How good can I expect to become?

I don't really see Waitzkin as a prodigy. He seems more like a product of hard work than talent.

I mean he was around 1700 rating at the age of 8 or so, but that was after several years of intense study with an NM level coach. It's not like he crawled out of the womb with a gift for chess, like... Capablanca or someone.

Nothing against the guy, he's a stronger player than I'll ever be, but I just don't consider him to be a prodigy.

I think that if he had true, real, prodigy level chess talent, there should be no reason that he wouldn't have become a GM.

I 100% agree.

We are all gifted a specific amount of talent. The key is in finding what your talents are and maximising them. Chess might be a talent, or it might not. We can all achieve a certain ceiling through hard work alone, but it is not necessarily the best use of your time if it is not where your true talents lie.

I see this in my kids (both my own, and kids I teach) - I encourage them to try things out and push them in areas where I feel they show specific gifts. If they enjoy something, but don't show particular talent at it, I let them roll with it, but suggest they try other things to see if they shine in a different arena. If they pursue an avenue that they are not naturally gifted in, but enjoy regardless, then they have another, related gift - the gift of unconditional enjoyment/contentment - and who can deny that?! Perhaps, if we enjoy chess, but are not naturally gifted to get beyond even good amateur status, the gift of enjoyment is greater in the final balance.

Oxford says:

prodigy

  • noun (pl. prodigies) 1 a person, especially a young one, with exceptional abilities. 2 an outstanding example of a quality.

WIKIPEDIA says this: Chess prodigies are children who play chess so well that they are able to beat Masters and even Grandmasters, often at a very young age.

I must respectfully disagree that Waitzkin was NOT a prodigy. Although I am not aware of any GMs Waitzkin beat at a young age, read THIS: 

From age 9 on Josh dominated the US scholastic chess scene. He won the National Primary Championship in 1986, the National Junior High Championship in 1988 while in the fifth grade, and the National Elementary Championship in 1989. At the age of eleven, he drew a game with World Champion Garry Kasparov in a simultaneous exhibition. At age 13, Josh earned the title of National Master. He won the National Junior High Championship for the second time in 1990, and the Senior High Championship in 1991, as well as the U.S. Cadet Championship (under-sixteen). Between the 3rd and 9th grades, Josh also led New York City's Dalton School to win 6 National team championships.

I'll award him the PRODIGY title.

probably 1024

fromper, teacher_1,

This is one of the most balanced threads I have seen on chess.com. For most of us, life isn't about being the best in the world. It's about getting the best out of life.

I'm 64 years old and a grandfather. I've played soccer, rugby, cricket, tennis, squash, golf, table tennis and darts among others.  I've played bridge, chess, monopoly and crib (never had a desire to play poker). I've gone snorkeling, scuba diving, windsurfing and sailing. I've attempted poetry and writing. In all of these endeavours, my teachers and  coaches have always been far more talented than I, but the challenge for me has always been to get to the point where I am as good as I am ever going to be.

Then I move on to something else (like touch-typing) that I can start anew.  Does that sound strange?

I hear all those people in my age group talking about their "bucket lists". The funny thing is, I don't have one. I think that if you get to my age and have a "bucket list", you probably haven't been trying hard enough earlier on in life.

jonnyjupiter, I liked your posts best of all. I run a website for my old high school, and I think the kids you teach will remember you for ever. I am a musician too, (though it's not what I ended up doing) and will never play at Carnegie Hall, but will get etermal pleasure from being able to play on my own with an audience of zero.

Sometimes I feel sorry for those who believe they have to spend their whole life trying to be #1 at one thing.

Cheers

I am glad somebody finally mentioned Capablanca.  If anybody can shoot the absurd 10,000 hour hypothesis down it would be Capy.  He certainly did not study 10,000 hours at the point when it became obvious he was very VEY good.  By his own (albeit somewhat exagerated) account.  He probably did not come close to 10,000 hours of study for his whole career.

Another good example is De La Maza.  He has shown that with the right kind of study, players can make significant gains in chess rating.  I am not endorsing him, he seems like kind of a wanker - but enough people have taken his advice and made the gains that its hard to argue with it.  Had he stuck with it, he probably could have made NM from around 1400 level in 3-4 years.

