Guy starts chess at age of 20, is there the possibility he will ever achieve GM? - Chess Forums - Page 2

lutak22

Jun 13, 2015

0

#21

I think it would be possible if not for having to work full time and support a family.. Makes things a bit more difficult

killercrab

Jun 13, 2015

0

#22

kevinsong2003

Jun 13, 2015

0

#23

looks like yarn to me eh?

fryedk

Jun 13, 2015

0

#24

It's very difficult. That being said, 20 year olds are still developing mentally, and its not uncommon to see them gain several hundred points a year when they work hard. Of course, they usually peak out in the 2000-2200 range but I think someone with a great work ethic, natural ability, and is willing to spend the time/money to travel, get coaches, etc, could become a GM.

RubiksRevenge

Jun 13, 2015

0

#25

I doubt it that a 20 year old newbie to chess could make GM title in their life, even removing all of the adult pressures that distract most adults will still not suffice. I know of financially, time rich individuals with no family commitments that study chess hard out and learnt the game when they were young that struggle to maintain an IM rating above 2400. You can dream but the fact that no single example in human existence that has achieved this feat speaks more volume than any logical reasoning.

Benedictine

Jun 13, 2015

0

#26

A lot of these sort of threads around about whether adults can make GMs or masters. Four things usually crop up:

1 Brain elasticity

2 Environmental factors (work, time etc)

3 Historical evidence

4 Overly optimistic posts/trash

Here's what usually happens -

1 People point out that as an adult brain elasticity slows down when you become an adult which makes learning new things harder, like learning a language as an adult it requires a lot more effort. Whereas the child can pick this up very easily. Someone usually points this out with a scientific background which proves that GM is impossible because of this.

Later someone often claims that this is not true, confusing the issue somewhat...

Personally, I have no idea which side is correct other than my general observations that kids seems to pick things up more easily than adults.

2 People point out that adults have less time than children and therefore cannot put the same hours in as kids can, with work commitments, family, etc.

Whereas I can understand this point in general, in my opinion the majority of this camp pushing this argument are likely to jump to rash generalisations that don't really answer the question (which is a theoretical question after all.) You will hear things like - adults have no time for chess because they are working all day and tired and can't focus on chess, whereas a kid has unlimited hours and can study all day long.

In my opinion this argument is the weakest of them all because of such generalisations. You could equally say - children have no time for chess because they are at school all day and have homework and so are too tired to focus on chess, whereas the adult needs less sleep and can put more time in after work. Or whatever, my point is that a child probably has slightly more free time over the average adult but I don't think the 'environmental' argument is the deal breaker.

3 People point out historical data where hardly anyone makes GM/master from starting as an adult.

Hard to argue with historical data as it seems there aren't many who have achieved this goal as an adult and the ones put forward as doing so there are often some grey areas - like no actually they played as a young child but started tournament chess later on or such things.

However, as the question is theoretical you could argue that historical data might not prove the point, as just because it hasn't happened yet (or may not have happened yet) doesn't mean that it cannot happen. I don't know, still very unlikely I think but...

4 You get a lot of overly optimistic posts and the usual general trash/spam + pictures of monkeys and that Jean Luc Picard rubbing his head.

Usually the overall optimistic types have absolutely no idea what it takes to be GM (or even decent club player). You will get messages such as - don't listen to anybody who tells you otherwise, anything is possible, if you study 5 hours of chess a week then maybe you will be GM in a year, etc, etc. And then a picture of a monkey or someone from Star Trek.

Theses posts can generally be ignored...

You will get a lot of back and forth between all camps and then the thread will die, only for a new one to pop up next week.

Personal overall conclusion.

Well the fact is that the GM level is extremely hard to achieve even if you start at a young age and have all the right backing, means that starting at a later date as an adult is even, even harder - virtually impossible.

Possibly there are scientific arguments against it happening, but I'm not sure what can be believed. Circumstantial/environmental factors I don't really buy in a theoretical argument, but the weight of historical data seems to pull heavily against the adult achieving GM status.

So I would say of a 20 year old starting chess and becoming a GM, extremely unlikely, but not totally impossible, but that's just my guess.

Cue pictures of monkeys...

ipcress12

Jun 13, 2015

0

#27

Do you have any idea of how strong today's GMs, let alone the world top 100, are?

As well as a B player can and maybe better because I read about chess as well as play it.

Have you ever noticed how weak strong chess players can be when it comes to making substantive arguments outside the chess board?

Just becasue the 20 year-old future GM hasn't been happened yet doesn't mean it never will. Ask Roger Bannister, the first four-minute miler.

Twenty years ago who would have said that a 79 year-old could beat a super GM? Korchnoi did in 2011.

Forty years ago who would have said a woman could enter the top ten ranks of world chess players? Judit Polgar did in 2005.

For now our 20 year-old future GM is speculation, but I'm comfortable with my side of the bet.

And I still say that Chigorin is an excellent harbinger for it.

FM Rumo75

Jun 13, 2015

0

#28

bb_gum234 hat geschrieben:

Rumo75 wrote:

ipcress12 hat geschrieben:

To be sure talent is required to storm the GM heights of chess.

Nonetheless, the fact Chigorin managed to play at the level of Steinitz despite starting seriouis chess at 24, clinches it for me that a 20 year-old could make GM.

I wouldn't claim that Chigorin would reach world champion level today, but I'll bet he could have made it to the top 1000 players in the world -- more or less the current number of GMs.

Do you have any idea of how strong today's GMs, let alone the world top 100, are?

What strength would you estimate for Chigorin when compared to modern players?

Honestly I have no idea. Maybe 2200, maybe 2300, but that's just wild guesses. For a player of his time he was exceptionally strong certainly.

I remember analysing games with very young talents who later became GM. They all had incredible tactical skills, and were extremely fast calculators. You cannot obtain this as an adult, no matter how much time you invest. Why do people always think that's possible with chess? Noone aspires to become an ATP tour tennis player when first holding a racket at the age of 20.

EmberGerlach

Jun 13, 2015

0

#29

Do you think a 22 year old, just graduated from college (and therefore has more time to study chess) with a current rating of 2000 could get to GM?

FM Rumo75

Jun 13, 2015

0

#30