Anyone reaching a competent level can achieve a living by coaching chess to children. There are always new students coming along each year. If you reach expert or master you can easily run 20-30 dollars an hour. If you can cover your yearly expenses and put some money in the bank doing something you love then you'll be just fine.
How far could I get?
Sort:
jengaias wrote:
Chess today is :If you are not GM at 12 , you better forget it , unless you are filthy rich and with increased S-M tendencies.
I have no idea what you have abbreviated to "S-M". Some kind of mental disorder I have no doubt, but it doesn't matter because you're talking complete crap. You've taken an Anand quote (in which he is probably exaggerating to begin with) and twisted it no end to fit your needs.
"Nowadays, when you're not a Grandmaster at 14, you can forget about it [becoming world champion]."
You've changed 14 to 12, which is huge; you've changed becoming world champion to making money at chess (I think, you're very unclear), which is even more ridiculous; and you've completely ignored the fact that Anand was exaggerating to begin with.
You know how many people have ever held the title of GM on their 12th birthday? Zero. Nobody has ever been a GM at the age of 12. In fact, only 7 people have ever held it come their 14th birthday and more than half of those had held the title for less than 4 months at that time.
The lottery comment you made is just ridiculous too. Just don't talk such utter crap.
jengaias wrote:
I have attended many tournaments in my country and I have talk with many grandmasters and International players all under 2500.
I met not even one that makes enough money from chess to secure an even descent life.They all have another source of income...
Or he can listen to ignorant morons like you.
It's his decision.
It's his decision.
Clearly you're implying that you believe that the threshold for financial security in chess is to have a rating of 2500+. Strange, not what I would have said. I would have thought that the a skill of being able to write a great book or the charisma to teach well would be far more important than some rating points. For your chess results alone to produce some sort of decent income I would have assumed that you would need to be 2700+, not that I am knowledgeable in this area.
If you want to label it (and label it so low at that) then you're only making everything I have said that much more right. Shall we read through some of the crap that you have previously said with this new information in mind?
"Chess today is:if you are not [a] GM at 12 , you can forget it...". You have now cleared up that when you said it you did in fact mean the ability make a sustainable living from chess. Just LOL... But worse, you have even somewhat clarified for us that in your screwed up mind, that translates roughly to being any sort of competant GM.
So, after navigating through your originally unclear implications and thought process, it turns out that what you're actually saying is that people who aren't mentaly ill are incapable of becoming a GM unless they do so at an age so young it has never been done before? Now that is some sound logic right there...
P.S. I have never said that he should try to persue a living in chess. I believe and always have believed that it would be simply terrible idea. Outright ridiculous. How you seem to have come to the conclusion that I am pushing the OP in this direction is beyond me. Clearly, I'm not the moron here.
P.P.S. I'm somewhat free all evening so if after realising what crap you have actually written, you want to reply to this and tell me how I have misinterpreted you or some other such nonesense then I should be here to put you back in your place. Or maybe you just want to insult me some more? I'm an ignorant moron, right?
this has all the makins of an epic duel, so last thing I want is to get in the middle of it.
but seriously, why argue over details when there's clearly something of a consensus. videos and 2-3hours a day is MUCH less than what a professional chess player does, but...
who kares? its study. the OP is young. even just a few hours a week of study is better than many ; and combined with lots of games, the OP might find over time that he has the desire for a much better chess improvement later on.
Mar 30, 2016
0
#66
Anand's quote was in reference to aiming for the world championship.
Obviously even a master or IM can make a living from chess, through coaching and writing books. It's not likely, but it's possible.
I agree. Nothing wrong with a schedule that allows the OP to improve and enjoy his chess. Personally, his schedule would be too boring for me, certainly 12 year old me (hence my prediction of him improving by only 100 points(before quiting)). The real problem I have though, is that the OP has demonstrated that he is doing this for the wrong reasons. That will more than likely end in disapointment.
Mar 30, 2016
0
#68
eaguiraud wrote:
C-Crusher wrote:
jengaias wrote:
It won't get you anywhere.
If you think that with lectures and videos you can learn chess , you are fooling yourself.
You need books.Very carefully chosen good books , a real board , focus and a lot of determination , otherwise you better forget it.
Your program is better than nothing but far from being even a slightly good one.
Add some good prayers.With a program like that , your only hope is that God exists.
i agree with what you say. another example is: You want to be a professional pilot. But you want to be a professional pilot with just watching videos. :D.
One can get really far with just videos, tactics and simply playing, at least to 1800 (on the chess.com glicko rating system), but to get to a GM and even to a NM level you need lots of books and talent.
"A genius is 99% hard work and 1% talent" - Albert Einstein. Videos can harm one 's progress or improve it. I do not reccomend starting out with videos. Well have a nice day.
Why do you want to waste your live with becoming good in chess?
Chess makes sad, it's a fact. Either you invest so much time, that you become a freak, or you are always disappointed.
Just play it for fun or stop it. That's my advice.
Well, you wrote a lot but you said nothing. I did Google "S-M". Obviously that's the first thing I did. I came to the same conclusion then that I do now: that "Sadomasochism" doesn't fit into the context of what you said at all and therefore wasn't what you meant (Hell, you're that stupid that it probably was what you meant for all I know). Also, considering that your previous post attempted to correct everything I had said, but never mentioned this...
You can continue with your pathetic pretence that you've untracked this by not replying as far as I'm concerned because I'm not going to waste any more time on you anyway.
I understand. 2Hours isn't enough and worth it but predicting that I will quit chess ticks me.
I am not trying to offend anyone here but Magnus study's 3-4 hours a day.
Apr 3, 2016
0
#73
'Superlative' adverbs and adjectives, seemed to have met-their-match! 0:
https://www.yahoo.com/style/9-old-girl-just-crushed-214144314.html
Apr 3, 2016
0
#75
Sauberwisch7 wrote:
Why do you want to waste your live with becoming good in chess?
Chess makes sad, it's a fact. Either you invest so much time, that you become a freak, or you are always disappointed.
Just play it for fun or stop it. That's my advice.
Chess dosen't make you sad if you give your best. Chess is a very fun game. Well don't make others feel bad for "wasting" their time in front of the chess board because everything you enjoy is not a waste of time. And if u think that chess is big waste of time than why do you played it??
I think he is eleven or twelve, so he has plenty of time, relatively, and his parents may have enough money.
The subject of devoting yourself to chess reminds me of a bittersweet joke:
What's the difference between a chess grandmaster and an extra-large pizza?
The pizza can feed a family of four...