lol MuhammadAreez10. What is interesting is even Howard Stern started taking chess seriously at age 53 and went from a rating of 550 ish to 1700 in 3 years, now that's quite impressive considering how late he started. My USCF rating was 789 a month ago and I'm starting to beat players around 1100 already but ive been spending about 3 hours per day playing/studying the game and really enjoying it, so there is hope for everyone!
When is it too late to start playing (and getting good at) chess?
Sort:
rcmag wrote:
lol MuhammadAreez10. What is interesting is even Howard Stern started taking chess seriously at age 53 and went from a rating of 550 ish to 1700 in 3 years, now that's quite impressive considering how late he started. My USCF rating was 789 a month ago and I'm starting to beat players around 1100 already but ive been spending about 3 hours per day playing/studying the game and really enjoying it, so there is hope for everyone!
Best of luck then!
I'm 11 now and want to play FIDE-rated tournaments but can't get to them. What should I do?
Speaking as a private music (piano) teacher that has taught hundreds of students, the factors that my best students share are passion, guidance (someone to help them practice at home), and time on the insrument. That also goes for my adult students.
Also, the notion that having a noticable accent when speaking a foreign language disqualifies achieving mastery is absurd. Actors mimic accents successfully all the time - Singers as well. An accent is a different skill than grammar and vocabulary, and often an unneccessary one for someone trying to pick up a second language.
I speak from experience: I became fluent in spanish in 6 months at age 19 living in Mexico. I did spend a little time working on my accent, but only enough to the point where I could be understood clearly. I had a choice -- I could practice my "R" rolls, or I could study the nuances of insulting someone's mother. It was an easy choice to make ;)
I do believe some people make progress faster than others. This is indisputable -- But the notion that it is some "talent", is a really hazy and un-scientific idea.
As a teacher, one concrete reason I can offer up is practice strategies -- Some people go about learning in a terribly inneficient way without guidance. For example, 99% of my students when they first begin believe that repeating a song over and over will help them learn, and that if they make a mistake they should go back to the beginning of the piece and play it again. What they don't realize is that they end up learning the beginning sections, only to suck at the later ones. They would save a lot of time by going directly to the difficult passages first, and only working on the areas that they struggle with.
For another example, many students try to run before they can walk -- They will attempt a piece trying to play both right and left hand parts simultaneously. After they fail miserably, I often point out that it would be easier if they tried just the right hand part. After they fail the right hand part, I ask them what made them think they could play with both hands at once when they can't even do one hand alone. *shrug*.
Many people also really dislike working on weaknessess, and would rather work on things they are already good at. Case in point - Many beginning students equate working on an old piece to practicing. What they don't realize is that true practice is studying new things.
Anyways, I'm rambling. From all my experience as a teacher, anyone can learn with the right guidance and consistent effort. To the original poster: Be encouraged, you can make Master with a lot of hard work.
myriadwhims wrote:
Speaking as a private music (piano) teacher that has taught hundreds of students, the factors that my best students share are passion, guidance (someone to help them practice at home), and time on the insrument. That also goes for my adult students.
Also, the notion that having a noticable accent when speaking a foreign language disqualifies achieving mastery is absurd. Actors mimic accents successfully all the time - Singers as well. An accent is a different skill than grammar and vocabulary, and often an unneccessary one for someone trying to pick up a second language.
I speak from experience: I became fluent in spanish in 6 months at age 19 living in Mexico. I did spend a little time working on my accent, but only enough to the point where I could be understood clearly. I had a choice -- I could practice my "R" rolls, or I could study the nuances of insulting someone's mother. It was an easy choice to make ;)
I do believe some people make progress faster than others. This is indisputable -- But the notion that it is some "talent", is a really hazy and un-scientific idea.
As a teacher, one concrete reason I can offer up is practice strategies -- Some people go about learning in a terribly inneficient way without guidance. For example, 99% of my students when they first begin believe that repeating a song over and over will help them learn, and that if they make a mistake they should go back to the beginning of the piece and play it again. What they don't realize is that they end up learning the beginning sections, only to suck at the later ones. They would save a lot of time by going directly to the difficult passages first, and only working on the areas that they struggle with.
For another example, many students try to run before they can walk -- They will attempt a piece trying to play both right and left hand parts simultaneously. After they fail miserably, I often point out that it would be easier if they tried just the right hand part. After they fail the right hand part, I ask them what made them think they could play with both hands at once when they can't even do one hand alone. *shrug*.
