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

Oh, your profile says you're in your mid 30s. I guess neither of us wins that pissing contest as we're the same age.

But calculating a probability (1 in 300M) is just an approximation we use when we don't have all the information. In reality a single person is either 100% or zero percent. Either they have that potential or they don't. In practice it's useful to believe in yourself, I'll agree with that.

And if it's just a random person, then you're right, you can't say for sure they wont or can't be world champ.

But if it's a coach and student, then yeah, it starts to make sense to say the kid is not good.

Would I think Carlsen as a 9-10 year old is garbage? Maybe, but maybe not. I met a talented kid once. He was probably rated about 1000, but the things he saw were clearly different from any other beginner I'd played. I got excited and started asking his brothers about him (much to their annoyance).

IMO hard work will (usually) let people go far beyond what they think their limits are.

Is it possible for me to be 2500 if I had an ideal scenario? I think the answer is no, and I don't mean that in a negative way, I just mean in a realistic way.

Chess is definitely a performance game. A 5 hour game seems like a lot at first, but it's not. It's very limited. To play at a high level it's all about preparation but also performance. Think of it like boxing. I'm in my mid 30s and out of shape. Could I hold an international boxing title? No. It's just not possible anymore because I can't preform at that level.

BobbyTalporov, 

The chances of a 40+ beginner becoming World Champion is statistically impossible. I've bolded those words so that we're both on the same page, and we're left with no misunderstandings.

A statistical impossibility is a mathematical concept that perhaps some here are not familiar with. It means a probability that is so low that it is not worth mentioning. If I'd initially said "cognitively improbable" instead that would have implied a higher probability than this hypothetical merits. Becoming an IM under these circumstances is improbable. Becoming the WC as a middle-aged newbie is statistically impossible. I hope that clears that up, because I don't think you actually disagree with this point, just with he way I phrased the issue which wasn't crystal clear. 

For the more general discussion at hand:

Let's look at our hypothetical 40 year old noobie who wants to dedicate his entire life to becoming a Grandmaster. Is that a realistic goal? I would argue, no it isn't. It hasn't been done before and I see no scientific evidence that it will be done in the near future (short of a scientific breakthrough allowing adults to have the neuroplasticity and learning abilities of a child - but we're getting into sci-fi territory here).

My initial point is that aiming to be a chess expert (2000+) would be a more reasonable goal for a 40 year old - and is still an admirable achievement were it to be reached. What's the limit that a 40 year old under ideal circumstances could achieve? I don't have answer to that, no-one does - there's no academic paper available to answer that question! FIDE-Master perhaps? Realistically, I can't see a path to Grandmaster and I certainly feel confident in saying that becoming World Champion is statistically impossible.

It was once thought that running a mile in less than four minutes was impossible until Bannister did it. If everyone thought like you, nobody would have achieved anything. Also, I wouldn't pay too much attention to your 'scientific evidence'. Neuroscientists have dismissed many things about the brain and what it is capable of only to be proved wrong. Maybe you won't ever become good at chess, or anything else, but that doesn't mean that a person with drive and motivation and commitment will fail no matter how old they are.  I don't want to be offensive, but I sincerely hope that you're not a teacher or a parent with the attitude you have. 

Ah, you're one of those expert-schmexpert types. This is probably futile because you clearly dismiss any knowledge which doesn't fit with your Weltanschauung but here goes:

"It was once thought that running a mile in less than four minutes was impossible until Bannister did it."

How is a supreme athlete breaking a world record comparable to a 40 year old beginner becoming World Champion? One is unlikely; the other: statistically impossible (a probability that is so low it's virtually zero).

"If everyone thought like you, nobody would have achieved anything."

It's clear you have no idea how I think. I always encourage people to try, learn and then master new things.

"I wouldn't pay too much attention to your 'scientific evidence'." 

