For the Laskers, Edward was a practicing engineer. Emmanuel was a mathematician. You can go into any graduate program in math in the country today and learn about Laskerian rings.
When is it too late to start playing (and getting good at) chess?
Sort:
And, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Schlecter die of starvation? Which sort of suggests that while he may have wanted to be a pro, he really couldn't actually live that way . . .
May 15, 2013
0
#44
Kingpatzer wrote:
And, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Schlecter die of starvation? Which sort of suggests that while he may have wanted to be a pro, he really couldn't actually live that way . . .
Try looking him up before creating your own facts instead. Do you know when and where he starved to death? Was he the only person to either starve and/or die of disease at the time and place of his death? I think not...
I honestly don't know, I"m going off of memory here. I don't care enough to look it up, I'm just having a conversation . . .
I doubt those guys made their living solely on winnings from tournaments though...since there were so few tourneys back then. They probably had to be journalists and teach. Nowadays you can win money every week (if you're good enough)...or so they tell me.
it all depends on natural talent and training.
kasparov said 'you need intuition. that is something you're born with. if you don't have it, no training can build it.' this is why chess can be so frustrating for some and natural for others. there is no explanation. you just know whether you will be good.
May 16, 2013
0
#48
Kingpatzer wrote:
NimzoRoy wrote:
In general I guess Kingpatzer is correct in presuming most of us won't become masters starting out at age 20, but I think it has a lot more to do with time constraints than brain development.
My response is to look to the word of language. I believe (without much empirical evidence, just my belief I admit) that learning chess is not unlike learning languages. I contend that chess positions are semiotic puzzles and as such language learning offers a real insight into how we learn chess.
If I'm right about that, then looking to the world of language learning, we find that very smart people who start learning a new language in their 20s or later almost never become indistinguishable from native speakers, even when they are fully and completely immersed in the language and culture they're trying to learn.
However, put a younger person in the same situation, and not only will they become indistinguishable from a native speaker, they will do so rather quickly.
The language instinct is different from making positional judgements, evaluating positions, and pattern recognition. They are two different things.
Kids instinctively know grammar rules, but they cannot articulate them. It is not the same with chess. It is acquired, like a skill, for example, becoming a doctor. Recognising signs and symptoms etc...
People who suffer from mutism can play chess. It doesn't depend on the same part of the brain.
billyblatt wrote:
The language instinct is different from making positional judgements, evaluating positions, and pattern recognition. They are two different things.
Kids instinctively know grammar rules, but they cannot articulate them. It is not the same with chess. It is acquired, like a skill, for example, becoming a doctor. Recognising signs and symptoms etc...
People who suffer from mutism can play chess. It doesn't depend on the same part of the brain.
Mutism is the ability to speak, not the ability to use language.
And kids who learn how the pieces move and then play lots of chess instinctively learn how to make good moves without being able to articulate the "rules" they are following. If you work with scholastic chess players it is very common to find quite strong players who "know" next to nothing about chess "rules."
Language is unpacking semiotic meaning from an ordered collection of symbols. Chess is unpacking semiotic meaning from an ordered collection of symbols.
May 16, 2013
0
#50
I would expect a public figure such as WGM Pogonina to be a less harsh on people who want to learn and improve, and to be an inspirer, rather than enforcing 'a harsh reality' that isn't even necessarily there.
I find many other answers in this thread much more useful to the OP.
I would just give this much-eroded joking line, "don't leave your day job" - maybe until you reach 2400 or something... but keep going at it full blast!
I'm 41, and I'm still an improving player. I never played as well as in the last 3 years or so, and I still aspire higher. WGM Pogonina - maybe we'll meet one day over a chess table - and your survival isn't guaranteed!
May 16, 2013
0
#51
Today, with the resources available online - such as training programs (even in this website), databases, engines which play stronger than any player - not to mention books and other traditional methods, and if you know some people who play better than you and are willing to discuss chess with you from time to time - you can improve like a rocket.
Of course the higher you will go, the more difficult it will get, and many people get stuck at a certain level - but this isn't necessarily related to the body's age.
If you analyze your games, and look for the reasons that things happen, in addition to all of the above, and get yourself familiar with ideas, strategies, openings, endgames, as you improve, and keep your curiosity for discovering and improving lacking areas in your game - you have a chance to improve at any level. People do improve in chess, in any age. There's no reason why you can't either.
Good luck!
May 16, 2013
0
#52
I just want to get good enough to get some form of recognition - or title. I think I'm still at the stagnation stage, but I am certain my rating will rocket up soon.
I have been playing for about 20 years and never had an increase in rating by much however I think everyone during their lifetime experiences a "Urika!" moment where everything just clicks and then their rating shoots up to around 2000. The longer you wait for it the more certain you can be that the moment is approaching.
My 2 cents at least.
May 16, 2013
0
#53
lol, FN. I wasn't thinking about you in particular when I wrote those two posts...
But who knows - you may still prove us all wrong. Definitely keep trying!
ekorbdal wrote:
Chess is an enjoyable, frustrating, creative, heart breaking, exhilerating game - the age you start doesn't matter - you will experience all of the damned things in time anyway...
This is the best response, imo, in aesthetic/poetic sense.
Kingpatzer wrote:
NimzoRoy wrote:
In general I guess Kingpatzer is correct in presuming most of us won't become masters starting out at age 20, but I think it has a lot more to do with time constraints than brain development.
My response is to look to the word of language. I believe (without much empirical evidence, just my belief I admit) that learning chess is not unlike learning languages. I contend that chess positions are semiotic puzzles and as such language learning offers a real insight into how we learn chess.
If I'm right about that, then looking to the world of language learning, we find that very smart people who start learning a new language in their 20s or later almost never become indistinguishable from native speakers, even when they are fully and completely immersed in the language and culture they're trying to learn.
However, put a younger person in the same situation, and not only will they become indistinguishable from a native speaker, they will do so rather quickly.
And this is in academic/scientific standpoint.
But I believe the topic can be properly resolved by getting the opinions of the training experts themselves: Yusupov, Silman, Heisman and the likes.
May 16, 2013
0
#57
Indeed, I would be curious to learn what Silman and Heisman think about this.
Hi solskytz,
At what age did you learn to play the game sir? You are strong, your opinion matters to me.
May 17, 2013
0
#59
If you are serious you could always get a coach who will speed up things for you.
People who start at 25 have a chance to become a reasonably strong club player. However, I don't know any GMs who haven't been playing since childhood/teen years. I have read those old stories about Chigorin/Steinitz, but that was another era and another standard of play...Back then there were NO pros. (my emphasis not WGM Pogonina's - NR)
Really? So what other (money making) occupations did Steinitz, Chigorin, Pillsbury, Marshall, Schlecter, Rubinstein, and Lasker have to rely on when they weren't being chess amateurs?