Study vs. Play time?

KyleJRM......It will be Very rewarding...I start tournaments in the spring!  I am very anxious...

Keep us posted! I played my first real tournament in November and the chess.com board was very cool about letting me know what to expect. It made the experience that much more awesome.

You have to find a ratio of study/play that works best for you. Its a very individual thing and what works well for one may not work well for others. You simply have to experiment and see what works for you.  I think when you start playing tournaments though you are in for a rude awakening. 

USCF Expert is certainly no outlandish goal, but keep in mind that is still miles and miles away fom "professional."

There are masters with good talent that just can't progress. It's just not so easy for most anyone. The higher you climb the steeper the hill becomes, once the easy learning is over.

Good luck, and have fun wherever you land in the real world chess ranks.

I'm glad you asked, JamesRook!

Americans, based on experience, lack, the fundamental requirement for actually thinking. That requirement is called "empathy". Americans, calculate and devour. They have an affinity with...virus, bacteria, and disease. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying "all" Americans are like this. There are up to nine, or maybe even twelve Americans, that "think", at any given moment in the preceding, and present generation. But, those few Americans, having a "malady" most Americans find to be dangerous, and alien, will be shot...meaning with bullets, because America is not interested in this idea of "empathy". If this is at all confusing to you, feel free to inquire further

OP is delusional.  It has nothing to do with how 'smart' you think you are.  inb4 "I don't care what you think, you are wrong".  No, you are wrong, grow up.

dschaef...yes, I was upset when I read some comments. And I soon realized I should not of said a couple of things.  I apoligize for my narrow minded thinking, I just couldnt believe that something I truly desire...could be so far out of reach. I apoligize if I offended anyone. 

Thank you very much for the advice Fezzik

If your aim is to become "a competent Chess player", of course you can do it - you can become a 2000+ if you are fairly talented (only slightly above average) and willing and able to devote your time and life to it. Just don't have unrealistic expectations of yourself. Good luck again.

That's only half the problem. The other half is that the child's brain is uniquely programmed to absorb certain types of knowledge, and chess fits into those types.

Certainly you can reach 1800+ maybe even ~2000 tournament strength.  But to expect to be the next super GM starting serious play and study at your age is unrealistic.  The problem is, everyone else you will be playing when you get into tournaments will desire to win just as much as you... not everyone can be the best.  Just play and have fun... you will get stronger over the years and get a lot of enjoyment out of it.  I apologize if I sounded crass earlier, it just seemed you were ignoring what everyone was telling you.

Low-level tournament players are definitely much, much stronger than their online counterparts, even adjusting the ratings upward a couple of hundred points.

But nothing has ever been more inspiring to me as a chess player than playing in an OTB tournament. It makes you so hungry to get better.

I also agree with Reb and he beat me to it....OTB tourneys are a LOT harder than chess.com. The ratings are way off too. For example, I'm currently 1700 at chess.com and made it as high as 1960. In the USCF after 3 years I finally made it to 1350. I'm just giving you a warning/heads up. DO NOT underestimate that 8 year old little girl with an 800 rating. She can and will beat you if your not prepared.  

The ability to recognize and retain patterns, by *far* the most important cognitive skill to chess, does peak at a childhood age. Not just anecdotally, but scientifically proven.

http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/yf/famsci/fs609w.htm

[quote]The brain comes pre-set with all the nerve cells it will ever need. But they are mostly unconnected. As you go through child development, your brain decides what connections need to be made and tries to wire your brain optimally for your environment.

By the time a child is 3 years old, a baby's brain has formed about 1,000 trillion connections — about twice as many as adults have. A baby's brain is superdense and will stay that way throughout the first decade of life. Beginning at about age 11, a child's brain gets rid of extra connections in a process calling "pruning," gradually making order out of a thick tangle of "wires."

The remaining "wiring" is more powerful and efficient. The increase in synaptic density in a child's brain can be seen in Figure 2. The interactions that parents assist with in a child's environment are what spur the growth and pattern of these connections in the brain.

As the synapses in a child's brain are strengthened through repeated experiences, connections and pathways are formed that structure the way a child learns. If a pathway is not used, it's eliminated based on the "use it or lose it" principle. Things you do a single time, either good or bad, are somewhat less likely to have an effect on brain development.

When a connection is used repeatedly in the early years, it becomes permanent. For example, when adults repeat words and phrases as they talk to babies, babies learn to understand speech and strengthen the language connections in the brain.[/quote]

If you are exposed to chess repeatedly in that childhood time, your brain will wire itself appropriately.  If you are already an adult, your brain has already pruned itself and has become very rigid. It will be much harder to make significant progress.

Staunton did it. A few other guys did it when the world of chess was much simpler and less competitive. But when there are thousands of kids being systematically taught chess today, a late-starting adult has no chance to catch them (which is okay, because you can have a lot of fun at levels you can reach, which are still reasonably high).

Here's probably an even more relevant and simpler to understand passage from the same link:

"Learning continues throughout life. However, "prime times" or "windows of opportunity" exist when the brain is a kind of "supersponge," absorbing new information more easily than at other times and developing in major leaps. While this is true especially in the first three years of life, it continues throughout early childhood and adolescence. For example, young children learn the grammar and meaning of their native language with only simple exposure.

While learning later is possible, it usually is slower and more difficult. Some improvement in most skills is possible throughout life. However, providing children with the best opportunity for learning and growth during the periods when their minds are most ready to absorb new information is important."

Yes.

I'm always fascinated by the existence of prodigies and exceptional exceptions.

On the issue of whether there might be a handful of adults out there with the potential to become a late-life GM, I'm going to say we don't know but lean toward 'no.'

As I said earlier in the thread, GM isn't just a level of knowledge. Becoming a GM is a zero-sum game based on the number of major tournaments available to earn norms. Given that there are only spots for about 1200 grandmasters right now, and that number isn't going to grow exponentially anytime soon, it's safe to say that to have a shot at GM in the forseeable future, a player will have to be at least in the top 2,000 players in the world.

But for the rest of the adult player's career, there will be at least 2,000 players who are studying just as much as he is, who have natural talent, *and* have the advantage of having their brains wired for chess at an early age. Probably many more than 2,000 such players.

In order to beat those players consistently and win the norms, the person would have to have an incredibly amount of innate ability that his brain didn't prune when he reached adulthood.

I can't prove that such a person doesn't exist, but I feel pretty confident saying it's likely he or she does not.

I haven't read this thread because the posts are too long

And the title is wrong: it should be "procrastination time vs. play time"

As long as you are committed to it, becoming an expert is something you will achieve.

Whether you believe you can or cannot, you are correct.