Guy starts chess at age of 20, is there the possibility he will ever achieve GM?

Like I said to this argument earlier, just because we can't draw a line, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

However, that doesn't mean the line gets drawn at GM.

I will concede that a 20 year-old can't become World Champion. All the stars have to line up for that including a mammoth appetite for work as pfren points out.

But World Champion is being the Numero Uno player in the entire world.

GM is "just" being among the top 1400 players in the world, which is a significantly lower bar.

I wonder what other difficult competitive endeavor someone can take up at 20 and have the potential to reach the <1%.

bb_gum: I keep saying "Chigorin!" and your side keeps ignoring it.

Unless the accounts are false that Chigorin only took up chess seriously at 24, he managed to challenge Steinitz twice for the World Championship and provided a decent showing both times.

Why not just focus on improving and enjoying the game? If you are stuck at 1800 analyze the reason for your stasis. Perhaps being a GM might be more of a burden than it's worth as I imagine it would require an immense amount of studying. Also 1800 isn't a bad place to play at and improve from.

I wonder what other difficult competitive endeavor someone can take up at 20 and have the potential to reach the <1%.

Michael Jordan took up pro baseball after he retired from basketball.

He played minor league, but that surely puts him in the top 1% and he managed a respectable enough .202 batting average. He wasn't a monster but he played at that level.

I think it's possible, just extremely unlikely.

And I'm saying (in case you didn't read any of my comments) that a 20+ year-old novice has already broken the GM barrier and more.

I'm not saying it's possible, however unlikely. I'm saying, it's happened.

Yeah, they didn't have FIDE norms and official GM titles back then. But Chigorin played for the World Championship twice and if that doesn't put a player in GM territory what does?

And remember "my side" says it's possible.

No. You say that, with all sorts of extreme qualifications. But look back in this topic, most of your side says, NO.

Why everyone writes sooooo looooooong

With enough study of modern ideas, it seems to me that the great champions of the past (morphy, capablanca, alekhine) would be in the same tier as today's elites.

Yup. I will almost guarentee you that my grandfather was just as mentally sharp at 87 as he was at 27 or younger (can't speak for his chess skills though, as, to my knowledge he never played the game).

Eh, I'm not sure that Jordan's minor league baseball career is the best example to use. For one, he did have quite a bit of baseball experience prior to that (he played little league and scholastic baseball pretty much right up until college). For two he played in the Chicago White Sox farm system, the White Sox having the same ownership as the Chicago Bulls (which pretty much all but guarenteed Jordan a baseball contract). It's also speculated that his brief retirement and foray into baseball was contrived between him, Bulls ownership and the NBA comissioner's office to save Jordan, basketball's greatest player (certainly its most well known), the public embarassment of being suspended from the NBA over his gambling habits.

Masters are made, but Grandmasters are born.  

He would need a lot of things going in his favor, science imo being the least of his concerns.

Everything is possible, but very unlikely.

Besides, any modern expert would beat Morphy with the Caro-Kahn.  Morphy would overestimate his position (remember, back in Morphy's day the Caro-Kahn was classed as unorthodox, and Morphy even lost against 1...b6?! against Owens and even 1...f6? against  Barnes), try forcing openings which would enable exchanges, if he avoids exchanges on an open file then he'd simply cede those entry points.  He will likely play for a king attack, but theory demonstrates that black can castle safely in the Caro-Kahn on the kingside.  White does obtain more space, but it's not that meaningful since black coordinates his pieces well in this system.  The d5 square is usually a good pivot square for black's pieces. 

Watch the movie Gattaca with Ethan Hawke. Anything is possible

Of course, but Morphy as we know him without further training would do things in a certain way.  He plays like a (late, he was a bit ahead of his time) 19th century player because he was one, without Lasker, Rubinstein, Capablanca, Botvinnik, Petrosian, Karpov, or Kasparov's games as precedent to influence his understanding.  

Saying a random expert could beat Morphy with the Caro-Kahn (or Sicilian, or defending the Ruy Lopez, but Morphy excelled in 1.e4,e5 games so playing to his strengths would add unnecessary risks.)  is like saying a physics undergrad knows more about physics than Newton.  This is purely because today's people stand on the shoulders of giants of course, but that knowledge is objective and with utilitarian value.  Morphy may have more talent or have more genius, but modern information would outweigh it in many cases.  Einstein said creativity is more important than knowledge, but I think we can modify this statement based off individual circumstances.  If a doctor sees that a problem is most effectively and efficiently solved by an inside the box solution he can recall by memory then no creativity is required.  It was required to discover the principle to begin with, but not required by the person applying the knowledge.  

see forum minigames

Looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

ong post

Bonny-Rotten wrote:

I would say no, because you started this thread. Clearly the answer should be yes but that applies to players who get on with the job and don't stop until their goal is achieved. Statistics doesn't apply to individuals as it does to large populations.

Best answer, very intelligent answer.