No, you course you wouldn't. Also, putting scientific-evidence in scare-quotes is a cheap shot to undermine highly respected peer reviewed up-to-date academic research and I see right through it. 

"Maybe you won't ever become good at chess, or anything else, but that doesn't mean that a person with drive and motivation and commitment will fail no matter how old they are."

That's a lot of projection right there, you know absolutely nothing about me. I've said again and again, older people can learn and get good at new things. Personally, and I've mentioned this earlier, I have achieved C1 fluency in a foreign language in a year. I set a tough yet realistic target and achieved my goal. I also even said that it's conceivable for an older learner to become a Chess expert or possibly even a FIDE-Master. Which would be an amazing achievement and I don't see as anything close to failure (your words). The barriers to achieving GM status, however, are utterly enormous. If you think that's a realistic goal for a 40 year old with "drive and motivation and commitment" then you are demonstrating a lack of understanding of what it takes to be a GM and brain physiology and development (yes, our understanding is not complete and we'll know a lot more in the coming years but there is no current evidence whatsoever to suggest that a 40 becoming a GM or WC is not statistically impossible).

"I sincerely hope that you're not a teacher or a parent with the attitude you have."

What attitude? You think I'd be a terrible parent or teacher because I've argued, using reason and evidence, that it's statistically impossible (again, it's a different concept from impossible) for a 40 year old newbie to become the world chess champion? You seem to be afraid of intellectual honesty. 

I'd never tell a child they can't achieve something, by the way, no matter how unrealistic the aim. Because they're a child and that's a little different from talking with an adult on the internet about cognitive development and reasonable expectations of achievement.

Perhaps I've explained myself poorly. Here's the case against a 40 year old newbie becoming GM:

1) An intelligent 40 year old is absolutely capable of learning and memorizing enough classical chess theory to be a strong player - I've never made statements to the contrary. Perhaps it's possible, given ideal circumstances, that they can learn and memorize enough theory to match the knowledge base of a typical current GM.

2) Next, they have to apply this theory and knowledge in practical timed chess games. They also have to be able to determine when to NOT apply what they've learned and deviate from the teachings.

3) They have to do this under timed conditions against opponents with the same knowledge base who developed chess skills during critical periods of brain development.

4) In addition younger opponents should be able to recognize patterns, develop strategies, and evaluate tactical situations faster (it's well documented that the brain's "processing speed, reasoning, memory and executive functions" starts to decline in early adulthood) which is important given all FIDE recognised tournaments take place under timed conditions.

5) Our 40 year old will have to gain a minimum rating of 2600 in two FIDE norm-tournaments as well as achieving an overall rating of 2500 at some point. A single norm-rating alone of 2600 is extremely difficult to achieve. Let's have a look at one example:

The GM NORM TOURNAMENT "3rd Fischer Memorial" 

This FIDE-Norm Tournament contained 3 GMs, an IM, an FM and 5 other strong players without titles. The winner of the tournament, Sviridov Valery, a wonderful chess player with a current FIDE rating of 2528, won four games (including a win against a GM), drew four games (including two against both remaining GMs) and lost only one game - which was against a titled FM. Surely that was enough to secure one of the norms needed to be a GM? Nope, Valery had a performance rating of 2506, 94 short of the required level. As of writing, Valery is still an untitled player despite his high rating and a winning a FIDE GM-Norm tournament.

Our hypothetical 40-year-old has to do even better than that. To be a GM, means you have to play consistently well against other highly ranked players. It hasn't been done before and it's very very very unlikely to happen in the future (which is why I used the phrase statistically impossible).

For those lurking, BobbyTalporov and CelticG have tried to frame my evidence as quack science but I've only used papers published in peer reviewed academic journals and data from FIDE. I'm basing my arguments on the best model of the brain we currently have. These posters are not able to undermine my arguments academically by linking, say, to a respected journal article that says the brain only declines due to environmental factors (which are certainly very influential factors nonetheless) because it doesn't exist (genetic and vascular factors do play a role in cognitive decline even from a relatively young age; this was in the literature I linked to earlier, but clearly not all posters here want to read it - fair enough - but it weakens, rather than strengthens, the points they're making). I can only assume they're arguing with me because they're angered by the science on an emotional rather than on an intellectual level. 

