It was easy in 19th century
If a 9 year old can become a Chess Master, then ...
Sort:
To AnthonyCG
I hate to disagree with you, but the earliest story of Morphy playing chess was at the of 4 or 5 correcting his master-strength uncle Alonzo in a rook and pawn ending when no one in the family was aware that he could play. Nobody taught him chess. He did study what literature there was for the day, but wound up giving his books away early because they couldn't teach him anything.
For the topic
While I wasn't aware that Leonid Stein learned chess at 17, I know Harry Pillsbury learned at age 16 and by 22 was winning Hastings 1895. So there is proof that you don't have to learn chess early to be a GM, but those players are rare. And you'll never find out if you are one of the rare ones unless you try. I just broke 2000 USCF for the first time in my career; my next goal is 2200.
Odessian
Keep going for it. I turn 54 next month and I'm not letting a little thing like age get in the way. I'm playing chess better than ever, my music is better than ever, my writing is better than ever; I feel like fine wine. Let the kids suffer with all that psychological bull of youth; we've been there, we know, we can do. Let's just keep proving it to the young'uns.
Dec 27, 2010
0
#24
dashkee94 wrote:
For the topic
While I wasn't aware that Leonid Stein learned chess at 17, I know Harry Pillsbury learned at age 16 and by 22 was winning Hastings 1895. So there is proof that you don't have to learn chess early to be a GM, but those players are rare. And you'll never find out if you are one of the rare ones unless you try. I just broke 2000 USCF for the first time in my career; my next goal is 2200.
Odessian
Keep going for it. I turn 54 next month and I'm not letting a little thing like age get in the way. I'm playing chess better than ever, my music is better than ever, my writing is better than ever; I feel like fine wine. Let the kids suffer with all that psychological bull of youth; we've been there, we know, we can do. Let's just keep proving it to the young'uns.
You definitely got the attention of me and, this is my topic. Thanks for the contribution. 
Almost 54 and recently broke 2000 USCF. Congratulations!
I'm 51, and into my second year of chess. Over at www.chesstempo.com, my estimated FIDE rating is 1574.
Stats for standard tactics
Rating: 1380.7 (RD: 54.59) (Best Active Rating: 1438 Worst Active Rating: 829)
Active Rank: 5722/7769 (Better than: 26.35% Best Active: 2018 Worst Active: 5816)
Problems Done: 1253 (Correct: 938 Failed: 315)
Percentage correct: 74.86%
Average recent per problem time spent 153 seconds
FIDE Estimated Rating based on standard tactics: 1574
-----------------------------------------
I recently started taking tactics training very seriously, as well as checkmate puzzles. I'm told that this is what a beginner needs to focus the most of his study time on, and less time on all the other things, like opening theory and positional play. With that said, I am greatly enjoying My System by Aron Nimzowitsch. I have the absolute best updated edition of this classic work by Quality Chess publishing, with algebraic notation and a modern uncensored translation. It's outstanding.
ISBN 10:91-976005-3-9
ISBN 13:978-91-976005-3-8
-----
Is going from 2000 to 2200 more difficult than going from 1400 to 1600? Estimating, how long will it take to break 2200?
Of course the higher you go, the more difficult it would be.
Musikamole
Thank you. It took a looooong time. (I had this thing called a life)
You said, "Is going from 2000 to 2200 more difficult than going from 1400 to 1600?" If and when I reach my goal, I'll let you know. But I anticipate it's going to be much, much tougher.
"Estimating, how long will it take to break 2200?" If my earlier carreer is any indication, somewhere around 2050--2060.
My advice to you for improvement is to analyze your games. Figure out what you are doing well and what you are failing at. Try to expand the positive and restrict the negtive. Having other players to analyze with, using computers as study aids, posting here when you run into a problem are all good ways of advancing. But (to me) the most important thing is to eliminate the crap from your game and that normally comes from other players. Rip you losses apart until you know exactly what you did/why you did. And as always, remember this--Chess is fun! When it isn't fun anymore, it's time to leave. Good luck, and keep kickin' butt!
Chess ratings are a bell curve. On the second half of the curve (1400+), each rating point will be more difficult than the last. A good article about that:
http://www.coloradomasterchess.com/Informant/Ratings%20and%20Expectations.ht
The way the rating system is set up, you generally should be able to score 25% against players 200 points higher than you. Conversely, in order to gain 200 points, you have to be able to score 75% against players at the rating you are now.
So in order to reach expert, you have to be able to score 25% against a low-level master. In order to reach master, you should be able to score 75% against an expert. Eesh!
I always like to imagine the ratings ladder as a series of tables.
At the first table is a player who is your exact chess equal at the moment. When you can beat him 75% of the time, you can move on to the next table. At each table, there is a player who can beat the player at the previous table 75% of the time. Each table represents 200 rating points.