Another thing that we like to hide from view is how much more quickly your rating can rise if you have a large volume of weak opponents.

What's a bucket list?

 me too, I wonder what is that ?

 Amen

It's  list of the things you want to do before you "kick the bucket"

-shed off your mortal coils

-go to meet your maker

- go to that great chessboard in the sky

Get some popcorn on your way up .....

Oh, ok.  I guess I have a bucket list too then...

1. Is age, as in middle to old age a factor. I'm 50. Are my neurons oozing out my ears? Is it too late for this old guy? Could chess make me smarter? My goal is to get a real class E, maybe even a D rating this summer (1200-1399). Is this realistic? After having played only 1 1/2 training games with a coach, I believe I stand a good chance at beating a 1200 player in cc. After my second training session is over, I'll give it a try.

Age and blitz:

My 5 minute blitz play is well under 1000, but I have beat a few 1200's after several strong cups of coffee.  Perhaps blitz is a game for the young? How many 50 and older players are there that can beat the best players in the world at blitz?

2. I received a music scholarship from a very good school of music. It always came easy. Chess is hard!  I've heard that talent is not a prerequisite for being a good chess player. I hope so.

My definition of a Master chess player: Musikamole aspires to being a good chess player, while tonydal is already a great chess player.

3.  "JG27Pyth is 47, has played since he was 6, has put in many many thousands of hours and OTB is a weak class player." 

Two words: Private lessons. Yes, if you can afford them.

Now, my golf swing got no better after spending hundreds of dollars on training aids, books, videos and magazines. I thought that information alone would solve my problem. I ended up taking three lessons, 50+ dollars a pop, for 30 minute golf lessons with a real pro golfer. He fixed my swing in three lessons! I could have saved so much time and money by studying privately.

I've been a music teacher my entire professional life, and private instruction makes a huge difference. Even with my talent, I believe the private lessons were necessary for me to reach my full potential."

I suggest that everyone here who really wants to improve, study with a much stronger player. Play unrated cc training games. I'm making progress much faster this way.

I love to study this great game, but I do believe, like in golf, that you need a highly trained second pair of eyes to see and fix the weaknesses.

Study privately, and you will reach your full potential.

Been playing chess for only a year, I have a rating of 1627 USCF. Study, have fun, and enjoy!!

 I believe you fall into the category of gifted and talented. In education, we would place you in a G.A.T.E. program.  1627 USCF   

Question: As a teacher, I get a long summer vacation. I already have my USCF membership and plan to travel to Los Angeles (100 miles) to enter USCF tournaments.

If I may ask, and please forgive my ignorance: what rating did you receive after your first tournament? Can you get a rating of 1600 in just one game, by simply beating another 1600 player?

You can get a provisional rating of 2000 if you beat a 1600 in one game.

Some gifted players walk out of their first tournament with an Expert rating--and I don't mean guys who have played elsewhere or have been taking lessons and hadn't played.

Walter Browne's first rating was middling Expert as I recall, a 15 year old kid with some talent.

Thanks for the response! If there was a tournament within 50 miles, I'd go play next weekend. It's 100 miles to the closest, and I want to be well rested, which means getting a hotel, seriously.

As an unrated player, who will I be paired with first? The highest rated player? The lowest rated player? Thanks for any input.

If the tournament has more than just a few players it will probably be a Swiss System tournament. For the first round the top half is paired against the bottom half. As an unrated you'd be at the bottom of the bottom half, and paired with someone who is at the bottom of the first half. Sometimes accelerated parings are used where they imagine that everyone in the top half beat everyone in the bottom half (round 0, if you will) and then pair everyone with the same imagined score (which is the hallmark of the Swiss System--playing those who have performed pretty much as you have). 1st quarter against 2nd quarter etc. for the first round.

Thanks for your time.  I've heard of the Swiss System in one of my chess books. I'll read that section again.

I was just wondering what type of comparison, if any, could be made between a USCF rating and a chess.com rating?