I just started playing this year at the age of 30, is it too late to get good?

You can become even a master. The training methods are the same for adult and children as well. 

I didn't start late, but I had someone in my club who started when he retired, age 55 or so.

He was very passionate about chess and studied a lot, within 1,5 years he was 1600 roughly. He didn't study openings a lot, he knew the kings gambit a bit, and the dutch against 1. d4.

Against 1.e4, he played 1...e5; 2.Nf3, f5. With white he just played 1.e4 2.f4 against anything not attacking e4 on move one (sicilian, french, caro-kann, pirc)

I think I played rouighly 10 games against him since then, during all of which I was rated 2100+ (I started playing when I was 9). Now I did win all of them, but it was very close everytime. barely winning endgames, very complex middlegames where he made a small error, he had the better position at some point in at least 50% of our games. Keep in mind that he didn't study many openings, he couldn't use his kings gambit or dutch against me since I don't play 1...e5 or 1.d4

He did lose his interest in chess at that point though, partially because of overexposure, partially because of other hobbies. If he had continued his training, or regains his interest now, I'm pretty sure he'd be 2k+ within 2 years.

I love it when people come up with great new words!

FriendlyBeholder wrote:

Thanks for the responses Damon and Platolag. That's part of the reason I asked actually, I have been spending a lot of time lately studying tactics, and the endgame, but I'm starting to wonder if since I did start so late in life, maybe I'm investing all this time for nothing. I would like to hear from other people who never played as children or teens and how their progression has been.

Well, I think I would be much more easier to improve if youthink of chess as a hobby and a pastime instead of an ' investment ' that way your improvement would be guaranteed. After all it is easier to study something that you enjoy rather than being forced to do something you have no interest in or abosolutely hate.

Dont count too much on what others say! I dont think any body 'Great" ever paid any heed to what others said!

It only costs time and money. Pay for a good teacher and apply yourself. Any trade, carpenter, mechanic, musician, lawyer, takes something like 8 hours per day 5 days per week 4 or 5 years to master anything, good luck!

@kco ah thanks didn't even see the link there...nice to see!

what is the point of starting anything new when you are already that old? It is not possible to catch up with people who started when they where young. You will not get very far in anything that you started doing in old age.  

I started old with chess, too, and I am getting nowhere. Better stop it and just watch TV. 

Basically, rating counts for all factors, including experience. Experience is overrated anyway, apart from maybe true beginners.

Say Viktor Korchnoi - age 82, rated 2499 atm - were to face some 14 year old 2500 GM talent. It would be an even matchup, despite the enormous experience gap. the experience is already accounted for in the ratings

Those 1300's you're facing might have started in their youth as well.

I've never seen a 1300 who doesn't train become a 1700 because of experience. I see a lot of players who are starting of as 1300, who are still 1300 20 years later. It's really about training/improving.

HattrickStinkyduiker wrote:

InsanePlayer99 wrote:

FriendlyBeholder wrote:

Thanks for the responses Damon and Platolag. That's part of the reason I asked actually, I have been spending a lot of time lately studying tactics, and the endgame, but I'm starting to wonder if since I did start so late in life, maybe I'm investing all this time for nothing. I would like to hear from other people who never played as children or teens and how their progression has been.

Well, I think I would be much more easier to improve if youthink of chess as a hobby and a pastime instead of an ' investment ' that way your improvement would be guaranteed. After all it is easier to study something that you enjoy rather than being forced to do something you have no interest in or abosolutely hate.

Basically, rating counts for all factors, including experience. Experience is overrated anyway, apart from maybe true beginners.

Say Viktor Korchnoi - age 82, rated 2499 atm - were to face some 14 year old 2500 GM talent. It would be an even matchup, despite the enormous experience gap. the experience is already accounted for in the ratings

Those 1300's you're facing might have started in their youth as well.

I've never seen a 1300 who doesn't train become a 1700 because of experience. I see a lot of players who are starting of as 1300, who are still 1300 20 years later. It's really about training/improving.

Okay.....so, how do all these relate to my post? Sorry if I'm a little slow.

The experience you gain in your youth doesn't matter much, the 100 games I played when I was 10 where all shepherd's mates atempts from both sides. When I was 13 it was still all about cheap tricks. The same trick over and over.

At some point people stop training and stagnate.

Starting at age 30+ doesn't matter much, you can easily get 2000 if you study a lot. The really hard part is keeping up interest in studying chess intensively, for a couple of years.

-edit- Right now you are already beating players who played from their youth.

HattrickStinkyduiker wrote:

InsanePlayer99 wrote:

InsanePlayer99 wrote:

Okay.....so, how do all these relate to my post? Sorry if I'm a little slow.

The experience you gain in your youth doesn't matter much, the 100 games I played when I was 10 where all shepherd's mates atempts from both sides. When I was 13 it was still all about cheap tricks. The same trick over and over.

At some point people stop training and stagnate.

Starting at age 30+ doesn't matter much, you can easily get 2000 if you study a lot. The really hard part is keeping up interest in studying chess intensively, for a couple of years.

-edit- Right now you are already beating players who played from their youth.

Ok....so now I'm even more confused. Why did you quote me before writing all that?? I still can't see the connection ( if any ) between my post and your post. Is it just an accident or is it some kind of misunderstanding? In truth I am STILL a youth ( if 14 yr old is counted as 'youth' that is ). But never mind all that, what is a shepherd mate anyway????

-edit- nvm I just found out that shepherd mate is actually scholar's mate.

I think just about everyone, including the poster of this thread has missed the most important point. Why does anybody climb a mountain ? Because it's there ! It is a challenge. If you reach the summit, good. If you don't, also good. The most important thing is not to win - but to participate. Chess is exactly the same.

Exactly!! Nobby nailed it. Ask George Lopez or any other golf addict how s/he ever survived without the game he loves... Good Luck!

I have another good analogy. Chess has as much to do with winning as fishing has to with catching fish. You derive enjoyment not from any result, but from the action of particapation. Am I making any sense ?

Maybe if you don't mind being stuck at your current rating.

I play to win, and that is why I am making progress.

Firstly, who or what is doofuss ? Secondly, if most of the 6 million plus guys and gals on this site want to be at least a grandmaster but primarily aim to be the next Fischer, Kasparov or Carlsen, then after losing numerous games against computer matched opponents you can either commit hara kiri, self admit into a mental asylum, give up chess alltogether and this site woud be disfunct or you simply say, what the hell - I had fun but I lost some and I won some ! I am going to have some more games tomorrow ! There will always be exceptions, I agree, but maybe they should join bethenextworldchampion.com.

So, if winning is to catching a fish, then losing is to being caught by a fish? 

I admire your desire to destroy your opponents on your path to become a good chess player.  You must be ruthless and show no mercy.  Mercy is for the weak.  When a man stands across from you, he is the enemy.  The enemy deserves no mercy!  FINISH HIM

Losing is like being eaten by a shark while dangling from a rope.