12523 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Backgammon, Yatzy, and more!
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
I read Grandmaster versus Amateur (Quality Chess 2011, not the book by Euwe), and I just discover that GMs don´t think of us as amateurs. So, right now, I don´t even know to which category I belong.
Aagard includes a game against Alan Grant rated 2200, for example about him he says: "Alan is rated about 2200, but he is clever and resourceful player", well, at 2200 he should be glad to at least be clever.
He also includes a game with Angelo Damia who just was getting his third IM norm in that game. So then I realized than even IMs are considered amateurs.
Peter Heine Nielsen includes a game against Magnus Carlsen(!) from 2005, he says: "by the time of this game Magnus´s rating had already shot up to 2581... casting him in the role of amateur certainly stretches the definition of the term, but despite his phenomenal abilities he was still only a young kid who had a number of holes in his game".
If somebody rated 2581 has a number of holes in his game, what can be said about the rest?
The book continues like that, it´s not really about GMs beating 1600 - 2000 players, is about GMs beating FMs, IMs or young GMs.
Aagard has a decent-to-good reputation--I think I got through one of his books, or at least most of it--but without a definition of amateur (which may be in the book, I don't know) he appears to have a problem with boundaries.
Also, IMO there is an apples v bluefish in the title. To me, an amateur is someone who plays but doesn't make money in the endeavor, and a professional is someone who does (and relies on that income as life-sustaining revenue). The GM that comes to mind that could not be considered a professional in Zvjaginsev; one of his games is in the Immortals section. He is clearly outlandishly strong but simply doesn't play enough to support an assertion that it's his occupation.
I would take Aagard with a grain of salt in this case. Hyperbole sells. Calling a 2581 rating an "amateur" is just silly. Byrne called Fischer "just a kid who played a good game against me" regarding The Game of the Century. I wouldn't get worked up about this book, and Aagard's cred just took a hit given your post.
I do have a book review forum in the EZS, would be grateful for a contribution since it's fresh.
Amateur doesn't mean bad, it has a specific meaning.
Not a lot of players have the majority of their income from chess.
We're not chess players at all. :)
I posted his game, since his own post was messed up.
But I see this thread in a totally wrong format, the avatars look giant.
I am just trying to help!
My game is just one big hole.
P.S. ditto what Conflagration_Planet said
if you'll permit me to illuminate a moment...
Vincent Van Gogh, one of the world's leading amateurs. At his best he traded a painting for a bed and chow overnight...or for as long as he could barter for. Funny tangent story, there. One fellow didn't like the painting Vincent did, and so when Vincent left, the landlord tacked the painting to a tree for his nephew to shoot arrows at. Since that time to now, Van Gogh twice lead the world in painting values, and once held all ten spots of te top tem sold paintings in the world. Can you imagine what mr. arrow shooting nephew's name is in the family?
Amateur means a great love of something. Money has nothing to do with it. A book store clerk with NO formal education dragged the early 1800s into the future with his "hobby" of electro magnetism. Michael Faraday is usually cited as a scientist, but for method, only.
A regular rising question here at c.c is :can a 1500 player beat a grandmaster? And the answer is yes. It has happened several times in history, and if you're old enough, in YOUR history. You don't think that Bobby Fischer or Gary Kasparov started at 2500? Heck no! They, at one time, probably were suckers to the Fool's Mate. But when they set loose their creativity and enthusiasm of Chess, well, just as Morphy, Capablanca, and others, they ended up amazing the world with their prowess on 64 squares.
Imagine, if you will, that Chess never became popular, thought of as just another board game...
An Amateur plays, anyway.
It does have a specific meaning, but that isn't it.
We pond scum.
While rated over 2700 Kasmky competed in some WCC candidates matches as an amateur (he called himself this while calling other professionals) because he was not doing chess full time.
Maybe you don't understand what the word amateur means.
But you are on to something. As GM Finegold half-joked once "if you're not 1800 how do you even dress yourself in the morning"
A reasonably intelligent person in a good environment (strong players, coaches, and tournaments) will improve quickly. If you've been at 1200 for decades you probably have had exactaly zero of those things... and as CP wrote your game is just one big hole
So I'm holey. Mmmmmkay.
Plase Mr. Boneman, provide me with at least one game, I have never been able to find one example of that (and I have been searching for my other thread of GMs vs Amateurs games).
On your other comment, all those WCs didn´t start at 2500 of course, but they didn´t stay too much time rated 1500 (and they didn´t start beating GMs just after they started to play).
Amateur originally meant not being paid, unlike a "professional". Few people are of a necessary standard to earn a living from chess.
Over time "amateur" took on a perjorative meaning.
It's possible to be the world's leading expert on something without there being an economic reward for that talent. In which case that person would be an "amateur". He wouldn't be an "amateur" in the perjorative sense.
I always think an amateur can be better than a professional. An amateur plays for himself and therefore concentrates in what he enjoys and therefore often plays to his strengths. A professional plays for a living therefore works on his weaknesses as generally that's the best way to improve. He often plays to his opponents weakness as it gets the best results. They are not terms conditional on ability or strength
But a professional can dedicate more time because they don't have to work as well.
Luke McShane is probably the only player in the top 100 where chess isn't his main job.
A professional doesn't have to work? Contradiction in terms I think.
But ok, I know what you mean, chess isn't a part time activity for them.
Yes you did no what I mean, so why do you have to argue over a badly formed sentence...
You're right, I didn't have to, but I know what yo-- bwahahaha
Everyone is an amateur in my mind. It's just some are more "amateur-ish".
5/28/2016 - Overworked and Under Paid
by RubidioZ 5 minutes ago
5/30/2016 - Tarjan - Karpov, 1976
by pigeonprince 10 minutes ago
Early Beginner - How to Imorove
by fightingbob 15 minutes ago
Two ways to mate
by shellman211 15 minutes ago
by shellman211 16 minutes ago
by ylblai2 16 minutes ago
Funny Chess Jokes
by SaintGermain32105 21 minutes ago
Which line against the Dragon?
by poucin 27 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2016 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!