without true worthness of fame, it brings misery and will turn you into a broken heart
is it too late to become a GM or at least a IM
Sort:
Only one out of millions and millions of players become GMs. The thousands and thousands fortunate who have access to chess literature, a chess trainer and all day to obsess about it have vastly more chance than you do.
don't listen to the knockers. imagine you are crawling out of a very deep hole and the zombies are trying to catch your ankle and pull you back in, but you stomp on their heads and keep going upwards!
Never in the history of chess has someone with so much self doubt that they ask if they could become a GM on a chess forum inhabited mostly by the lower eschelon of chessdom made it to the big leagues.
Your prospects for making GM are somewhere between hopelessly impossible and ludicrously improbable, same as mine.
I guess its better to put goals step by step, for me for example next step is to become CM.
millionairesdaughter wrote:
knockers. imagine
29 straight with no misses, that's impressive!
I will look at your game and tell you how to improve:
Your calculation ability is a bit defective. To help remedy that study the games of Mikhail Tal since his calculation was usually quite thorough, but not his games in the return match with Botvinnik, for his creative faculties were defective during the match.
He was drunk as a skunk at the time.
nartreb wrote:
What is it about chess that brings up these questions? Are there forums for other games/sports that are full of questions like this?
Chess is a game of ego. If you're the best, you can say you're like, totally the best smartest dude in the world. Also you get an official title of "master" or "grandmaster." Dood, I'm totally a grand master. Worship me.
HueyWilliams wrote:
Perhaps even more to the point, chess is also a game of dorks. It's a bunch of frustrated clowns beating their chests and acting like Tarzan over what is after all just a board game. You don't even get to hit anything (except the clock).
+1
SmyslovFan wrote:
Statistically, there's almost no chance of someone in their 20s starting to play competitive chess and becoming a GM.
But there's nothing stopping you from being the anomaly.
There's the Dunning-Kruger effect tho: The less you know about something, the easier it seems to be. So, as you learn more and more about chess, the more you will realise how hard it is. Put one way, there are more NBA basketball players than there are Fide Masters, IMs, and GMs combined in the US.
There are more starting players on the Nigerian Football team than there are IMs and FMs in the country.
Are you going to add to that number?
Statistics matter very little for individual cases. Age does play an important factor, though.
A 1500-1600 could become an IM or even GM, if they are in their early 20's. With very large chess databases (up to 6.5 million games) and countless books, someone with enough dedication could very easily achieve that level. Though, the ability to spot tactics and form strategies is not really learned. You have to have a gift for it.
Pillsbury and Rubinstein both started playing chess relatively late in life (in their teens) and achieved great success. But that's natural talent at work. Your average joe is highly unlikely to have the same results.
IM and GM titles shouldn't be taken lightly. Not just anyone can have such a rare position, of course.
Wernher-von-Braun wrote:
Please keep us updated on your progress towards grandmasterdom in a year or so from now. we're all eager to see how you end up making out.
I sense sarcasm. It vastly depends on the rating system in place in your country or even state.
In some places it's actually easier to get a higher rating relative to where you live.
TheGreatOogieBoogie wrote:
I will look at your game and tell you how to improve:
Your calculation ability is a bit defective. To help remedy that study the games of Mikhail Tal since his calculation was usually quite thorough, but not his games in the return match with Botvinnik, for his creative faculties were defective during the match.
Your analysis makes no sense. 2. Bc4 is played with success at the GM level. The knights before bishop rule is only a rule, not a law.
6. Qf3!? is hardly a "huge slip." A huge slip is losing a pawn or a piece; 6...Qf3 7. Nxf3 is a perfectly equal position.
8. Qxd4 Bxd4 9. Ngf3 e5 still gives black a nice attack, so 8. Nh3!? is hardly a blunder.
You give 8...Be7 a question mark and claim that it allows 9. Ng5. 9. Ng5 allows black to capture the knight with 9...Bxg5. White is down a piece and I fail to see a counter-attack.
Everything else seems somewhat accurate, but please don't act as a know-it-all.
HueyWilliams wrote:
LightninHopkins wrote:
Everything else seems somewhat accurate, but please don't act as a know-it-all.
Why should he?--when we can get you to do it for him!
None of his claimed mistakes are mistakes at all. Check with an engine if you don't believe me.
LightninHopkins wrote:
TheGreatOogieBoogie wrote:
I will look at your game and tell you how to improve:
Your calculation ability is a bit defective. To help remedy that study the games of Mikhail Tal since his calculation was usually quite thorough, but not his games in the return match with Botvinnik, for his creative faculties were defective during the match.