I think it may be you who is operating on an emotional level. Perhaps instead of spending  time writing such long messages, you should be brushing up on your cognitive skills. Methinks you protest too much. 

You would have a realistic chance if you were 14 years younger, or rated 1200 points higher...

Once again you've provided no argument, no evidence, no rational, no logic. It's schoolboys' own stuff: "I know you, you said you are, now what am I." Embarrassing, quite frankly. 

The reason I've written long messages is because my original pithy response on this topic, informed by years of working in this subject area, was deemed "mostly nonsense". When a teaching opportunity presents itself, it seems foolish to waste it. Whether or not you wish to learn, well, that's up to you. You can lead a donkey to water and all that.

Anyway, as I stated my last post was written mostly for the benefit of lurkers who are interested in this subject area. I can't let your uninformed drivel frame the debate.

The first step is to grasp reality. Not everyone can do everything. This is the worst lie a parent can tell a child, or an adult to themselves. It's like believing in Santa, it may give you the warm fuzzies for a lil bit but you eventually either learn the truth or live diluted. And yeah, you might have behaved a lil better as a child to get those toys, but your behavior would have prolly been similar if your parents simply told you they wouldn't buy you presents if you misbehaved. 

The second step is to set realistic goals. I play chess for fun on my phone and have never really taken it seriously. Maybe one day I will, but for now, my life is full of other things. As a 30 y/o, there is no way on earth that I could become WC, and it's not because I'm being "negative," it's because I started playing chess in my 20's and I definitely do not have the mind to be a WC. Few people are able to be the best in the world at something, but the VAST majority of us are not. That is just how it goes.

The third step is to invest in your chess education. It is possible to improve on your own, but if improving at chess is as important to you as it seems to be, much time and effort will be saved through hiring a legitimate coach or something of that nature. Find a coach who will work with you and your personality, make them a mentor, and learn from them. Books are prolly good too but having the dynamic analysis of a human coach is most likely better than a static book.

The fourth step is to enjoy the journey. Once you give up on WC, work on reaching 1600 elo (for example) and holding it for x amount of games. Then do the same for 1700, then 1800: you get the picture. Chess is one of those things that can be done for the rest of your life. This isn't a sprint, it is a marathon, but to be capable of running a marathon you need to train your way up. You don't start out by getting off your couch and running 26mi your first day. Set manageable goals and reward yourself for reaching those goals. (example: buying yourself a high-quality chess board when reaching and holding a certain elo., and then buying yourself high-quality chess pieces for that board when you reach a little higher elo.)

Takeaways are: (1) be honest with yourself; (2) set realistic goals; (3) invest in quality chess education (coach, etc.) and (4) enjoy the journey. 

It is easy to make a plan. It is harder to execute that plan as execution actually takes discipline to stick with over the long term. Good luck on your journey. 

P.S. I don't believe in luck, but my high school basketball coach said something to me once that always stuck with me. He said, "luck is when preparation meets opportunity." He prolly heard it from somewhere, but I first heard it from him. Control what you can (preparation) and when opportunities present themselves, you will be ready. 

Assuming someone has perfectly health and have enough time to live i dont actually believe its impossible to be better than everyone else. Relative distance is not a big issue, someone is rated 800 and other one is 2600 isnt a that big problem. But the player behind should be closing the distance. But how ?
Someone with no experience, doesnt know best practices, probably have other obligations and doesnt have proven personality suitable for the job against someone taught by best trainers, did what he had to do for all his life, have knowledge and experience and spending all his time professionally improving his skills and knowledge. And even if some miracluous technique was invented professional due to nature of his job will have to adapt and use it even before you ever hear it. Besides if you have what it takes is not proven yet. "If you had what you need to be a professional why you didnt become yet ?" needs to be asked. 
I dont say anything is impossible but i dont think many can answer this questions in favor of themselves. And dont answer to me but answer to yourself.