Dec 27, 2010
0
#28
KyleJRM wrote:
Chess ratings are a bell curve. On the second half of the curve (1400+), each rating point will be more difficult than the last. A good article about that:
http://www.coloradomasterchess.com/Informant/Ratings%20and%20Expectations.ht
The way the rating system is set up, you generally should be able to score 25% against players 200 points higher than you. Conversely, in order to gain 200 points, you have to be able to score 75% against players at the rating you are now.
So in order to reach expert, you have to be able to score 25% against a low-level master. In order to reach master, you should be able to score 75% against an expert. Eesh!
I always like to imagine the ratings ladder as a series of tables.
At the first table is a player who is your exact chess equal at the moment. When you can beat him 75% of the time, you can move on to the next table. At each table, there is a player who can beat the player at the previous table 75% of the time. Each table represents 200 rating points.
That makes sense. When I'm winning 75% of the time at one table, it's time to move on to the big kid table and get clobbered for a while until I get adjusted.
Dec 27, 2010
0
#29
dashkee94 wrote:
Musikamole
Thank you. It took a looooong time. (I had this thing called a life)
You said, "Is going from 2000 to 2200 more difficult than going from 1400 to 1600?" If and when I reach my goal, I'll let you know. But I anticipate it's going to be much, much tougher.
"Estimating, how long will it take to break 2200?" If my earlier carreer is any indication, somewhere around 2050--2060.
My advice to you for improvement is to analyze your games. Figure out what you are doing well and what you are failing at. Try to expand the positive and restrict the negtive. Having other players to analyze with, using computers as study aids, posting here when you run into a problem are all good ways of advancing. But (to me) the most important thing is to eliminate the crap from your game and that normally comes from other players. Rip you losses apart until you know exactly what you did/why you did. And as always, remember this--Chess is fun! When it isn't fun anymore, it's time to leave. Good luck, and keep kickin' butt!
Eliminate the crap. Well said.
An International Master on this site once say that to improve, identify when the game first leaves opening theory for you, locate your first mistake, then fix it.
With 721 Live Chess games played here, I have 721 games to review and fix! 
In many of them, after just a few moves into the game, I made some really bad moves that clearly shows my lack of understanding. Much to do! 
I make STUPID moves then realize it right after I do it.
Musikamole wrote:
KyleJRM wrote:
Chess ratings are a bell curve. On the second half of the curve (1400+), each rating point will be more difficult than the last. A good article about that:
http://www.coloradomasterchess.com/Informant/Ratings%20and%20Expectations.ht
The way the rating system is set up, you generally should be able to score 25% against players 200 points higher than you. Conversely, in order to gain 200 points, you have to be able to score 75% against players at the rating you are now.
So in order to reach expert, you have to be able to score 25% against a low-level master. In order to reach master, you should be able to score 75% against an expert. Eesh!
I always like to imagine the ratings ladder as a series of tables.
At the first table is a player who is your exact chess equal at the moment. When you can beat him 75% of the time, you can move on to the next table. At each table, there is a player who can beat the player at the previous table 75% of the time. Each table represents 200 rating points.
That makes sense. When I'm winning 75% of the time at one table, it's time to move on to the big kid table and get clobbered for a while until I get adjusted.
In theory, each time you move up a "table" you are playing a player who is your exact equal and should be able to match him at a 50% pace. When you can beat your equal 75% of the time, you have improved by 200 rating points.
Musikamole
If you have any games you are not sure of what happened or why, or if you have some questions you can't answer about them, drop me a line or message on my profile. I'll see what I can do with them for you.
Dec 27, 2010
0
#33
KyleJRM wrote:
Musikamole wrote:
KyleJRM wrote:
Chess ratings are a bell curve. On the second half of the curve (1400+), each rating point will be more difficult than the last. A good article about that:
http://www.coloradomasterchess.com/Informant/Ratings%20and%20Expectations.ht
The way the rating system is set up, you generally should be able to score 25% against players 200 points higher than you. Conversely, in order to gain 200 points, you have to be able to score 75% against players at the rating you are now.
So in order to reach expert, you have to be able to score 25% against a low-level master. In order to reach master, you should be able to score 75% against an expert. Eesh!
I always like to imagine the ratings ladder as a series of tables.
At the first table is a player who is your exact chess equal at the moment. When you can beat him 75% of the time, you can move on to the next table. At each table, there is a player who can beat the player at the previous table 75% of the time. Each table represents 200 rating points.
That makes sense. When I'm winning 75% of the time at one table, it's time to move on to the big kid table and get clobbered for a while until I get adjusted.
In theory, each time you move up a "table" you are playing a player who is your exact equal and should be able to match him at a 50% pace. When you can beat your equal 75% of the time, you have improved by 200 rating points.
