeffGreen333 wrote:
penandpaper0089 wrote:
Sure but how do you even know if what you're studying is best for you? Study is good. But should I be studying dark-square complexes and 3 pawn+R endgames at say 1400? What about 1600? 2100? 2121? Who knows... And that's just the rub. So people just buy books that may or may not be good for them in the hopes that they improve, kinda like firing blind. I've heard about books like "My System" by Aron Nimzowitch and "Logical Chess Move By Move" by Irning Chernev praised as much as they have been criticized.
And even so, a lot of strong players say that tactics are the most important thing anyway and I of course agree. If you still blunder in your games then nothing else you'll ever do will matter because it'll just be spoiled by a blunder.
If you ask me the only relevant thing to improvement is tactics with a really REALLY low emphasis on openings and endgames. If you blunder in the opening (by far the biggest compliant of players that learn chess, and especially those that quit) there won't be a middlegame or an ending. I'm reminded of Judit Polgar who, despite her training, was admittedly not so great in the opening and just managed to defeat her opponents in complications in the middlegame. And in fact she gained a reputation for her tactical ability.
And the talk of players getting to 2000 on mostly tactics and a little bit of everything else isn't just folks bragging either. They really do it. I knew a guy that got to 1900 just playing 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 with the White pieces. And this is an opening that is almost universally shunned on chess forums. Anyway, that's the way I see it.
Tactics are important, but so are endgames. Especially at the higher levels, during 40/2 or 30/90 tournaments. You can't become a IM or a GM without studying endgame theory. Knowing how to turn a loss into a draw or a draw into a win, with good endgame technique, is critical at the higher levels, at standard time controls. Endgames are not as critical for 1400 players who only play blitz and bullet chess though. That's all about speed and tactics (I call that "Beat the Clock", not real chess). However, they will never become GM's by just doing tactics trainer and playing blitz games.
Sure but by the time you reach 2000 it becomes obvious that tactics alone are not enough and then the other facets of the game become more important. Before then though? It's just tactics all the time. By the time someone becomes an FM it's probably a given that they have to actually be good at chess. But I'm not really talking about becoming a professional player but simply improving.
I'm 1400 at blitz here but I get severe lag and end up losing many games 40 seconds behind my opponent and that's on top of tactical problems. I'm 1700 on another site but I doubt the difference between a 1400 and a 1700 is anything more than blundering less. I have no illusions of improving by playing blitz nor did I ever state any intention of improving at all. I already know that tactics are in the way of my improvement and as i don't have any interest in tactical puzzles at all I don't really want to improve tbh. I just play now.
What's sad is such interest to be the best at this great game when I'm very happy to just play my potential, know right well were I to book read on it I would be easily 2000 but do not give a rats @ because my enjoyment is winning, losing with winning through any lost, given I gained anything, and just have the comfort that it so haves given me through these very difficult times while living on street with only a backpack for such a long time, no income and much hell to overcome to be re established.
penandpaper0089 wrote:
Sure but by the time you reach 2000 it becomes obvious that tactics alone are not enough and then the other facets of the game become more important. Before then though? It's just tactics all the time. By the time someone becomes an FM it's probably a given that they have to actually be good at chess. But I'm not really talking about becoming a professional player but simply improving.
I'm 1400 at blitz here but I get severe lag and end up losing many games 40 seconds behind my opponent and that's on top of tactical problems. I'm 1700 on another site but I doubt the difference between a 1400 and a 1700 is anything more than blundering less. I have no illusions of improving by playing blitz nor did I ever state any intention of improving at all. I already know that tactics are in the way of my improvement and as i don't have any interest in tactical puzzles at all I don't really want to improve tbh. I just play now.
I'd say that endgames are important for ALL tournament players. I got into several tight endgames, back when I was playing 40/2 tournaments. You could conceivably get up to a 1700 or 1800 classical (or daily) rating, without much endgame knowledge, but it's not likely. I don't count bullet, blitz or rapid ratings as real ratings.
Jun 23, 2017
0
#71
JeffGreen333 wrote:
penandpaper0089 wrote:
Sure but by the time you reach 2000 it becomes obvious that tactics alone are not enough and then the other facets of the game become more important. Before then though? It's just tactics all the time. By the time someone becomes an FM it's probably a given that they have to actually be good at chess. But I'm not really talking about becoming a professional player but simply improving.
I'm 1400 at blitz here but I get severe lag and end up losing many games 40 seconds behind my opponent and that's on top of tactical problems. I'm 1700 on another site but I doubt the difference between a 1400 and a 1700 is anything more than blundering less. I have no illusions of improving by playing blitz nor did I ever state any intention of improving at all. I already know that tactics are in the way of my improvement and as i don't have any interest in tactical puzzles at all I don't really want to improve tbh. I just play now.
