How easy is it to become a GM?
Sort:
I also plan to be a GM one day even though I am past 40 and still only rated in the 1100's .. my hope is that one day, as I have experienced with a number of other subjects that I have never put this much time into or achieved anything, that chess starts to make sense and I find my own system of blunder avoidance, tactics recognition, and candidate move selection. That is why I like this troll thread.
danny. we are in the same boat.
40ish and 1100. I presume like myself you have been playing awhile and now are trying to more serious about improving in chess. ...
GM is impossible.
the sooner you accept that the easier it will be to accept the inevitable (at best) slow increase in our mediocre rating.
the key is to realize you can "achieve something" long before you ever break into a master chess rating.
my measure is that a 400 increase in rating is a revolutionary twice as good at chess increase in chess skill. it means exactly, that if you were 400 better then you are now (1500) ; you would almost certainly win game after game.
1500 is a better long term goal IMHO- and you can find people that have done it, even as adults.
I am over 60 and plan to be world chess champion and a brain surgeon someday ... 
Reb wrote:
I am over 60 and plan to be world chess champion and a brain surgeon someday ...
Good luck with that, especially the latter 
Joe's equation of chess improvement perception (T = target rating, R = current rating)
T = R + ((2200 - R) * 1.5)
you guys will give me 1500, won't you?
though I'm a lowly 1100 last tournament I had dibs on a 1530.
the 1780/1810 I played dominated me completely
anyways I'm sure I don't understand the equation. for an 1150 , T=2625
thats def impossible
Try a few different values in the equation and you'll realise it was a sarcastic joke
Obviously, I am being facetious regarding the GM goal (or am I?). I know of and have heard a master talk about several adults who have been sitting in the class D-B range for decades ... the master I know (who is also a coach) says he is bewildered that these guys spend all this time at the club and go to tournaments, but won't take the time to study serious material or hire him for some training sessions. Many of them fall into that "hey, teach me a trick in my Sicilian" and have little interest in a proper balanced study program. If I can maintain this chess obsession and continue my studying consistency streak (no more than a couple days in a row without studying since February!!), I think I will have a good idea of my rating limit in perhaps 7-10 years.
Dec 6, 2016
0
#229
Lasker1900 wrote:
Sorry, Reb! That dream is already taken.
That may be a good thing. Someone else had a dream, and 3 years later he was shot in Memphis 
jengaias wrote:
"The problem with chess is that if you really want to improve , you must forget fun." What if you find the process fun? I have recently done a lot of stuff to make my training regimen more fun, and I think it helps with learning as well.
"If you are playing chess and having fun you probably do something wrong." Kids have the most fun and they seem to improve faster than anyone else...
"You must forget rapid , blitz and bullet and play only long time control games." Not true at all. I don't know a single strong player who doesn't use blitz to train.
"You must study on real board." Nitpicking, but Peter Svidler himself said that in the last five to ten years he's hardly ever studied on real chessboards 
"You must accept defeat after defeat after defeat without any disappointment because unfortunately , defeats are your best friend.Many nights you will go to sleep swearing that you will never play that damn game again and many mornings you will wake up eager and excited for the next game..........for the next defeat."
"Does it worth it? No it doesn't.It definitely doesn't." Depends on who you are, and how much you love the game.
"Keep it fun , live your life , forget the rest." Chess is life
jengaias wrote:
No strong player used blitz train.They all use it for fun.
Nakamura recently said that blitz is not chess and many strong players have talk against it.
Fischer said that it kills your chess , Short said that it kills your brain cells.
Blitz is good compared to nothing.Compared to long time control games it's simply worthless.1 long time control is not equivalent to even 2.000 blitz games.No serious trainer(Yusupow , Dvoretsky , Botvinik) ever suggested blitz for training with the only exception : endgame positions(playing positions that need mechanical techniques , with little time in the clock is an entirely different story).
In the chess club a guy was fooled by an on line teacher who told him that he will learn an opening by playing blitz.He has played hundreds and he had a lost position in 12 moves in his last OTB game.When he analysed that game he realised that he learned much more than all the blitz he has played.If you play long time control games(at least 3 a week) and analyse them throughly , blitz is useless.If you don't , then blitz can be useful indeed at the huge cost though of significantly delaying and even postponing your improvement.
If you lose your time with blitz , don't try to convince others to do the same mistake.
