Is 35 too late to start playing chess`

 

I was getting crushed by an opponent the other day until he played Qc4 instead of the engine’s Qc6. Evaluation went from -3 (he had Black) to +3. I think it was a clerical error.

I'm 37 but started playing chess "seriously" a few years ago. I've probably played on and off now for about 3-4 years. I've yet to break a 1000 rating in any time format, but it's definitely a goal that feels more in reach to me now than it ever did a few years ago. 

Personally, I would forget about reaching a 2000 rating for now. I don't know about you, but I certainly don't have the time nor the inclination to learn how to play this game beyond simple tactics and the basic opening principles. You can try to learn theory if you like, but I think it's a waste of time at the lower levels. 400 elo Chess is pure chaos.

My advice is just to focus on enjoying the game. You will see progress over time, getting slightly better as you play. But unless you have a real talent for it, it's going to be slow going at your age (it is for me, anyway).

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.

2000 rating is a realistic achievement. 

If you're willing to put in the work that is. 

Now the only time age matters when it comes to chess is when you want to make a career out of it. So getting to GM level, 2700+ and above, you need to start very young, like borderline toddler age,  otherwise you just wont be able to achieve gm level status. 

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.

"Coffin Dodger" lol

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

99.8% more precisely 

Sadly, the original poster died yesterday of old age and complications from a musket ball wound he suffered during the great war.

He will be missed.

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. 

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.  

Yes, the horsey move is very tricky, far beyond a 35 year old's capability.

2000 online, probably yes.

2000 OTB, I guess, but it would be a lot harder.

I started at 36, although I knew the moves and had played before but not to the extent of knowing any openings. I learned openings very intensely and had a stronger friend who instructed me in endings. I reached about 1950 FIDE, ultimately, won a great many competitions en route and was considered a strong player in the local league circuit, which was the strongest in the UK. That's otb slowplay of course. Now I'm on the way down but I had a 35 year innings.

So yes.