I didn't quite get it the first time, even with a perfectly good analogy from you. Sometimes I need to hear something said in two ways. Thank you.
Kintoki wrote:
Capablanca and morphy=living proof that talent is worth more than hard work
Either this is incorrect or nobody told me about the zombie uprising.
Dec 27, 2010
0
#35
woodshover wrote:
AnthonyCG wrote:
woodshover wrote:
Tarzan123 wrote:
I want to become a Grandmaster one day (doesn't everybody?), but what's the "official" way of doing it? Message me if you can help. I hope my youth is to my advantage in this.
I know a lot of people on here don't believe this, but if you don't have the talent for it, it doesn't matter how young you are, you won't become one, no matter how much you study.
Talent is worthless without hard work.
There are plenty of chess hustlers in the parks that play at 2000 levels but just aren't rated that way because they don't try to get there.
It takes BOTH hard work and talent.
So true.
Dec 27, 2010
0
#36
dashkee94 wrote:
Musikamole
If you have any games you are not sure of what happened or why, or if you have some questions you can't answer about them, drop me a line or message on my profile. I'll see what I can do with them for you.
Thank you. I have chess engines, like Rybka 4, that show my mistakes, i.e., -+ 0.50. What Rybka 4 doesn't do is tell me why the moves are mistakes.
Fritz 12 has a cool feature called explain all moves. Even with this, I'm not always sure why my move is considered a mistake. I'll send a few mistakes your way after some review. Thanks.
Example: After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 Bc5 5.Be3
5...
Qd8-f6 Defends threatened piece
Qd8-e7 C45: Scotch Game
Bc5xd4 Attacking piece gets captured
Nc6xd4 Attacking piece gets captured
Nc6-e5 Attacked piece moves away
Bc5-b6 C45: Scotch Game
Nc6-e7 Attacked piece moves away
Nc6-e5 Attacked piece moves away
Qd8-h4 C45: Scotch Game
Bc5-d6 Bad development - piece moves again
Nc6-b8 Attacked piece moves away
Bc5-b4+ This check is easily parried
Bc5-e7 Blocks Qd8
Nc6-a5 Attacked piece moves away
Bc5-f8 Bad development - piece moves again
b7-b6 Is wrong
d7-d6 Is tactically incorrect
Nc6-b4 Is not playable
Ng8-f6, d7-d5, a7-a6, a7-a5, Ng8-h6, h7-h5, h7-h6, f7-f5 Loses material
To Musikamole
I play the Scotch Gambit myself. 4.Bc4 is a good move. If you want, I can forward you some Morphy games where white just rocks, and this line worked against a 2310 for me in a tournament a couple of months ago (I lost, but it wasn't due to the opening). People below 2500 still get rocked by this stuff.
Dec 27, 2010
0
#38
dashkee94 wrote:
To Musikamole
I play the Scotch Gambit myself. 4.Bc4 is a good move. If you want, I can forward you some Morphy games where white just rocks, and this line worked against a 2310 for me in a tournament a couple of months ago (I lost, but it wasn't due to the opening). People below 2500 still get rocked by this stuff.
Please do. I love the games of Morphy and will post a few I found where he plays the Scotch Gambit with 4.Bc4.
I played the Scotch Gambit some months ago, as well as the Danish Gambit. I really liked the ease in which I could develop my pieces and begin attacking quickly. Who needs a d-pawn.
You got me thinking more about looking at games played a long time ago as well as games played by club players, rather than titled players. The GM games are so perfect and nothing like what I experience in Live Chess.
Looking at the historical games of Morphy, I get to see his opponents slip up, and then learn what those mistakes look like so that I can punish my opponents when they make those same mistakes.
GM's rarely make mistakes, since they know openings like the Scotch Gambit all the way to one gazillion moves, knowing which lines to avoid and which lines will produce a favorable endgame.
My opponents and I don't play that kind of chess, nor could we. At my level, it's more like chess from the Romantic period:
Fast development of their army, followed by direct attacks on the enemy.
Go all-out for Checkmate but, if you found your game heading for a Loss, then above all, make it a glorious one.
If a player offers a piece for a sacrifice, the opponent is compelled to Accept, else face humiliation for the cowardly refusal.
Positional chess? What's that?
What can I hope to learn from watching Polgar and her very strong opponent Joel Benjamin? It's way over my head. Here's the same exciting opening, ending in a draw. Ugh!
You learn quickly, grasshopper. I'll post some games here later.
Alex is right. I am pretty sure, I could reach a 2300 level in 2 years (currently i am 1950 USCF) if i didn't have to work, take care of the family, and abandon all other activities such as sports, education, poker, friends and have a GM to work with...