Hard Work Alone Can Never Make You a Master

Mousebelt- very interesting post; thanks! 

Well it suck's actually when you know that hardwork, dedication and determination will almost get you anything you want in life. I guess some things are a mystery.

ana hard mastur alone kin niver make ya werk

Taken from a chess.com article by Bill Wall

"Oldest master.  Oscar Shapiro (1910-2000) became a chess master at the age of 74. In 1991, Bernard Friend became a chess master for the first time at the age of 71. Gyorgy Negyesy (1893-1992) was a Hungarian master who died just short of his 99th birthday.  He was the longest-lived master. "

These guys lived to see their dreams come true!

Oscar Shapiro was born in Boston, Massachusetts on March 18, 1909.  In 1939, he won the Massachusetts State Championship.  He won the Washington, D.C. Championship several times.  In 1951, he won the Virginia Open Chess Tournament.  He became a USCF master at the age of 74.  He died on January 1, 2002 at the age of 92.

Source: Chesopedia

Shapiro was already good long time ago before becoming a master.

Chess talent is largely a matter of intelligence. And intelligence is largely a matter of genetics. Variations in intelligence are 70% genetic. If neither of your parents are geniuses, then you are unlikely to become a genius.

"And you posted this to discourage anyone from putting the work in to become the best they can be? Even if what you state is true, what harm is there in putting in the work to become the best player you can be? And what good can come from raining on their parade?"

It means that trying to make a living as an expert accountant is a better investment than trying to make a living as an expert chess player. You know what really rains on parades? Poverty.

I don't think we were having a parade...

Negyesy was a master, and then he lived a long life, but he didn´t become a master as an old person.

I think chess_gg has all the good intentions trying to warn us against devoting much time to chess. And he has a valid point since most of people who did put a lot of time and effort ended up improving very little and missing out a lot in the real life. These people did end up in poverty and misery. For every success story there are hundreds of failures for one reason or another. This is true and must be remembered. So, chess_gg, I appreciate your attitude and advice. I believe you have good intentions as do others. It's just every person has his/her unique path in life. Peace.

[08:26PM]blik(C)(120): Chess is a foolish expedient for making idle people believe they are doing something very clever when they are only wasting their time.

My personal experience my first rating was 1162 USCF, I was nineteen; I made a decision to work hard and I reach expert (2019 USCF) in three years. My highest rating was 2110 USCF and now I am at 2011 USCF. I believe it is decision a person make to become a master; if you want it really bad you reach it. I also believe is how study,I don't believe in using a engine assistance, a player depend on it and become lazy instead doing your all the analysis. For me it will take two years of hard work to reach master strength; I have my own system and materials I use to reach my goal: one them is not to rely on a computer program but do all my calculation. If player cannot calculate he or she cannot be a master.

Very nice. Respect. I like this !

a)You have to test main-lines against strong players regularly.

b)You should also working out diagrams with complex strategic or/and tactical patterns, so that you develop your thought process considerably.

My 2 cents!

My 1 Cent

Stop blaming others (Person/surrounding/upbringing/friend circle/poverty/family responsibilities .....). If it ( REALLY ) matters to you then you will have it by hard working.

I'm surprised to see lots of non-masters, and especially low rated players producing a lot of blabla here about becoming a chess master, and just repeating the "hard work" holy cow.

I am convinced that even chess masters can only talk about their own experience of becoming a chess master ... which might not apply to you.

Why shout so loud about things you have no personal experience with ?

Also, I wonder how Capablanca became so strong.

From reading I get the impression that (with all respect) Capablanca was the laziest of all well-known top chess players in chess history.

Is there anything I can read online about Capablanca's chess history ?

If you are surprised by this thread, probably you haven´t looked in the "Anyone can be a GM" threads.

There are people defending that everybody can be a GM (and cite the "10,000 hours rule"), and when you ask them: "Why don´t you do it and show us that it´s possible?", they would say things like: "I have other priorities/I play for fun/I´m not a professional".

About Capablanca, I would guess that some things about his laziness could be propaganda, to make his achievements even greater.

Capa was notoriously lazy, especially when it came to preparing his openings. But he also claimed to have studied thousands of Rook endings (to which Fischer once remarked that he studied the wrong ones!)

I just remembered that GM Granda (2685) says that he doesn´t study openings or read chess books.

Good points socialista, thanks ! :)

p.s. my impression is that Bobby Fischer got such a good technique because he studied Capablanca his games amongst others.