Plenty of strong players use blitz to practice openings, improve intuition, etc. Also ever noticed how kids love blitz? And they never, ever improve, of course...
I'm not saying people shouldn't play standard games. Definitely not. But this anti-blitz stuff is also silly.
Do you play long time control games every week and analyze them? And never play blitz? And if so, have you shown any significant rating improvement over that period of time?
Notably, this is also a very small part of the post I made above, which was mainly in response to your assertion that trying to improve at chess isn't worth it.
I am 36, 5'8" tall and plan to be 6'3" in the next 5 years. Children can grow quickly and they are idiots, so I don't see why I can't. Actually, maybe 10 years would be more realistic. Can any tall people give me some tips to help me reach my goal?
jengaias wrote:
Nakamura said that blitz is not chess , it's creating positions in which you don't need to think.
2 very good , FIDE certified trianers(one of them is grandmaster and senior trainer) teach kids in my chess club.Both say that blitz is not for those that want to improve but for those that have abandoned any hope of improving or for those that want to have fun.
A chessplayer has to push his mind to the edge just like every athlete has to push his body to the edge.And he has to do that for several hours every day.Blitz doesn't do that.It would be a divine gift if it could but It can't.That's a fact.
Chess is very very very demanding.If you do nonsense you will pay the price.Be absolutely sure about it.And when you will realise it , it will be too late.Time travel hasn't been discovered.
I don't place much value in general quotes from players (particularly ones who have such an enormous blitz chess career as Nakamura (!)); rather, I place value in results. I know many, many chess players who are improving rapidly and not one of them doesn't play blitz frequently online.
NPaleveda wrote:
There are 492 Billionaires in the USA. There are about 100 chess grandmasters-become a billionaire it is easier.
But if I were a GM, the billionaires would still call me "grandmaster".
Reb wrote:
I am over 60 and plan to be world chess champion and a brain surgeon someday ...
You could still be a brain surgeon from a cognitive perspective if you wanted to take the courses, tests, and do the residency, and convince the admission folks that you were worth the investment.
Question is, how hard is it to become a GM. There are only about 2000 grandmasters in the world. That number alone shouldn't necessarily deter aspiring players, but I think in order to achieve that, you will have to dedicate your life to chess. You need to have high performances in many tournaments against other strong players as well (some grandmasters will be in these tournaments). If someone were willing to get coaching and made sure they were diligently practicing over the years, never veering in their consistancy, it's definitely not out of the question however.
jengaias wrote:
dpnorman wrote:
jengaias wrote:
Nakamura said that blitz is not chess , it's creating positions in which you don't need to think.
2 very good , FIDE certified trianers(one of them is grandmaster and senior trainer) teach kids in my chess club.Both say that blitz is not for those that want to improve but for those that have abandoned any hope of improving or for those that want to have fun.
A chessplayer has to push his mind to the edge just like every athlete has to push his body to the edge.And he has to do that for several hours every day.Blitz doesn't do that.It would be a divine gift if it could but It can't.That's a fact.
Chess is very very very demanding.If you do nonsense you will pay the price.Be absolutely sure about it.And when you will realise it , it will be too late.Time travel hasn't been discovered.
I don't place much value in general quotes from players (particularly ones who have such an enormous blitz chess career as Nakamura (!)); rather, I place value in results. I know many, many chess players who are improving rapidly and not one of them doesn't play blitz frequently online.
In 10 years and after you suffer a painfully slow improvement you will change your mind.
But good luck!!!
Have you improved in the last few years?
You can't become a GM without at least a 130+ IQ. Never done, never will be.
Talvz wrote:
It didn't take me long to become an International Master...
I started playing chess 6 years ago! (When I was 10)
VladimirHerceg91 skrev:
I want to make a consensus here for anybody coming for easy answers, or easy dreams. According to more users here becoming a GM is extremely difficult. Strive instead for an easier goal like becoming an FM, CM, or IM. Hope this consensus helps. I know it's difficult to look through all the clutter.
Well, it is kind of simple to become a GM, I am not saying easy, I am saying simple. What I mean is you need to win GM norms in tournaments. In order to do that you will probably need to first win some lower rated norms like the one you mentioned: FM, CM, or IM. But you need to start from where you are. The simple answer is: You need to play tournaments and work your way up. Joining a chess club would be a good way of getting started playing tournaments.