Still won't be enough for us all.
Master over....30!?
Sort:
I can't grap some. Are you blocking me from it Robert?
there's no popcorn fest if he don't want to argue. its good. i'm not in the fighting mood.
addressing the comment(s); anything is possible.
I think I have a relevant experience. they are a couple hiking challenges locally that happen yearly in this part of the world. I like to hike, I'm not fast but I take my time and enjoy it; and since I go hiking occasionally I thought I'd join the fun and give it a try.
now for reference, for many 20miles(30km) is considered a good decent all day hike.
well the challenge comes in two flavors there is one that is 50miles (80km) in 1 day and the Big challenge is 100 miles (160km) in 2 days. I decided to nerve myself up to the 50miles.
Had I ever gone that far? no, thats far further than I would ever normally go- but I went under the feeling that "hey, Any thing is possible" and "I'm already a hiker how hard can it be"
my co-worker wanted to to the big challenge and he trained Extensively, spending nearly all his time at (and I imagine not being their for his family much).
During the Hiking challenge; I did SUCCEED at the 50 - and I was Wore out, I mean could barely drag myself to the car wore out. I made it on Graham cracker, willpower and very little sleep.
my much better trained coworker went much faster and was in far better shape, but he had little blisters at 60miles and by the end, he was walking on bloodied, raw wounds on his feet. he bailed at 94 miles- having come oh so close to his goal? so....
is "Anything possible"- No!
but there Was a few people that made the 100km. they had superior training, and were well prepared for the brutal challenge.
my training was modest, but I pushed myself far further than I thought I could go.
If I hadn't dared myself to hike the 50- I would missed out on a great challenge. on the other hand, I have no interest in the 100. its too much.
100km in 2 days IS possible, its been done and exceeded wildly by some people. but to do it requires just the right training and immense dedication. on the other hand, the lesser challenge is not bad for being "lesser"
50miles is still Much farther than just about everyone goes.
Set your sites Farther than you would "Expect" yourself to achieve and you might have amazing accomplishments.
Jul 15, 2016
0
#66
There are some things you are not going to be able to achieve, starting at 30: Making the NBA, Winning Wimbledon, or the F1 world championship. You can, however, run marathons, write a best selling novel, start a business and become a billionaire, learn a language, and, if time and motivation permits, become a chess master. But I will make the point again that I think it is highly unlikely due to external circumstances - just as it is unlikely that you'll write a bestseller or compete in an ironman. Time, motivation, and the tug of life in many different directions just hinder us. It's not the lack of ability of the middle-aged brain.
How flat/hilly were these hikes, TGP?
this is hilly ground with no more than 250m 'switchback' climbs. generally speaking the terrain is reasonable for an average hiker.
but as a casual hiker the hills were brutal past the halfway point. (which is about as far as I had ever hiked before the 50miler)...
OK, I just asked to see how much I could relate them to marathons/ultramarathons. Namely, the times taken. I guess I can't compare them too much.
Smnrkssn wrote:
I'm surprised to see this thread having so many messages.
Of course this is possible. Especially if the player have played a lot of chess before being 30 years old.
I have no doubt that the average person can reach 2200 with enough dedication. The main issue with a player who starts to play chess after being 30 years old is that they will find it hard to spare time for the required effort.
after all the posts, I know that we've seen this said several times in the thread... but I have SUCH skepticism to this sentiment.
I'm not saying its NOT possible. but HOW do you KNOW it is? read the terms carefully (we are not talking about someone who was a strong youth player) - I don't think its ever been done.
it seems almost an illogical opinion that the "average" person can do something that all 10billion of us have failed to do? no one,no where has had "dedication" to chess? really??
it seems more honest and clear thinking to say, we should attempt the incredible because "who knows what your limits are"...
I was ready to bail on my hike, If I had to- and I would not have walked on blisters for mile after mile.
ChessOath wrote:
OK, I just asked to see how much I could relate them to marathons/ultramarathons. Namely, the times taken. I guess I can't compare them too much.
no the challenge is a little different. although obviously a strong marathon (ultramarathon) has superior training for the event.
there is , though, "trail running" and some of those guys are incredible and do things that seem practically impossible to me.
and more analogies to what a GM is like.
if walking 50 miles, grinds a casual player like to the earth, what to say about those that run the same distance (or much more)?
Strong Masters are SO far beyond "club players", that I think it is not appreciated how strong these guys are. and if you don't appreciate or understand how strong they are...
you underestimate what it takes to be one of them.
Jul 15, 2016
0
#72
Bramblyspam wrote:
For what it's worth, I made master at age 48. I had reached 2100+ by my early 20's, then I took a 20-year break from chess before deciding I had unfinished business.
I feel that if I devoted myself to seriously studying chess, I might eventually be able to become an IM, but I don't have the drive to study that hard. Chess is a game, I play it for fun - and the reason I quit the first time was because I recognized that I'd have to work at it in order to improve.
That's interesting to note. So you made 2100+ without much work, pretty much easy and naturally.. you must had a talent.
AIM-AceMove wrote:
Bramblyspam wrote:
For what it's worth, I made master at age 48. I had reached 2100+ by my early 20's, then I took a 20-year break from chess before deciding I had unfinished business.
I feel that if I devoted myself to seriously studying chess, I might eventually be able to become an IM, but I don't have the drive to study that hard. Chess is a game, I play it for fun - and the reason I quit the first time was because I recognized that I'd have to work at it in order to improve.
That's interesting to note. So you made 2100+ without much work, pretty much easy and naturally.. you must had a talent.
What an almost absurdly stupid comment.
Smnrkssn wrote:
I think it's just a misconception that you need some superior intellect or talent to reach 2200. I myself am very close to 2200 elo and probably have slightly below average intellect in most categories.
I would think that your TT rating alone suggests talent for the game. I'm not saying that I disagree with your overall point, just that I would think that you do have chess talent.
That really works? Don't get me wrong, I'm not questioning hard work/study in general. I just always figured that as far as tactics go, once you got an idea for the themes and saw them repeated a little, practise wouldn't do much more than keep you sharp.
I'm thinking now that that was probably naive of me?
Jul 15, 2016
0
#76
^No. He's talking about how, after solving many tactics, you'll eventually get duplicate problems, and thus "free points".
Suppose you're a 2400 TT, and you've solved all the problems in the 2300-2400 range. You'll never drop below 2400 as long as you don't make a mouseslip, because you'll solve all the problems in 2 seconds.
Even if you've only solved 25% of them, you'll get 1/4 tactics correct for free.
TT rating is hihgly highly inflated on this site.
Jul 15, 2016
0
#77
Tactics Trainer is like a "leveling up" thing.
No matter how bad you fail, eventually you'll reach the next rating tier.
A better metric for tactics is: what is your tactics rating after ~200 (or fewer) tactics solved.
Jul 15, 2016
0
#78
If you're rated 2199 at age 13 and get to 2200 at age 90, I mean... who cares lol 
If you learn how the pieces move at 30 and make master later in life... no one has heard of you, people believe it's practically impossible, so if you're out there, speak up 
heine-borel wrote:
^No. He's talking about how, after solving many tactics, you'll eventually get duplicate problems, and thus "free points".
That isn't what he's saying.
I've mentioned Marcel Duchamp who started studying chess seriously in his thirties and made master at 38.
But he knew how to play as a teenager and I don't know how much effort he invested in it then.
Also Duchamp was some kind of genius for his accomplishments in modern art, which were more intellectual than painterly.
I'm not much of a popcorn guy but it might be appropriate...