The people who invented chess are rolling in their graves laughing that people care so much about this game that they earn "points" and "titles". It's a dumb game just like checkers that with enough repetition can be "mastered". I'd like to see a gm write a computer program or something actually important to the human race.
Guy starts chess at age of 20, is there the possibility he will ever achieve GM?
Sort:
stopandthink wrote:
The people who invented chess are rolling in their graves laughing that people care so much about this game that they earn "points" and "titles". It's a dumb game just like checkers that with enough repetition can be "mastered". I'd like to see a gm write a computer program or something actually important to the human race.
most GMs have full time careers... playing chess might be good enough to keep them above the poverty line for a month or two
umirin1991 wrote:
stopandthink wrote:
The people who invented chess are rolling in their graves laughing that people care so much about this game that they earn "points" and "titles". It's a dumb game just like checkers that with enough repetition can be "mastered". I'd like to see a gm write a computer program or something actually important to the human race.
most GMs have full time careers... playing chess might be good enough to keep them above the poverty line for a month or two
All I'm saying is it can be learned just like anything else with a crap load of practice but unlike other things it gives no value at all other than a chance to brag that you're a smart a$$. Which isn't true.
stopandthink wrote:
The people who invented chess are rolling in their graves laughing that people care so much about this game that they earn "points" and "titles". It's a dumb game just like checkers that with enough repetition can be "mastered". I'd like to see a gm write a computer program or something actually important to the human race.
I somewhat have to agree with you. I think may have taken a great game and turned it into a "Look at me!" life moment. Its a game...a great game, a fun game, but its a game. Its not a life accomplishment. I see so many basing their self-worth on a rating, and how fast they can move. Its gotten to the point that now if you lose a game, your opponent must have cheated.
bb_gum234 wrote:
stopandthink wrote:
The people who invented chess are rolling in their graves laughing that people care so much about this game that they earn "points" and "titles". It's a dumb game just like checkers that with enough repetition can be "mastered". I'd like to see a gm write a computer program or something actually important to the human race.
You think that's bad, I hear there are people who make millions of dollars for kicking or throwing a ball... the same games children play, but they are adults! And that is their job, they don't do anything else!
It's not a bad thing. Heck I look up to Nakamura. I'm just tired of people asking if it's possible to become a GM like it's some insurmountable goal that only special cookies can achieve. It's not.
bb_gum234 wrote:
stopandthink wrote:
bb_gum234 wrote:
stopandthink wrote:
The people who invented chess are rolling in their graves laughing that people care so much about this game that they earn "points" and "titles". It's a dumb game just like checkers that with enough repetition can be "mastered". I'd like to see a gm write a computer program or something actually important to the human race.
You think that's bad, I hear there are people who make millions of dollars for kicking or throwing a ball... the same games children play, but they are adults! And that is their job, they don't do anything else!
It's not a bad thing. Heck I look up to Nakamura. I'm just tired of people asking if it's possible to become a GM like it's some insurmountable goal that only special cookies can achieve. It's not.
Get an IM title (or coach some people to GM level) then tell me how easy it is for anyone to do it.
But I just told you there's no point to mastering this game other than to belittle others. If I spend years learning to program I can someday build something that benifits humanity. If I spend years learning this I'll end up with a rating that says I'm better than you. So no I won't, not because it's difficult but because it's just a game.
I think there is a precedent of someone doing this therefore it can be done. The person who started the forum didn't ask how easy or otherwise it would be to do just whether it was possible i.e. is the probability of it happening zero.
bb_gum234 wrote:
stopandthink wrote:
But I just told you there's no point to mastering this game other than to belittle others. If I spend years learning to program I can someday build something that benifits humanity. If I spend years learning this I'll end up with a rating that says I'm better than you. So no I won't, not because it's difficult but because it's just a game.
People who want to learn chess to belittle others probably quit after they're as good as 1300. Because at that point, they will crush all their friends (the ones who occasionally need to be reminded how the horsey moves).
Most people who stick with chess love chess for the personal improvement (in the game of course) and the competition.
I assume this is also true for athletes and artists. They put in difficult work, and are proud of the results they're able to achieve. Most of these are rather silly on the surface (athletics, arts, chess...) but the motivation to improve is very pure I think i.e. personal achievement through effort.
And if you don't want to be a GM, that's fine... I'd say it's normal. But you must admit you're not qualified to answer this question (like all non-titled players in this topic). So again, if you want me to listen when you say "it's not difficult" then first you need some experience actually doing what it is you're talking about.
