I need a plan, how can I become a good chess player?

 Thanks for the links. However, I not sure I agree with what's being said. We still know very little about the brain, and also have a lot of pre-conceived ideas. Many of which have been debunked.  One of the problems is that when people get older, they spend less time learning new things and engaging their brains in meaningful ways. So I think that it's our lifestyle choices that play an extremely significant role in whether or not we experience cognitive decline with ageing. Obviously, if you start learning something at a very young age you'll have an advantage.  As you get older, life tends to get in the way, and you often don't have time to dedicate yourself to an activity. But that doesn't mean that you wouldn't be able to. 

Great advice all around here.....indeed practice makes you perfect

I don't disagree with BobbyTalparov in a sense that I think everyone can learn to become better chess players at any age. However, I do think that a lot of people underestimate what it takes to become a GM, IM, master or even expert in chess (heck, I probably do too). It's not something like building a brick house, where you just keep placing bricks on top of each other for years and eventually end up with a great house. In chess the ratings are based on performances against other players - others who are devoting just like you and me hours and hours upon studying chess to become better. Someone starting at age 40 might become a very strong player if he devotes a lot of his time to it, but a grandmaster? There are a lot of amazing players and chess authors who have studied the game and played in tournaments for years, without ever making it to grandmaster. I can't see what kind of special talent it would require from someone to start studying as a 40-year old and become stronger than those, who have played and studied since they were kids and are already on a high level. He wouldn't only have to catch up with all of them, but to also surpass them. Just don't see it happening.

I personally have dedicated hours every day in order to learn chess for past 8 months. Starting from scratch with almost no knowledge of the game (didn't even know castling, drawing or en passant) I have reached around 1400 online rating, trying to push it to 1500 this year, before I start OTB tournament play next year. I consider myself quite a fast learner, with extensive knowledge of other strategy games, and got completely obsessed about chess. Still, 1400 is lightyears away from anything master. Every single rating point from now on will be slower than the previous one. If I continue to obsess over the game for the next 10 years, maybe I could make it to master, maybe not.

It's a hard debate, because there really are no examples of anyone who started learning chess from scratch as an adult (say 25 years old+) and made it to master level. All the examples where someone earns a master title (or some higher FIDE title) at an old age, is about someone who was already near master level long time before getting the title, or had played the game extensively before, stopped and made a comeback after years. So when we get someone who made it to master starting as adult telling how difficult it was (or wasn't), it's really hard to say what it takes. The fact that the amount of examples is very much under the rock. I'd say it's extremely difficult.

I'd like to add my 2 cents. I love chess, I have free time, and I'm studying a fair bit, let's say semi-seriously. I'm 46 years old. My ultimate goal is to reach 2000 online, in both Rapid and Daily chess. For various personal reasons, OTB is not in the cards for me for the foreseeable future, but who knows. If it was, my goal there would be 2000 also (but, please, I don't mean to start an argument about the differences in online and OTB ratings, I'm just saying, 2000 is like the promised land to me). Right now, my ratings aren't very high at all.

Anyways, here's my take on it. I also love basketball. I played football in highschool, did ok, but never made the basketball team. I never trained for it, though, and looking back, I wish I had. I always loved the game, and I did ok in pick-up games.

Anyways, I sometimes dream of training and then trying to play recreational league basketball. My community has adult leagues, with different tiers, starting for beginners, which are also mixed gender. My point is, it's not that hardcore, and I realistically I might be able to do it. 

I am a dreamer, and I encourage everyone to reach for the stars and all that. I don't mean to discourage the OP at all, but I'm much older than he is. But to me, let's get real.

I could hire a team of personal trainers and basketball coaches, get in the best shape of my life, develop a wicked J. I WILL NEVER PLAY IN THE NBA.

I could hire a team of the finest chess coaches and Grandmasters, buy Fabio Cauruna's computer, go all out. I WILL NEVER BE A GRANDMASTER.

My point is, the two dreams are equally outlandish when  taken to the extreme. I think you underestimate GMs, and even disrespect the pro game, when you think any 40 year old can become a GM.

I know people are going to jump on me and say chess isn't a sport, but that's not what I'm about here. Both chess and basketball are games of skill. One requires physical conditioning, one mental conditioning. I agree with others who have pointed out mental stamina required for a long game, competitiveness (which would have to be world class too be a GM), etc.

I don't mean to be rude. But like I said, please, let's get real.

If you took the world's smartest 40-45 year old person, however that's measured, but generally and widely regarded as a genius, even by other geniuses, and this super genius is currently below FIDE 2200, do you think he or she could attain GM title in 5-10 years?  (If sooner than that, even better.)

P.S.  This question might even deserve it's own post and thread!

I know I stated my opinion rather emphatically, but I do concede there might be exceptions. For example, I was happy to hear about Fred Wilson's success at his age, I use his puzzle books to learn tactics.

