Old people drop 300 rating poinst!

Sort:
Conflagration_Planet
Master_ScorpionC wrote:

ok then based on your rating u have not played for decades


 Is that addressed to me?

WestofHollywood
electricpawn wrote:
WestofHollywood wrote:
Master_ScorpionC wrote:

I am inpationt, Reb. That over 30 it goes down is bullshit. All the way to 40 one can stay very sharp.


 Sure you can. Look at boxing - Bernard Hopkins who is 46 nearly won the light heavy weight title. George Foreman won the heavy weight title at 45. Both fighters are very intelligent  and experienced and used this in the ring. Look how strong Lasker was in his 50s and older. You can be very sharp in your 50s 60s and beyond, but the aging process is a given.


George Foreman, like Korchnoi in chess, is an exceptional individual. Foreman was in his prime during an era of great heavyweights. Ali, Frazier, Norton, Weaver, even a lesser known fighter like Jimmy Young  who was small at 210 pounds but a clever counter puncher developed skills beyond what contemporary fighters develop. Today's elite athletes tend to go into sports like basketball or football rather tha boxing. It's easier to make a lot of money in these sports, and in the case of basketball, it's not as hard on your body. Ken Norton Jr., who was a middle linebacker for the Cowboys and the 49ers is one good example. Now there's MMA as well.

If you ever watched George, his punches generated a tremendous amount of force with little apparent effort. This is technique. Strength and stamina may wane as you age, but once you've mastered technique, you always have it. I think older fighters like Foreman or Archie Moore can be successful because superior talent and ring savvy are enough to overcome what's lost due to age - for a while. 


 I miss the golden age of American heavyweights. You're right - American athletes who once could be  heavyweights are going into other sports. I guess Tyson, Hollyfield, and Bowe were the end of an era. Jimmy Young was a great fighter, but after he lost that close decision to Norton he declined fast. He beat Foreman, Lyle twice, and his "loss" to Ali was very controversial. Superb technician.

Conflagration_Planet
Fezzik wrote:

Age is very important. A few years ago there were some serious scientific studies done on chess performance and age. I don't have it memorised, but peak performance is usually around 28 and holds steady until the mid 40s, then there is a long, gradual decline.

Blitz chess has a more precipitous decline, but it's still relatively slow.

Ulf Andersson was beating Nakamura in blitz online as recently as two years ago. (I don't know if he still has a plus score against Naka.)


 I read that getting enough exercise helps prevent that. Read my post above.

coppola

well it maybe nothing but I never used to fall asleep in front of a chess board.... but lately, at least sinced my 70th birthday I do it often..... is it age or lack of sleep? Laughing

Conflagration_Planet
coppola wrote:

well it maybe nothing but I never used to fall asleep in front of a chess board.... but lately, at least sinced my 70th birthday I do it often..... is it age or lack of sleep? 


 Just don't pass out over it, and gouge your eye out with chess piece.

1pawndown

May be at the Master level, but I don't think turning fifty hurt my game.

Master_ScorpionC

Graph says that Kasparov`s last rating is under 2800.