Dont think grandmasters are some people get tutored a few years when they are young and and staying there doing no effort at all. Imagine they are in a race and they are doing whatever they can to stay ahead and work 8-10-12 hours a day and they did this all their life. When they feel they cant keep up they retire and become trainers instead because playing chess and earning your life by winning chess games is really really hard job.

Well said, ChillyChar. Excellent advice all round.

Good post, Chessplan, you've obviously thought this through and made some good points. 

"I dont say anything is impossible"

Interesting thought. I would say anything that violates the laws of the universe is impossible. Is it impossible for a 40 year old beginner to become World Chess Champion? No, as I don't think it goes against the fundamental laws of universe (even though it goes our understanding of brain development and what we know of the capabilities of adults to learn).

In fact, I can think of some hypotheticals that could lead to this potential scenario: a disease wiping out 95% of humanity; new research in neuroscience altering the structure of the brain; undetected cheating.

But what's the probability of any of these things actually happening? Low enough for this hypothetical to be statistically, if not actually, impossible.

If you read my previous comment really carefully and you are still want to try your best ? Ok no problem i will try to give best advice i can give.

• Go with baby steps, dont try to take shortcuts. If you will reach GM status somehow it wont be due to some intense miracle trainign technique in a year (or two) it will be a long game (probably a very long game)
• Since you are playing long game, you want to build your foundation solidly as you can. Dont think about fast and effective. Try to think what you can achieve lasting and effective.
• First thing i would go for would be discipline and attitude. Try to devise a plan in a way you can do every nonchess you are supposed to. But you will have enough time left for studying your chess, you do it regularly with all your attention and not burning out.
• You need to play regularly, frequently but not too much. Playing have only one purpose, testing yourself. Play with your best effort try to apply everythign you learn. Then analyze every game you played, search hardly for your weaknesses. Analysis is only usefull if you can find a real weakness of yourself and come up with a method of getting rid of it. Naturally you have to proceed and get rid of that weakness.
• If you somehow managed to learn doing everything i said above then you may have some chance.

The games you play should be slow enough so you can apply your best, so when you analyze your games there shouldnt be an excuse i didnt have time to calculate x here.

Dont be me. Finish your university. I was planning to a GM when i was 20, now i am 30 still nowhere close. I could have finished my university and keep trying to be GM probably with better results. Devoting too much time worked agaisnt my chess paradoxically since i had other troubles frequently and had to quit my training for years many times. had to spend too much time stabilizing my life so i can return studying chess with peace. (Also get a good job after graduation) I knew people managed to spend 10 hours/week on their chess when they have full time intense jobs also having a family and keeping everything good and managing to improve 300 rating in 7 years. Some of them 30-35+ when they started doing this and they were already 1800+ when they started. I dont know 10-20 or 30 years they need but they have better shot than me being a master. On the other hand i can spend full time on chess and have a leap like 80 points in 4-5 months. Then i cant train for years and lose some of it. Going forward twice going backward once isnt better than slow and steady.

If you read my previous 2 comments and not discouraged yet ? Then i may give some practical advice.

• Use chess board and kill all your electronics when you work (phones, pc, tv, radio)
• Since you are rated 1000-1400. I would start with steps books. I worked some of them with children and i think they are good. Also i go through them as a warm-up when i quit chess for a few years. This is your basement of calculation. Do first 2 or 3 books.
• Get capablanca chess fundamentals. This is best book written ever and you can read as a beginner, intermediate even as a advanced player. You will go through master games analyzed by a world champion and its accessible. You learn some of basic endgames, some combinations some strategy. A little bit of everything dont waste a bit of it.