I mean, say Lebron started basketball late (and allowing that "late" might not be the same for a sport and a mental sport), I don't know if I'd want to bet against him.

But where I was coming from, it's not just about acquiring chess theory and knowledge. Top level super GMs have honed their ability to perform under pressure over the whole course of their careers.

So, does your super genius come with nerves of steel? Because while I may never have met a genius, I have known several highly intelligent people who were basket cases socially. Not saying all of them, but just saying, there's more ingredients than just "intelligence" in a chess GM's tool kit. I know a guy who's taller then Lebron, for example...get what I mean?

BobbyTalporov,  I provided 3 recent peer reviewed academic sources to back-up my first comment and you've provided opinion and conjecture. And yet you have the cheek to say that I'm the one who's speaking "nonsense"? I am giving you guys the current scientific consensus here and you're responding to me like I'm the village idiot.

Bobby, you completely straw-manned my posts. I never said someone stops learning after 25, that's obviously a ridiculously stupid point. Personally speaking I've learned a new foreign language to certified C1 level in the past year, so clearly older people are capable of learning new things. I merely stated that certain cognitive traits - traits which are necessary for chess - are already in decline at this point. Of course someone can massively improve at Chess after 25. But I see no evidence that a intelligent beginner of 40+ would be able to reach the level of GM if only they had the appropriate lifestyle. 

And CelticG, thanks for the polite reply that I know you made in good faith. However, had you read the papers a little more carefully you would have noticed that they mention that diet and lifestyle factors such as exercise do play a massive role in cognitive decline. I've never disputed that point because there's overwhelming evidence to support it. On the other side, it would seem that you're ignoring a lot of current high quality scientific research if you think that genetics and vascular factors play no role in brain degeneration.

I know some don't want to hear it but what I'm stating is not particularly scientifically controversial. It's certainly not nonsense. 

5 years ago the mother of one of my students asked me: "Can my son become a world champion?"  I told her no.  She said i was being negative, and if anyone tries hard enough they can achieve there dreams.  I told her that he is told old, and started to late.  I didnt say they he couldnt become a very good player, hes just to old to be a world champion.  

She asked me what my favorite sport was?  I said baseball.  She proceeds to tell me that if i hired coaches, trained, and invested the time, money, and effort i could play professional baseball.  I said no i cant.  Im 50, and no amount of hope, desire, training, inspiration, etc is going to change that.

After all that...she still thought i was being negative.  

A perfectly reasonable position but some people simply don't want to hear it. I think any mentally capable adult is able to becoming a proficient a chess player if they have the time and inclination. A late starter becoming World Champion? Not cognitively possible.

Thats one of the benefits of being older.  You dont have to lie to yourself anymore :-)

Best comment so far:  #9.   Wanna be good?   Hire a professional coach.   The children today ALL (the good ones) have professional coaches.   A well coached 9 year old will give you fits.   You can learn more in a one hour lesson from an IM than you can in a year of reading books.   I played chess all my life and decided at age 38 (I'm over 60 now) to seek out chess clubs.   I learned those players were very good, so I took lessons from an IM.   After one position he declared "ok, it's clear, you don't know ANYTHING!"   After many lessons and years of study and many games, even though I know a lot strategically, my rating remains low for there is often one oversight per game which is enough to lose.   Too expensive?   ok, Chess.com has more than 3800 online lessons.   How many have you taken?   These lessons are excellent and quite helpful.   Some masters have said, anyone with a good work ethic should be able to reach 2000, expert level.   That's a very high level.   Above expert, masters have said, you need talent.   Best I ever did?   I drew a master in OTB tournament competition.   Once.   I had several wonderful games against masters, even had better positions.   Lost.   Good luck. 

lol

IMO there's only one type of person who thinks like that: someone who has never tried to be good at anything. Of course it's ok to have this attitude as a kid, because you haven't done much yet, but for a grown woman this is just really dumb.

And to the black belt guy...

I had a black belt when I was 12. It was easy. You just memorize enough forms.

Of course that's not how they all work (especially for adults).

BJJ you'll be lucky to advance from white belt in 1 year, because it's not memorization, it's performance.

Chess is the same. If it were just memorization, then all the old guys would be world top 10. But that's now how it is, because chess is a performance game.

Just like an obese guy could beat Usain Bolt in a 100M sprint.

It's not IMPOSSIBLE.

For example in the middle of the race Bolt could be hit by a meteorite. Then the 5 foot tall 300 lbs man could win.

You're the one who brought up a "6-year-old 2500+ could be world champion, it's not impossible"

So don't lecture me about absurd scenarios lol.

Ok, now I'll read the rest of your post.

Ok, but winning the world championship is not a lottery, so it's correct for e.g. @icecoolpool

to bring up ideas like "not cognitively possible."