"Coffin Dodger" lol
Is 35 too late to start playing chess`
Sort:
So I manged to get to 500 in the past day in rapid 10 | 0 even managing to checkmate a 1169 in a tournament thanks to a blunder they made - finished the bobby fischer book for beginners yesterday and I found it fairly helpful in teaching how to spot basic checkmate patterns.
lerugray wrote:
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?
Of course! 2000 is attainable. It's where high-level chess starts.
Beyond that requires very advanced board visualization skills.
Chess is a paradoxical (read: weird) game, because it's about humans trying to acquire alien-like intelligence.
How much you learn depends on how much of your current mind you are willing to change or give up entirely. From human to alien, in a way. The quickest learners have to submit themselves to the chess gods without trying to impose their own will onto it (as in thinking 'this is how it should work')
People who spend their whole lives at chess and still are under 2000 are just bad learners and need to work on this meta-competency of self-directed learning first. I have been playing for about 2 years and have reached 1900, and I can definitely handle 2000 players from time to time. It's about the amount of connections your brain can make and in a short timespan. And then there's the creativity to create patterns given the current connections to transpose the board to a winning situation.
lerugray wrote:
So I manged to get to 500 in the past day in rapid 10 | 0 even managing to checkmate a 1169 in a tournament thanks to a blunder they made - finished the bobby fischer book for beginners yesterday and I found it fairly helpful in teaching how to spot basic checkmate patterns.
You're on the right track. And if you think Fischer's book (I think you mean Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess) is basic, you have the right mindset because those patterns aren't that basic (for example, queen sacrifices to obtain backrank mates, long-range bishop assists that make use of pins) and will be useful for your entire career.
zone_chess wrote:
lerugray wrote:
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?
Of course! 2000 is attainable. It's where high-level chess starts.
Beyond that requires very advanced board visualization skills.
If you want to achieve 2500-2600, now that is only attainable if you started young, because you have to live and breathe chess. You literally become a chess mind, as in, almost nothing else enters your mind during the day besides chess positions (and what to have for dinner, probably)... so yeah, 2000 is a realistic goal. My own goal (I started in my thirties as well) is to reach a stable plateau between 1850 and 1900. Beyond that it becomes very mathematical.
Chess is a paradoxical (read: weird) game, because it's about humans trying to acquire alien-like intelligence.
How much you learn depends on how much of your current mind you are willing to change or give up entirely. From human to alien, in a way. The quickest learners have to submit themselves to the chess gods without trying to impose their own will onto it (as in thinking 'this is how it should work')
People who spend their whole lives at chess and still are under 2000 are just bad learners and need to work on this meta-competency of self-directed learning first.
A lot of people are just churning away or playing for the emotional satisfaction of winning, which actually impedes learning progress. I mean let's face it, chess is not fun. There are a slew of things in the world way better to fulfill the craving for fun and enjoyment 
. No, chess is a discipline, a profession, and hard work at that. People forget that as soon as you are in front of a chessboard, you are at work.
I have been playing for about 2 years and have reached 1900, and I can definitely handle 2000 players from time to time. It's about the amount of connections your brain can make and in a short timespan. And then there's the creativity to create patterns given the current connections to transpose the board to a winning situation.
Oct 5, 2022
0
#67
Reaching 2000 is completely possible even when starting at 35. I started playing in my 20s. Age only really comes into it in terms of if you aren't a GM by early teens then you'll never be a top player.
Oct 5, 2022
0
#68
I think it's worth pointing out that getting to 2000 would make you a better player that 99% of the people who play chess on this website.
I'm not saying it isn't possible, but let's be real here. Most people who play chess will never reach this level, regardless of their age.
Oct 13, 2022
0
#70
I think you could reach that level in a few years IF you deliberately focus on learning and make it a priority to dedicate many many hours. Simply playing a lot won't get you there, but that's true for any age.
I've read a story once of someone starting late in life and becoming a gm.
If you enjoy the learning process it's a worthy pursuit. Focus on improving and not on hitting an arbitrary number.
While you won't become a super-Gm, you for sure can get to an impressive level for a hobbyist.
Oct 13, 2022
0
#71
Kraig כתב:
Disheartening to read some of the comments that are rather dismissive of the idea that a late starter can still become good at chess.
I’m 32, started chess 3 years ago rated 600 and am 2100 now. Whilst this is by no means great, even the prospect of an adult beginning in his 30s reaching 2k was deemed to be unrealistic by a few.
Not impossible in the slightest, it just takes a lot of deliberate study.
In my experience, the main issues with adult improvement is, generally speaking, the amount of actual time an adult tends to have to be able to seriously commit to learning AND playing chess, with all of the conflicts and commitments they typically have.
I started coaching adult improvers specifically about a year ago, and progress tends to be contingent on the amount of hours you can commit (no surprise!).
It doesn’t help that there’s a lot of noise online and on YouTube, filled with content and concepts that are practically useless and a waste of internal bandwidth trying to learn when there are much more pressing areas that give better bang for buck in terms of return on time investment.
But to conclude, you are definitely not to old at 35 to start playing chess and reach an expert level within a few years.
I’m 32, started chess 3 years ago rated 600 and am 2100 now. Whilst this is by no means great, even the prospect of an adult beginning in his 30s reaching 2k was deemed to be unrealistic by a few.
Not impossible in the slightest, it just takes a lot of deliberate study.
In my experience, the main issues with adult improvement is, generally speaking, the amount of actual time an adult tends to have to be able to seriously commit to learning AND playing chess, with all of the conflicts and commitments they typically have.
I started coaching adult improvers specifically about a year ago, and progress tends to be contingent on the amount of hours you can commit (no surprise!).
It doesn’t help that there’s a lot of noise online and on YouTube, filled with content and concepts that are practically useless and a waste of internal bandwidth trying to learn when there are much more pressing areas that give better bang for buck in terms of return on time investment.
But to conclude, you are definitely not to old at 35 to start playing chess and reach an expert level within a few years.
Wow! Very encouraging! Thanks for sharing
Nearly 20 years older than you - started last year. In one year I got to 1300.
I think 2000 is very possible for you.
Oct 13, 2022
0
#73
lerugray wrote:
Is 35 too late to start playing chess`
Yes, the horsey move is very tricky, far beyond a 35 year old's capability.
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.
You don't have to start young to be good, but it is harder to learn as you get older. I'm sure you can reach 1000 fast, but 2000... that requires a high level of dedication, which many do not have. Usually a rating of 1600-2000 is already reasonably high.