Your analysis makes no sense. 2. Bc4 is played with success at the GM level. The knights before bishop rule is only a rule, not a law.
6. Qf3!? is hardly a "huge slip." A huge slip is losing a pawn or a piece; 6...Qf3 7. Nxf3 is a perfectly equal position.
8. Qxd4 Bxd4 9. Ngf3 e5 still gives black a nice attack, so 8. Nh3!? is hardly a blunder.
You give 8...Be7 a question mark and claim that it allows 9. Ng5. 9. Ng5 allows black to capture the knight with 9...Bxg5. White is down a piece and I fail to see a counter-attack.
Everything else seems somewhat accurate, but please don't act as a know-it-all.
The Bishop's Opening is a surprise weapon (even Kasparov used it with success) but 2.Nf3 leads to a more lasting initiative for white. I didn't say 2.Bc4 was bad, just that 2.Nf3 is superior, if only marginally. The exchange of queens wasn't forced, otherwise Qf3 would be a good move. The problem is Qf3 wasn't in the spirit of the position and Nf3 was more active (supports a potential d4.) Maybe Qf3 wasn't as bad as I made it seem but doesn't seem coordinated while the black queen can simply move (like in the game) and black coordinates better.
9.Ng5,Bxg5 10.Qh5+,Bf7 11.Qxg5 black is still better, but lost some thread but yeah in hindsight a question mark was a bit much.
A gross blunder loses a piece while a big slip loses big thread but this is mostly semantics, as in a major needless positional concession. Time and coordination matter in such systems.
TheGreatOogieBoogie wrote:
LightninHopkins wrote:
TheGreatOogieBoogie wrote:
I will look at your game and tell you how to improve:
Your calculation ability is a bit defective. To help remedy that study the games of Mikhail Tal since his calculation was usually quite thorough, but not his games in the return match with Botvinnik, for his creative faculties were defective during the match.
Your analysis makes no sense. 2. Bc4 is played with success at the GM level. The knights before bishop rule is only a rule, not a law.
6. Qf3!? is hardly a "huge slip." A huge slip is losing a pawn or a piece; 6...Qf3 7. Nxf3 is a perfectly equal position.
8. Qxd4 Bxd4 9. Ngf3 e5 still gives black a nice attack, so 8. Nh3!? is hardly a blunder.
You give 8...Be7 a question mark and claim that it allows 9. Ng5. 9. Ng5 allows black to capture the knight with 9...Bxg5. White is down a piece and I fail to see a counter-attack.
Everything else seems somewhat accurate, but please don't act as a know-it-all.
The Bishop's Opening is a surprise weapon (even Kasparov used it with success) but 2.Nf3 leads to a more lasting initiative for white. I didn't say 2.Bc4 was bad, just that 2.Nf3 is superior, if only marginally. The exchange of queens wasn't forced, otherwise Qf3 would be a good move. The problem is Qf3 wasn't in the spirit of the position and Nf3 was more active (supports a potential d4.) Maybe Qf3 wasn't as bad as I made it seem but doesn't seem coordinated while the black queen can simply move (like in the game) and black coordinates better.
9.Ng5,Bxg5 10.Qh5+,Bf7 11.Qxg5 black is still better, but lost some thread but yeah in hindsight a question mark was a bit much.
A gross blunder loses a piece while a big slip loses big thread but this is mostly semantics, as in a major needless positional concession. Time and coordination matter in such systems.
2. Nf3 is so overplayed that it's worth trying new systems from time to time. Too many people are familiar with the Ruy Lopez and the Scotch and I don't feel like playing book moves for the entirety of the game.
Yes, I missed the option of 10. Qh5+, but black still looks pretty solid like you said.
Big slips sometimes seem small until you turn on an engine. Since a evaluation of .50+ can build up to 1.05 very easily with accurate play.
HueyWilliams wrote:
I'll just take your engine's word for it.
This is an article about you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Luddism
HueyWilliams wrote:
Perhaps even more to the point, chess is also a game of dorks. It's a bunch of frustrated clowns beating their chests and acting like Tarzan over what is after all just a board game. You don't even get to hit anything (except the clock).
Huey, you are a breath of fresh air. I've been telling people for years the most obnoxious people I ever encounter are chess players. Not all of course, or not even most, but for certain it is some kind of panning device for screening through a clump of people and coming up with some real first class certified butt nuggets.
he's on his way! there's no stopping him now!