Play against some of chess.com's computer bots. There's a wide range of playing strengths available and it will most certainly contribute to your growth as a player."
Thats how I started off! I got stuck at the advanced bots, maybe I'll try again today.
35 is not too
35 is not too late to start playing chess; 35 IS too late to reach 2000 elo.
Post "7, @Snookslayer...funny, YOU look like you're *at least* 35 years old...yet you call HIM "gramps", and go on to talk about "leeching the welfare system", etc...speaking from personal experience, Mr. Coffin Dodger/Decaying Fossil/Gramps???!!!
There are some inborn talents (particularly visualization and visual memory) that will determine the top rating you might b able to achieve. Some people will never pass 2000 even if they start young and work a lot, some are so gifted they can achieve GM strength before they reach their teens. It's hard to predict what your top might be, 2000 is not out of the question, but it's probably not a good idea to quit your job and spend all your waking hours studying and playing chess like top professionals do.
If you enjoy playing, just play and enjoy yourself. Longer time controls to let you think more deeply, and a bit of study and analysis will help you improve your game. Playing reasonably well is even ore enjoyable that just playing.
I think 2000 is possible (assuming that you mean chess.com rating), but it will be quite hard.
I started studying chess in my 40s when my son started playing. At that time, I was ~800 in chess.com playing mostly 10-minute game. Through the next 3-4 years, I started reading book (ok, only 1 book I read half way is the complete end game book by Silman), watched a lot of videos on youtube (mostly Daniel Naroditsky's speed run), and just analyze my own game (oh, play longer time control game, ie: 15+10) with engine carefully. I am able to get to 1800 on chess.com and just played my first OTB tournament when I got 5.5/7 against opponents who between 1400-1700 USCF resulted in a initial rating of USCF ~1650. Also, as I analyzed my own game, I still make plenty of one-move blunder in the game so plenty of room for improvement.
What allowed me to improve relatively quickly are
* I am fortunate that I can spend at least 1-2 hours a day on chess
* I really do like the game and generally pretty good with board game and cards
I mean, you're never too old to start playing chess casually. However, I don't think you can play professionally when you learn chess after a certain age; because there is this thing called neuroplasticity. Simply put, kids and babies learn things way faster and when they are introduced to chess, their brains adapt to be good at it, and that gives them an advantage over people who learn later.
In contrast to what some people claim, I believe neuroplasticity is pretty much a thing. After all, how many GMs and IMs do you guys know that started playing chess as an adult? It's a bit like trying to learn a foreign language without an accent. That said, I think that 2000 is a realistic, although difficult goal. Why not take one step at a time and focus on getting to 1000 first?
Is 35 too late to start playing chess?
short answer: no
long answer: no
Keep in mind what these ratings actually mean. At 1500 you're better than 99% of people on chess.com.
I play lots of board games, in those communities I meet lots of people that play chess, but I don't think I've come across anybody in person above the mid 1500s.
1500 is an extremely achievable goal, though it will likely take years to get there.
On the other hand, millions of people play chess, and there's about 2500 people above 2000 in the world
The people who get to 2000 generally do chess full time for years.
So I'd imagine it would be possible, but you generally don't see it happen because people in their mid thirties have other priorities than pursuing chess full time for years to achieve that goal. I love chess, but if I'm looking at pursuing a goal with that much dedication I'd personally choose different goals.
Edit: 2500 people above 2000 was a statistic pulled from USCF, didn't realize it meant just people who have played tournaments under USCF
Keep in mind what these ratings actually mean. At 1500 you're better than 99% of people on chess.com.
1500 is an extremely achievable goal, though it will likely take years to get there.
On the other hand, millions of people play chess, and there's about 2500 people above 2000 in the world
I think your number is way off, no way 1500 is 99%, and I remember reading somewhere there are about 1500 GM in the world.
Yes. You should be sitting outside yelling at kids to get off your lawn.
Hey All,
I recently got fairly interested in Chess fairly late in life. I work in historic strategic board game design which is sort of chess adjacent, but none of my military history chops have really helped in terms of chess strategy lol. I hover around a 400 ELO currently and have recently bought a bunch of books and lessons with a coach bi-weekly.
I've noted that most people decent or competent at chess started very young. If one day I could get to a level around 2000 that would be thrilling, but is that even a realistic goal at this point? Thanks for reading.
35 isn't too late to begin chess at all; some people get into chess after they retire as a way to keep the mind sharp and to give them something to work on. Being 35 years old is by no means "too late" to take up chess and you can still potentially become very strong if you are willing to invest hours and hours into your chess game over the course of several years. Statistically speaking, it is unlikely you'll become World Chess Champion or even become a Grandmaster (GM), but then again, even if age wasn't a factor, there are more Billionaires in the world than there are chess Grandmasters...so I guess it really depends on what your ambitions are 
In my case, I took up chess the same day I created my chess.com account and I've been on chess.com for just over 5 years https://www.chess.com/blog/KeSetoKaiba/5-years-of-chess
I have been over 2000 rapid rating on chess.com several times before (and then drop and then gain and then drop again, yet currently in the 1900s as I type this). I am 26 years old now. I believe age is overrated in how limiting it actually is for chess improvement. It is just that children and teenagers typically have more free time to invest into chess if they want to improve. It is also no secret that even kids below age 5 absorb new information (like chess concepts) like a sponge, but this doesn't mean progress as a adult is inherently an uphill battle of some kind.
The famous GM Mikhail Tal reached his 2700+ peak rating at age 44! Granted, he was very successful with chess at a young age, but it just goes to show that improvement as an adult is possible.
. . . . . and there's about 2500 people above 2000 in the world
There's probably that many players above 2000 in New York alone.
Play against some of chess.com's computer bots. There's a wide range of playing strengths available and it will most certainly contribute to your growth as a player.
Stupid suggestion.
Why to play bots if you can play human opponents?
I didn't say ONLY play bots.
Play against some of chess.com's computer bots. There's a wide range of playing strengths available and it will most certainly contribute to your growth as a player.
Stupid suggestion.
Why to play bots if you can play human opponents?
I didn't say ONLY play bots.
But why to waste time playing stupid bots if you can play against human opponents?
Because playing against bots provides a different experience and therefore can contribute to growth.
@EBowie
If human plays a move, he has some logic behind it. If bot plays a move - there's no logic behind it. Bots making blunders on purpose because the must give you chances to win. Very often these blunders are illogical. There's no reason to play bots because games against them won't teach you anything. If it's hard for you to understand then I have no arguments. I give up.
If you need difference experience play different players. What's the problem?
I think bots offer an important lesson that low rated human players don't. Bots will take the draw in a hopeless position and bots play much stronger when mate is threatened. So while only playing bots is a bad idea, U1400 bots do offer something that U1400 rated human players don't.
Bots also offer an consistant challenge. Defeating a particular bot offers a milestone that human players don't. Even ratings can rise and fall by chance.
Play against some of chess.com's computer bots. There's a wide range of playing strengths available and it will most certainly contribute to your growth as a player.