How far can experience alone take you?

One more point that I didn't see highlighted in this thread.

There's a telling difference between player A who plays 1000s of games and repeats the same mistakes and Player B whose emotional/psychological state of mind (controlled and well-directed anger/will to succeed/Desire to self-correct from mistakes) will never let him make the same mistake again. (assuming he knows it's a mistake :))

I've seen a ton of "Player B"s at the clubs ... and in the true spirit of the OP's topic, they reach ratings as high as 1500-1700s armed with nothing but an obsessive compulsive need to not make the same kinds of mistakes again.

 What the hell does that even mean?  I know master's titles don't start until 2200, but "not even good enough"???  Good enough for what.

Again, the that 400 elo point spread between someone who is contending for a master's title and someone who breaking into class A is massive.  Various people in this thread have tried to claim that to break 1800 you need to do crazy things like start serious training in childhood, have coaches, give up all other activities, etc.  You don't.  1800 is a talented club player who has got an good chess education, possibly from a coach, possibly on your own.  I will repeat my claim that if someone started coaching from 7, had no other interests, spent huge amounts of time on chess, and peaked at say 1850, they would be a dismal failure.

I think that the next frontier in chess will be a bionic, chess-computer implant in the brain. That way, stupid and lazy people can become GMs with no effort whatsoever. Very democratic. Generation Y will love it.

---

From what We've read on the Forums .. We're already here .. People using Copmputer programmes to FAKE talent .. how sad 

OTOH, the current crop of computer programs fits the theory: they don't get better with experience.

---

I\\I'll take 1800, that's fine. 2000 to be like my hero Michael De La Maza. As far as Karpov and Kasparov, remember they were dominant world champions for decades and playing since they were kids, so a degree of lost love for the game and/or burnout from repetitive training/preparation and lack of hunger (compared to when they were younger and less established) may have been an issue. Those guys were still among the best of the best in the world when they stopped playing in their forties. Plus they both became more interested in politics. Korchnoi was pretty good his adult life. Didn't he play for the world championship twice in his mid and late 40's only to barely lose to Karpov who was the greatest ever at athat time? Anand is still champ. Kramnik is still up there, especially in match play. Aronian, Carlsen, Karjakin and Nakamura have yet to show that they can beat the old-timers in serious match play, we keep hearing about their"promise", yet Magnus is too scared to play within FIDE rules under his pretense of it being "unfair". Adults can keep learning as they get older but at a slower pace but you can still learn new tricks, just takes longer than kids. So maybe one who starts at my age will never be a super-GM, but possibly a wimpy CM?

LOL...you are such an old guy, already. I suspect that you can meet many of your goals.

Upon reflection, if I look backwards for my peak in life, it would be around 35. Old enough to have experience; young enough to be able to carry the world on my shoulders.

I question the question, what's life besides experience - so long you attain the knowledge, does it matter how you experience it if you can retain it.

I would say it would depend upon the age of the individual, intellectual level, and grasp for the game.  I have an extensive library but find it boring.  I think the average person could rise to class D or C or even higher depending upon how much time they put into analysing their games.  To me, that's the best way to learn.

To dannyhume

Korchnoi was just an exemption. He has always been. Regarding Karpov and Kasparov they both knew they could not get the top any more so they did choose the best decisicion to go so others will always remember them as one of the great ones.

Korchnoi was an exemption only for the reason when he did fight with Karpov there was kind of vacuum when Bobby left and there was just no too good players around. Even Karpov is considered to be one of the weakest champions ever.

Karpov's army of assistants were all paid by former Soviet Union State and they saw his time was over and withdrew their support for him. Without them he knew game was over for him.

There are GMs who play tournaments into 50s and 60s but at that age they are there just for sponsors - everyone knows that. Even at 40s GMs are not taken seriously in tournaments with other GMs 25-35.

Now the truth is also GMs avoid each others. Unless there is huge money on the table you won't see many GMs close ratings on the same tournament.

Now I have to add also this : Since Bobby left there has not been one real charismatic innovative chess champions - they are all just more hard workers and product of real good team work - sure they will be always rememered but will never achieve cult status like Capablanca, Lasker and Bobby did.

To ajedrecito:

You just can't put Bobby and any of them in the same sentence - he was just so much more innovative and charismatic.

Regarding GM tournaments I just wrote what I heard from interview with one GM one day. Those were words from his mouth.

No way top 5 or 10 will play same tournaments even if money is huge - always someone will find reason to escape it which just confirms those words.

---

Famous is to notorious as charismatic is to..  __________

Not sure what word goes here, but you should have used it to describe bobby

In other words, as far as personality is concerned, he's infamous for being a dick.

To waffllemaster:

Why was he dick ? At the time he had to fight Karpov his opponent had 10 assistants, secretary even cook and psychologist always travelling with him. He lived in mansion with maids and private driver all paid by the former Soviet Union. Bobby had as I can recall from match with Spaski just 2 assistants and used them only during that match. He used to do all homework by himself. He just wanted more money to be competitive. What is wrong with that ? 10 assisants will always see and research more than alone or with just another guy that's for sure. He saw that times when you will be able to be competitive with opponents without permanent assistants are just over.

Karpov was first guy whose championships are actually team achievement and I believe it is up to today that trend continue. It will never come back times when top GM does all research of opponents alone. Now you must be real at the top to afford this but all top GMs are now teams and GM is just brand name of selling it.

By excusing it you're implicitly agreeing with me.  If you disagree then argue against the idea that that's how people see him.

I'm not just talking about during the WC match, of course.  I mean for 64 years he was never quite mr congeniality to put it mildly.  Any friends he had he eventually drove away, he was rude to his professional peers and organizers.  And at the end of his life his hate overwhelmed him and he was much worse.

To wafflemaster:

I will never agree with you on this one. I simply divide and respect professional life and private life of each individual. I certainly do not share his view of the world but as chess player he was just brilliant. He was the last chess player who did all research of opponents alone, never had more than 2 assistants (and as I can recall correctly he called for second one only after things started going bad for him in match with Spaski) and never trusted any of them. At the end he had to make their analysis again by himself. Assistants were used early in chess championships matches but never more than 1 or 2 and only during those matches. After Karpov high (GMs) level chess is just different game. It is whole team effort. Bobby was last top chess player who did it all by himself ONLY. It will never be done any more and chess game can be divided with chess before Bobby Fisher and chess after Bobby Fisher. He was such milestone is chess history that he will never be forgotten and he will be always highly respected.

Today without team you can be bottom level GM max and you even need full time job to support yourself.

His chess is brilliant, and I like playing through his games.  I actually set about trying to memorize a good number of them out of his 60 memorable games, but time constraints made me stop after 10 games (some were getting to be a lot of moves!)

They're not wild crazy games, which I don't like, his principled play was also incredibly strong and I really respect him for his chess.

Like you said though, his professional achievements have nothing to do with his personality.  I was commenting about the word charismatic.  I didn't intend it to turn into such a debate :)  It seems we're not disagreeing at all.  In his time he was peerless, and he's duly remembered as one of the all time greats.

Good that we agree on the same things. I just do not like to argue on something especially off forum topic but I also can't back up from wrong views (not in your case as you said) like guy above saying Karpov is one of the greatest ever. The only thing he will be remembered is he changed whole chess game in the way it is team effort from the early beginnings of GM's professional life as chess player.

Today without team chances to play top level chess are just zero.

Peak potential chess playing ability goes down after age 35, fine. But an individual who starts around that age clearly can get better for years to come, just his/her peak potential will never be reached in absolute sense. There....I rationalized this pointless time-wasting addiction.