Master over....30!?

What post did you read? Can you read?

I just wanted to bring up this interesting point in history..not trying to start an argument or say that this is wrong, as he was the first deaf grandmaster, as we know the title today.

Boris Verlinsky was a chess player in from the first half of the 20th century.  He was deaf due to meningitis when he was a kid.  he won the soviet championship in 1929, which at the time earned the title of "Grandmaster of the soviet union".  Two years later, they abolished it and reorganized their classifications (fifth cat, 4thcat, etc, CM, M, GM). Mikhail Botvinnik was the first player to achieve GM of USSR with this format. Boris never got his GM title back

I feel like there is unneccesary contention in this thread.

cleary there IS a limit-and just because you think it would be awesome to be World Champion, doesn't mean some starry eyed patzer can study a couple books and then beat MC in the World championship.

nobody really knows what the limit, and I think it needs forefully said- if anyone says that this or that is possible- UNLESS they have real person in mind who has done it- they are full of poop.  how can you know its possible or IMPOSSIBLE? you can't!! POINT 1.

on the other hand, there's no point to discouraging or depressing to people that want to aspire to big goals.  no doubt what Stops ALOT Of people is NOT the 'ability' it is the level of commitment and study.  HIgh Level Chess is Hard!   so the question is NOT Whether something can be done, its whether the OP is willing to study hard, and effectively enough. and oc, one might be amazed and satisfied if one really tries- who knows maybe even master?   Work hard and realize that getting further in chess means working harder. POINT 2.

there have been several threads about master level players know, and almost no one can name a master that started late in life, or was a low rated kid.   so without examples-- clearly doing that must be hard.  POINT 3.

there's no point for argument almost everyone is saying the same thing.   How can there be arguments when everyone agrees?

Literally 90%+ of chess players have increased "established" ratings by more than 400 points. WTF are you talking about?

What thread have you read? Certainly not this one. There is a lot of disagreeing going on.

As for the haven't seen it first hand so you don't know you're talking about crap... It's so stupid I wouldn't even know where to begin!

Well, you all know my shtick about this, so I guess I don't have much to add. If I'm being optimistic about my results in the upcoming tournaments, I'm going to enter adulthood with a rating near 1900 and am going to have to gain 300 points the rest of my life to get to my 2200 goal. It will be tough for me to do that, and someone 30 years old probably wouldn't have a chance.

Becoming a chess master as an adult is more an issue of time and motivation than ability.  I suspect it's probably unlikely to acheive that level if you pop your cherry at 30 because, if we are honest with ourselves, there are more important/demanding things in life for most of us.  I'm over 40 and most of the people I know are married with children, have social events, careers, other interests, big life events that inevitably arise as we get older etc;  so I don't like the odds.  But if you have 3+ hours per day to dedicate to chess (and I mean 3+ hours of quality chess studying/training) for a few years then, unless you have absolutely no affinity for the game, you'll do very well and compete with masters and possibly beat an IM or GM in blitz every now and then.  Especially if you're paired up with Eric Hanson on his first game after he just woke up. 

Actually your original post never used the word. You just couldn't find a way in which I was actually wrong so you tried to manufacture one. I could also go on to explain how you're wrong about that too, but it would be a waste of my time as it's a moot point and you're too stupid to follow a simple conversation.

You're young enough. You can make tons of progress till the 30-35 "age barrier".

I do agree that norman is being way too pessimistic however I think this "age barrier" is quite a bit lower.

 what I meant to say is that there is a consensus.  obviously people are arguing and throwing insults. 

speaking of that, I don't think I want to argue with you.  but besides the insults you've not made yourself clear.  (I slow you know). 

What specific point is BS?

Probably the most contreversial topics chessplayers talk about...expect insults, nonsense and crap thegreat patzer.

Other than Memory in chess.  Most of those who comment on these two topics, namely Learning and Memory, don't understand the fundamentals of either.

I'll say it again. There are people with very opposing POV in this thread. Not just people throwing insults. Go back and read the thread again. You clearly need to. Your point that is complete BS I will quote for you in my next post.

I agree; what he said was ridiculous and rude. But I have to quote this now to enjoy the new word "insuly" you have created before you edit it 

Carry on.

I'm going to answer honestly but it'll be a further insult so I apologise for both that and the original outburst.

I got very frustrated when you couldn't follow the conversation, because like you said it was something I wanted to talk about, and took I it out on you more than you deserved.

I don't know what I expected though... Somebody who comes out with the following can't be all that with it: "On the other had, let's imagine someone who was a pretty decent player, USCF 1800-strength for example. who decides at age 30 to dedicate a lot of time, money and energy to becoming a better player. He would take regular lessons from a good teacher, study a couple of hours a day, and play regularly against the best copetition he could find. Does that person have a chance of becoming a master? Obviously, the odds are aginst him, because most people don't become masters, but this scenario is nowhere as impossible as the first one. I could imagine this happening, although rarely"

www.chess.com/forum/view/general/is-my-opponent-trolling-me

REALLY

 you disagree with that?

....

you can know the limits of human performance by something other than what people have actually achieved? HOW??

dude, this seems SO obvious to me.

...

Idk want to argue it out, though. Its friday I got stuff to do and if you think that statement is stupid and wrong.  you certainly entitled to an opinion.

for me  in the end, this was the thing I thought everyone would agree to -- I guess I am wrong.

Yes, that was what I didn't agree with. Very strongly opposed in fact, I don't think it makes any sense at all. I'm glad you don't want to argue though. I'm all argued out for now.