People who say no are extremely small minded and they're the same people that would argue the world is flat back in the day.
stopandthink wrote:
People who say no are extremely small minded and they're the same people that would argue the world is flat back in the day.
What makes you think the earth is not flat? Do you believe it's not flat only because the government says so, or because you saw a globe in school? If you start looking for evidence, you may find it's not so easy to convince yourself. Instead, you might find Flat Earth Clues, lunar waves, and then there is Admiral Byrd who claimed to have found the edge of the flat world, which is difficult to reach because it's in Antartica. In any case, it's hard to verify for yourself without relying on what other people tell you.
bb_gum234 wrote:
pfren wrote:
Yes, it's easy. There are just a few easy things needed to be done:
- Being rich, so you won't have to work outside chess.
- Working on a very specific plan for 4-5 hours a day, every day.
- Being instructed by an experienced coach (certainly not a self-nominated one!).
There are also a few more things, but the above are the main ones.
All you need is a coach and 4-5 hours a day to be a GM?
As he said, you need to learn reading 
You read these requirements:
- Coach
- 4-5 hours a day
And you think, "everyone can find a coach" and "everyone has 4-5 hours a day".
But he said this:
- The right coach
- 4-5 hours per day
- A very specific plan to follow for 4-5 hours per day
- The ability to stay focused, concentrate deeply, and work hard for 4-5 hours per day
- The ability to not get tired of studying deeply for 4-5 hours, every day (yes, you have to do it again tomorrow, and the next day, and the day after that)
- Be rich, so you do not have to work, otherwise you cannot spend 4-5 hours per day at a top-notch mental level
- Be rich, so you do not have distractions
- Be rich, so you do not have to be at work, which will prevent you from travelling to tournaments where you can achieve norms
- Be rich, so you can pay for travel expenses all over the world to tournaments where you can achieve norms
And like he said, there is more
pfren said,
"Maybe he [Dan Heisman] does count [as an experienced coach].
Care to name some of his pupils that became GM's?"
If any of his pupils became GMs, it was long after he stopped coaching them.
@bb_gum234
another main requiremet of becoming a GM after learning chess at age 20+ is talent. No stupid person could pull that off.
I feel that pfren is making misleading comments. He also seemed to be a bit rude/sarcastic
Maybe I am wrong
Ultimately the white man should leave the United States and the black people should go back to Africa.
Bobby Fischer
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/b/bobbyfisch473846.html#oARz6JwmGxZz3fQd.99
Jun 16, 2015
0
#97
Okay, Okay. HOW ABOUT THIS:
Guy starts chess at age of 19, is there the possibility he will ever achieve GM?
My point. Is there a place where you can really draw a line?
Starting at 20 is really too late to expect to be a GM competing for a World Championship but you could become a really good player if you dedicate yourself to chess. The human mind is the sharpest between 18 and 28. That's my life experience for what it's worth. Today there are MANY tools to help you become as good as you can be at any age. Most fail at memory and looking forward (moving pieces in your head) and percieving the results of those moves without mistake. Also having a flawless opening reportoire is extremely important if you expect to win at this point in chess history.
Jun 16, 2015
0
#99
bb_gum234 wrote:
EagleRiverRick wrote:
Okay, Okay. HOW ABOUT THIS:Guy starts chess at age of 19, is there the possibility he will ever achieve GM?
My point. Is there a place where you can really draw a line?
Just because we can't say exactly doesn't mean the line doesn't exist.
This topic is often talk about, but no one ever names any adult beginner who has gone to GM (or even gotten close)
The youngest so far seems to be this guy at 17
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ye_Jiangchuan
And IMO, even he may not be a good candidate if he was playing chess-like games from a young age, then merely switched to western chess at 17.
Some might say something like...age brings diminishing returns. (GRADUALLY diminishing?) I'm guessing many studies would show many different ages. I think the reason why someone doesn't become GM later is because "life" gets in the way - jobs etc. - more than a lack of ability, it is a lack of time on hands, etc., as others have already written.
Jun 16, 2015
0
#100
Well, there are constants and variables. The Russians were excelled at chess in part because of government assistance. This was apparent not only in chess but in olympic sports, etc. (Time, less distractions.) But within that group there were varying degrees of talent which is my opinion regarding your question: "And for the talented youth, with good coaches, and family support, who didn't make it to GM? What's their excuse?"
brilliant!
knew frenno would deliver the goods :)