In the history of the game, has there been a GrandMaster who started working towards the title later in life, like in their 20s or older?
Road to Grandmaster
Sort:
Sep 24, 2010
0
#63
Do you mean they started playing chess? Or they already were of a certain level.. if so what level Class A?
Albin was 23* when he learned the game.
* and if I'm ever 23 again I guarantee that I'll make GM
Sep 24, 2010
0
#65
chessroboto wrote:
In the history of the game, has there been a GrandMaster who started working towards the title later in life, like in their 20s or older?
Ben Feingold didn't become a GM until he was 40. Of course, he was already an IM at the age of 20, so I guess that doesn't really answer the question.
I'm not sure if someone can make it to GM level by study and practice alone but don't see why it would be impossible, given enough time and dedication. That is assuming you have some talent and the correct mindset to understand the materials.
goldendog wrote:
Albin was 23* when he learned the game.
* and if I'm ever 23 again I guarantee that I'll make GM
Yea bro, take a look at Adolf Albin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Albin. He only learned to play in his early 20's. Your 21 and your already a class A player so don't doubt. All those people saying it is not realistic are just haters because they want to be a GM too but don't have it in them to become one.
Sep 24, 2010
0
#67
chessroboto wrote:
In the history of the game, has there been a GrandMaster who started working towards the title later in life, like in their 20s or older?
This is a good point. Silman has mentioned in his articles that he's worked with several very rich and driven people, who have been extremely successful in corporate life. These are people with essentially unlimited time and resources to dedicate to chess, are clever and endowed with a strong work ethic. Apparently some of them have made it to CM/NM level but not GM or IM.
It turns out (unsurprisingly) that you need specific aptitude to become a GM.
Sep 24, 2010
0
#68
The Soltis principle is worth looking at again. To paraphrase:
"After 10 years of tournament play, a player rarely increases their rating."
So if you had a room of 10,000 Class A players who had been playing for 10 years and 10,000 people who had never moved a piece. Your best bet is to find a GM in the 2nd group.
How depressing.
Ah yeah Albin lived in 19 century
Sep 24, 2010
0
#70
odessian wrote:
Ah yeah Albin lived in 19 century
Albin wasn't a GM either, although by today's standards he would have been.
@RoadtoGM, have you read the Ben Feingold book? He acheived GM in his early 40's. The oldest person to ever do so I believe. I have not read the book, but you might find it very instructive. I agree with the idea that it is hard to go compare a PhD. to GM, because millions of people go to college every year. Billions and billions of dollars of government and private money are put into the educational system to do so. 99.9% of the population can see the economic incentive to pursue a PhD. It is a much more realistic goal. Virtually no money gets put into chess. Thousands find it interesting, not millions. It is only lucrative for at most 200 or 300 people in the world, while it is perhaps scrapes out a living for four or five thousand (maybe?) As others have said, it is more like a sport. The DNA is there or it is not, and still only a small percentage will find it financially beneficial. But, I wish you success. Don't make it too big a distraction.
Narniacalls wrote:
@RoadtoGM, have you read the Ben Feingold book? He acheived GM in his early 40's. The oldest person to ever do so I believe. I have not read the book, but you might find it very instructive. I agree with the idea that it is hard to go compare a PhD. to GM, because millions of people go to college every year. Billions and billions of dollars of government and private money are put into the educational system to do so. 99.9% of the population can see the economic incentive to pursue a PhD. It is a much more realistic goal. Virtually no money gets put into chess. Thousands find it interesting, not millions. It is only lucrative for at most 200 or 300 people in the world, while it is perhaps scrapes out a living for four or five thousand (maybe?) As others have said, it is more like a sport. The DNA is there or it is not, and still only a small percentage will find it financially beneficial. But, I wish you success. Don't make it too big a distraction.
I've not read his book, but I'll google it. He's certainly not the oldest ever to get the GM title, as some have received it in their 60's/70's/80's for results achieved earlier in life, but perhaps he's the oldest or one of the oldest to get it the conventional way.
Sep 24, 2010
0
#73
It's impossible with the age and chess level you are at. Just aim for a NM title if you have to keep a goal and don't beat yourself if you don't make that. Try to improve and have fun.
Sep 24, 2010
0
#74
chessroboto wrote:
NickYoung5 wrote:
IMCheap wrote:
kinderchocolate wrote:
I personally think a grandmaster is equivalent to a phd. Good luck for your endeavour, what's your current ELO?
Compare the millions of PhDs with just over 1000 grandmasters in the world to see how terribly wrong you are.
GM and PhD are not comparable goals: one does not have to compete head to head with other PhD candidates to obtain one.
I disagree.
The thesis and dissertation process involves presenting it to a panel of PhD holders for deliberation. That is the equivalent of facing GMs over the board for the norms.
I know they are apples and oranges, but, like, 1000000 apples vs 10 oranges.
Sep 24, 2010
0
#75
CCCP wrote:
goldendog wrote:
Albin was 23* when he learned the game.
* and if I'm ever 23 again I guarantee that I'll make GM
Yea bro, take a look at Adolf Albin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Albin. He only learned to play in his early 20's. Your 21 and your already a class A player so don't doubt. All those people saying it is not realistic are just haters because they want to be a GM too but don't have it in them to become one.
Jeez, you can name 1, just one player in history who's ever done it and so you think it's a realistic goal even for someone who's not going to work at chess full time. I think I'll leave you all to your dream world.
Sep 24, 2010
0
#76
westy1 wrote:
CCCP wrote:
goldendog wrote:
Albin was 23* when he learned the game.
* and if I'm ever 23 again I guarantee that I'll make GM
Yea bro, take a look at Adolf Albin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Albin. He only learned to play in his early 20's. Your 21 and your already a class A player so don't doubt. All those people saying it is not realistic are just haters because they want to be a GM too but don't have it in them to become one.
Jeez, you can name 1, just one player in history who's ever done it and so you think it's a realistic goal even for someone who's not going to work at chess full time. I think I'll leave you all to your dream world.
look, we know you're just a hater burning with jealousy. Just take your world of reality outside and leave us with our flying little ponies. pony hater!
Sep 24, 2010
0
#77
Narniacalls wrote:
@RoadtoGM, have you read the Ben Feingold book? He acheived GM in his early 40's. The oldest person to ever do so I believe. I have not read the book, but you might find it very instructive. I agree with the idea that it is hard to go compare a PhD. to GM, because millions of people go to college every year. Billions and billions of dollars of government and private money are put into the educational system to do so. 99.9% of the population can see the economic incentive to pursue a PhD. It is a much more realistic goal. Virtually no money gets put into chess. Thousands find it interesting, not millions. It is only lucrative for at most 200 or 300 people in the world, while it is perhaps scrapes out a living for four or five thousand (maybe?) As others have said, it is more like a sport. The DNA is there or it is not, and still only a small percentage will find it financially beneficial. But, I wish you success. Don't make it too big a distraction.
Finegold had been a very strong IM in his 20s though, I believe. If memory serves, he took a break from competitive chess, returned to it in his 40s and made GM
kinderchocolate wrote:
I personally think a grandmaster is equivalent to a phd. Good luck for your endeavour, what's your current ELO?
Any idiot can get a PHD. Being a grandmaster in chess is similar to being a pro sports player (but minus the 'pro' in most cases).
BRB, getting my philosophy thesis on.
In my opinion, the only thing you require is dedication.
What about all those IMs busting their heads to get to GM but just can't? They're dedicated. They have talent.
What you're voicing is a nice sentiment but it lacks reality.