I'd say that endgames are important for ALL tournament players. I got into several tight endgames, back when I was playing 40/2 tournaments. You could conceivably get up to a 1700 or 1800 classical (or daily) rating, without much endgame knowledge, but it's not likely. I don't count bullet, blitz or rapid ratings as real ratings.
I'm not counting blitz ratings actually... I only talked about my blitz rating because the other guy brought it up. Endgames are important. I don't dispute that. But due to the fact that the majority of games between players U2000 are decided by blunders and not Karpovian strokes, they take a backseat. I've already made a thread about this here: https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/amateur-chess-is-mostly-tactics-and-that-s-unfortunate-for-me
These opinions are not simply my own and really relate to OTB play and not simply blitz. I used to believe that all facets of the game are equally important for everyone too. But that's simply untrue. You may also like to read this post on reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/3us0t3/why_do_people_stress_tactics_so_much/
Chess.com's own IM Rensch posts there on the subject as well. I definitely did my research on the matter - research into the "meta" of chess that unfortunately books don't really talk about much unless they're tactics books.
ThePEPSIChallenge wrote:
What's sad is such interest to be the best at this great game when I'm very happy to just play my potential, know right well were I to book read on it I would be easily 2000 but do not give a rats @ because my enjoyment is winning, losing with winning through any lost, given I gained anything, and just have the comfort that it so haves given me through these very difficult times while living on street with only a backpack for such a long time, no income and much hell to overcome to be re established.
everyone else not agree?
Jun 23, 2017
0
#73
A summary of the dreamers argument
"I am rated 1200 on an internet chess site, and am quite happy at this level, However if I could be bothered to study and read books then I am sure I could become a GM. The only difference between myself and a GM is they have magically an extra Six hours per day to study"
Cwazzzy deluded people
I would say those 6 hours study to them is important but why do it?
Why not 'just enJOY' the great game?
I feel sad for the overly skinny to bone women who feel their too fat to be a model.
If 'only' they were to CHANGE such their 'claim'.
You can probably reach your "natural playing strength" in about 2 years of reasonable study, subject to the age at which you learn the game, and a well rounded study and OTB play.
After that, all predictions depend on you, your talents, aptitudes, and time devoted.
But the prospects of huge increases in your playing strength should be given a heavy discount. Very simple.
Why is this so hard to fathom?? This thread topic has been beat to death hundreds of times on this site. Get over it, please.
Mr. Polgar sought to put this issue to a test -- with his daughters. Read that literature if you want to dig into the subject.
Jun 24, 2017
0
#76
bb_gum234 wrote:
Lionofgd wrote:
psylowade, if you were to play for six hours of chess every day for the next twenty years, I am quite confident that you could be a grandmaster
If it were that easy, we'd have grandmasters everywhere.
Also, as you somewhat found out with Carlsen, it's very rare to keep improving for as long as 10 years.
"that easy"
psylowade wrote:
I've looked at 100's of players graphs and there all around the same mark. Makes me wonder the point of even playing. I'm definitely not improving and I'm pretty confident it's because my natural ability has peaked.
If you're not improving, you have to ask yourself why.
What are you doing to try to improve? How hard are you working at it? How smartly are you working at it?
I'm not a big believer in the "natural ability limits one's potential to improve" mindset. From my experience, improvement happens when one correctly identifies the flaws in their game, and works to fix them.
Usually, hitting a plateau simply means you haven't yet identified the flaws that are holding you back. Or, you haven't yet figured out the solution to them.
Sometimes this means getting help from a stronger player who can see things that you might've missed.
I've been playing for nearly 5 years and have improved from beginner to 1700 fide by playing and just having fun. I also occasionally did tactics but there was no "study plan".
Jun 24, 2017
0
#79
Kinghunter514's post is evidence he has the aptitiude to play 1700 fide without utilization of a study plan lol 
Aptitude is the reason some experts despite effort and study do not reach the 2200 level. Same is true why some 2200's do not become 2400's. Same is true as why some 1400's do not become 1700 despite books software and lessons
I agree. It has taken me 44 years to claw my way up to 1800. I would guess that a person has to be gifted (120-140 IQ) or genius (140 and higher IQ) to attain a GM title, no matter how hard they train. I am in the high gifted range (138), but didn't start studying chess until I was 22 (and then only sporadically). I got too late of a start and had too many other interests to dedicate my entire life to chess. I wish that I had chess lessons when I was 9 and stuck with it until the age of 17 or 18, at least. I'd probably be a NM or IM by now.