Just using two sources should give you enough of basics. They were enough for getting 1600 OTB for myself when i was a kid without any trainer or any club. That being said i analyzed many positions in the book and mastered any technique mentioned. I spent 3-4 years with capablanca (7-11 years old) You dont have to spend that much time but be sure you mastered everything. Step books are puzzle book so it can be finished fast 1-2 months each month. You wont miss anything as long as you are doing correct.

Next step (Not absolute beginner)

• Grab an endgame book (I like 100 endgames you must know)
• Grab a strategy book ( I like sergiu samarian book who is trainer in your country written a book named "systematic training" other books i can recommend are israel gelfer's "positional chess handbook" and a recently published herman grooten's "positional chess for club players")
• Get John Nunn's learning chess tactics book. (Its mix of primer and question bank mixed) Its not a big book but teaches most of basic themes
• Pick an opening as a white, against 1.e4 and 1.d4. Do this arbitrarily. I will explain it later.

Make yourself a schedule like

on mondays 1-2 hours on endgames learning 1-2 positions best you can

on tuesdays 1-2 hours playing slow 1-2 chess games (30 minute/game etc)

on wednesdays study a chapter on strategy book 1-3 hours

on thursday resting

on friday find a master game played on one of your interested openings and look through

on saturday study some more endgame or repeat strategy chapter depending on your mood

sunday rest

Everyday on you spare time or when you are at metro etc spend some quality time with your tactics book. It should take you 8-10 months you eat everything in your strategy book and in your endgame book.

1000 checkmate combinations (victor henkin) is your follow - up tactic primer its from Tal's games and very good. You can't and shouldnt do more then 2-3 positions a day.

As strategy follow-up many options. I find micheal suba's dynamical chess strategy very interesting book. But may a following with a classic my system can be good idea as well. Old pachman books have good reputation. If you feel you are up to challenge "complete manual of positional chess" by sakaev is great book. As a endgame follow up Müller's fundamental chess endings or Dvorestky's endgame manual are very good.  As tactic puzzle books there is many good options but i personally like manual of chess combinations 2 & 3. Also John's Nunn's Puzzle book for hardcore but entertaining gym. Try to learn from Botvinnik, Karpov and Fischer games. Follow modern chess players you like and analyze every game of them on your own. Dvoretsky, Yusupov, Soltis are great authors i can recommend. Soltis books are more accessible at lower levels and Dvoretsky books are top notch quality but hardest ones to read.

有

If you're 2400 fide at 40 you will never become a world champion.

Magnus would easily crush people who would easily crush you in fact.

Bobby, that's a very well written reply. You've framed your argument in a logical and coherent way and you deserve to be commended for that. A few points:

1) Yes, the first part is a purely semantic debate, I agree. Not a big deal, I don't think we even disagree on the general unlikelyhood of 40-year-old beginner becoming a GM.

2) You've brought up examples of teenage learners later becoming masters here. There’s no debate to be had here, clearly it’s possible. Point well made.

3) Yes, you are right to criticize the research methodology of cross-sectional studies and not take them for granted. Having read your post, I knew straight off that you read the Saltman paper (therefore there’s no need for saltiness (pun intended) about me only reading the abstract!). Unfortunately, you seem to have skimmed over his conclusion:

"[W]hat does appear clear is that several different types of results converge on the conclusion that age-related cognitive decline begins relatively early in adulthood."

Which has been my point since my first post. Let’s look a bit closer as to why I agree with Saltman on this topic.

You have chosen to ignore data from cross-sectional studies – which do have research flaws as you’ve explained (courtesy of Saltman’s own devil's advocate arguments). But that doesn’t automatically result in the non-medical longitudinal studies being of inherently more value. These studies, because of the retest effect - which you know about and understand - are also far from definitive.

So it would seem we’ve reached a stalemate at this point. One data point suggests one thing. Another data point suggests another.

