You need money, a lot of it. To properly succeed, you need a coach.
How easy is it to become a GM?
Sort:
There are a few GMs who achieved this goal late in life. Yes, children do absorb information faster and easier, but this just means you have to study for 15,000 hours instead of 10,000. Viktor Korchnoi claimed to study 12-14 hours a day to stay on top. The physical strains are well documented, but, once again, Viktor was a great example of how the old can still be in to top 100.
I think that computers are better at analyzing games than coaches. From what I've seen computers have ratings over 3000. If I can learn to play like a computer, I wouldn't need a coach.
Dec 3, 2016
0
#26
Except you can't. Computer can't explain things like humans. Coaches can.
Dec 3, 2016
0
#27
VladimirHerceg91 wrote:
I think that computers are better at analyzing games than coaches.
Heh, you have a lot to learn.
Although I suspect this is just a troll topic.
Dec 3, 2016
0
#28
It's also VERY hard to play like a computer; they play moves that make no sense but it's good. Unless you plan on cheating, you shouldn't play like a computer.
It's the human element of chess.
raintong wrote:
It's also VERY hard to play like a computer; they play moves that make no sense but it's good. Unless you plan on cheating, you shouldn't play like a computer.
It's the human element of chess.
If the moves don't make sense, why do they win? I'm trying to eliminate the human element in my training. Humans make stupid mistakes even if they're at a high level, I don't want to make those mistakes.
Dec 3, 2016
0
#32
VladimirHerceg91 wrote:
raintong wrote:
It's also VERY hard to play like a computer; they play moves that make no sense but it's good. Unless you plan on cheating, you shouldn't play like a computer.
It's the human element of chess.
If the moves don't make sense, why do they win? I'm trying to eliminate the human element in my training. Humans make stupid mistakes even if they're at a high level, I don't want to make those mistakes.
It's very simple then: calculate millions of positions per second.
Dec 3, 2016
0
#33
OP are you playing 5 hrs/ day now? Because I looked at your games and all I see are blitz games, further more, your rating is not what a future GM would hope for for himself, or ever actually have. Have you considered setting short term goals?
Fixing_A_Hole wrote:
Can't tell if the OP is trolling or stupid.
Stupid? I'm new to chess, please be more polite. Did I offend you in anyway? Have some respect. I think this the reason chess is not that popular, because of snobs like you. You're not willing to work hard to actually achieve a high level, so instead you put people down.
Dec 3, 2016
0
#36
Wow. You're a real newbie right? 
You can't play like a silicon monster. They don't develop plans. Well, they do but you won't understand any of it until you get a real coach. Also, if it's this simple, then why hasn't someone else tried this?
They did! But no one can play like a computer.
chessking1976 wrote:
OP are you playing 5 hrs/ day now? Because I looked at your games and all I see are blitz games, further more, your rating is not what a future GM would hope for for himself, or ever actually have. Have you considered setting short term goals?
I wasn't trying in the blitz games, those are a result of when I was trying to become the lowest rated player on the website. But, I've changed my goal.
Dec 3, 2016
0
#38
Computer rely on brutal calculation. I can only calculate 8 moves tops. Computers can calculate 50 moves deep and no human can do that.
Not to mention the different branches to calculate.
Guys, thanks for the insightful answers, even though they're pessimistic. I appreciate your patience with a new chess player. Also, special thanks to those who decided against calling me "stupid" in their responses.
Your brain is not biologically wired the same as a child's to absorb the unbelievable amount of material that it takes to become a GM in the same way that a child does. That aside.. you may have done all the research in the world. I don't care. It's not going to happen. Aim for something more feasible, like being a class player, then an expert and, if you make it there, then the NM title. The questions you ask and the arguments you make show that you know next to nothing about chess. I started at 4, I'm 28 now and I'm a class A player. I broke 1800 at 16 and probably could have went on to become a NM relatively quickly, but I live in a very weak chess state in the US and didn't have access to coaches, the right materials, etc. My goal now that I've picked the game back up after 10 years of not playing much is to make expert (2000+) and, maybe one day, get a NM title. That's the best I can hope for, and that's a stretch and I know that. I know that because of my experience with the game. Sorry to sound like a naysayer, but it's simply not going to happen. Ask whoever you like.
I think the problem is that you stopped playing for 10 years. i don't plan on being a quitter. Kids raised without nothing still become great athletes. I think your case is a lack of commitment, and passion for the game.