Unfortunately, as you’re new to this subject area, you’re also unaware of the huge amounts of medical longitudinal data that show structural and physiological changes in the brain (such as reduced cortical thinning, smaller prefrontal and cerebellar volume) have already started to occur by mid-thirties (with more rapid changes coming after 70). If you have access to an academic or student library account, you can find an abundance of academic medical papers on this topic. If not, you could always read Scahill et al’s “A longitudinal study of brain volume changes in normal aging using serial registered magnetic resonance imaging” (2003). Do you know what their finding was?

They found that brain volume decreases throughout adulthood and not only in old age (just look at that volume decline on page 992 from 30 – 40!). Interestingly, when it comes to medical research, the longitudinal and cross-sectional data are actually very close in the results produced. They also lineup nicely with the cross-sectional data from intelligence studies.

The problem with the medical data (and there’s so much of it!), with regards to this topic at least, is that there isn’t an exact one-to one-correlation between intelligence and brain volume. However, we have two data points (both cross-sectional and longitudinal) that show that certain areas of the brain lose volume in early adulthood. We also have the cross-sectional data that suggests intelligence starts to decrease, in certain areas at least, at 25. On the other hand, you’ve rightly pointed out that the longitudinal data from intelligence tests suggests that this isn't that case. Nonetheless, I think you'll agree, that there are more data-points supporting my position than your contrarianism.

Regardless of your views on this topic (if regurgitating devil’s advocate arguments from someone who agrees with me counts as a view!), all you really need to know is that by keeping physically and mentally active, you’ll be better able to deal with the issues of cognitive decline, so keep playing and trying to improve at chess as part of a balanced healthy lifestyle! Just don’t expect to become a GM!

Best of luck!

 I very much agree with this point of view. Right now I'm focusing on more effective use of my knights for example. It is a very small, focused objective, but like you said, small steps.

Great post all round Bobby, very good points well made. This caught my eye:

"So, it is possible the adult could have developed those skills in other ways and simply need to practice applying them in relation to chess."

I read an academic article on that very topic this week (not about chess specifically but about the need to acquire the necessary cognitive skills during the "critical stages" (early childhood) in order to excel in tasks that require those cognitive skills later in life).

So I would agree with you that a later learner needs the requisite cognitive development even if it's not directly gained from learning about chess.  

I'm also reminded that many shogi players (such as Yoshiharu Habu) are also pretty good at chess (these games are somewhat similar in terms of cognitive thinking but the theory base behind the games is entirely different - knowing the Sicilian and how to establish a strong chess pawn structure won't help you in shogi!). 

For BatusChess. Many good players here have already commented and provided excellent advice as well as the truth that GM is out of reach. Let me provide another example. I played 1500 games w my friend Ken rated OTB 2150 USCF. Expert level player. I lost 1485 games. I achieved a 1612 USCF rating. We replayed each and every game, and Ken explained how and why I lost, and I did get better over those 3 years. Our paths went different directions so we couldn't play anymore. Before we said goodbye, Ken choose to demonstrate the true gulf between us in knowledge and chess ability. He gave me white and 7 moves, w proviso being no moves across the frontier (4th rank) and thus no capturing any black pieces. Then he made his first move. I lost. Tried again. Lost. On third try, Ken made my 8th move for me winning a pawn. I still lost. I told this story to a few of my other chess friends, friends who never played tournaments. They laughed at me, said, "what kind of idiot gets 7 moves in a chess game and LOSES?!!" I said, ok, take white, make 7 moves. Yep, that's what I did! I proceeded on 3 different occasions to beat 3 different players who were not tournament players yet had played chess for years, with black, after giving them 7 moves. And I'm just a C class player. Just play for the love of the game. To be a GM, I'm not sure when, but I think you have to start around age 5, have talent, and in today's world, have a master coach during your childhood.   good luck.