Many people also really dislike working on weaknessess, and would rather work on things they are already good at. Case in point - Many beginning students equate working on an old piece to practicing. What they don't realize is that true practice is studying new things.
Anyways, I'm rambling. From all my experience as a teacher, anyone can learn with the right guidance and consistent effort. To the original poster: Be encouraged, you can make Master with a lot of hard work.
Yes but two pupils can be given the same instruction and do the same number of hours of practice and will undoubtedly reach different skills levels. People are different mentally. As they say you can't teach something, the student has to learn it. Whatever happens in the brain during practice is what builds up skill. Also how quickly the student can remember, and how aptly they can generalize information to other relevant areas.
No one is good without practice. But practice will yield different results to different people.
"Yes but two pupils can be given the same instruction and do the same number of hours of practice and will undoubtedly reach different skills levels."
If you mean that there will be slight differences? Sure. If you're implying that with proper guidance and time, some will achieve progress and others will not... That is not true and has not been my experience.
With the same guidance, in my studio, one on one, most make fantastic progress. (The one's that I struggle with have major disabilities - severe autism, dislexia, etc...). It's going home and fending for themselves that gets them in trouble.
I agree about the student having to learn it -- But a teachers job is to facilitate rapid learning. I often tell my students that I won't teach them a piece of music -- I'm teaching them how to learn a piece of music, so that they can do it themselves. Like I said before, people go about learning in funny ways if left to their own devices.
Dec 14, 2014
0
#110
Probably about age 25. Research has shown that the brain begins to gradually shrink around that age.
myriadwhims wrote:
"Yes but two pupils can be given the same instruction and do the same number of hours of practice and will undoubtedly reach different skills levels."
If you mean that there will be slight differences? Sure. If you're implying that with proper guidance and time, some will achieve progress and others will not... That is not true and has not been my experience.
With the same guidance, in my studio, one on one, most make fantastic progress. (The one's that I struggle with have major disabilities - severe autism, dislexia, etc...). It's going home and fending for themselves that gets them in trouble.
I agree about the student having to learn it -- But a teachers job is to facilitate rapid learning. I often tell my students that I won't teach them a piece of music -- I'm teaching them how to learn a piece of music, so that they can do it themselves. Like I said before, people go about learning in funny ways if left to their own devices.
I find it hard to believe that all your non-disabled students reach nearly the same level in the same amount of time with the same pieces. Is there no pupil you single out in your mind, that if he/she really put in the effort, that you believe that student would be able to achieve more than most?
And ok, maybe for certain levels it's all about the same. But it's my understanding that e.g. aspiring professional musicians, no matter how hard someone works and how well they're trained they're not guaranteed to make it... in fact some would fall far short. And although I'm not aware of any, I would guess there are those once in a generation "geniuses" that make it with comparatively minimal effort.
shell_knight wrote:
I find it hard to believe that all your non-disabled students reach nearly the same level in the same amount of time with the same pieces. Is there no pupil you single out in your mind, that if he/she really put in the effort, that you believe that student would be able to achieve more than most?
And ok, maybe for certain levels it's all about the same. But it's my understanding that e.g. aspiring professional musicians, no matter how hard someone works and how well they're trained they're not guaranteed to make it... in fact some would fall far short. And although I'm not aware of any, I would guess there are those once in a generation "geniuses" that make it with comparatively minimal effort.
Practically speaking, they all reach different levels of progress, but I've already described why that happens. There are concrete factors that inhibit learning. What I'm after is exposing the hazy talent myth for what it is -- a myth. In a controlled environment the vast majority make excellent progress -- When I say excellent, I mean progress that's just as good as the most "talented" "really putting the effort in".
What would a musician fall short of, exactly? Being a concert pianist requires a lot more than virtuosity. Marketing, timing, personality, ... Those are a few of many factors that contribute to "making it". As far as music skill goes though, there are MANY pianists out there who are just as good as any recorded artist.
As for geniuses, what is minimal effort? Mozart's father was a music teacher... What do you think they did in their free time? Beethoven's father (also a music teacher) was pretty psychotic as well when it came to young Ludwig's practicing. I have yet to find a genius musician that didn't have a whole lot of musical training.
I recognize that hard work (and lots of it) is required... even more so if a person wants to be in an elite class of players (be it chess or music). But I also believe some don't need as much practice. I throw all these little unknown factors into a bin labeled "talent." I don't think though that talent is some sort of fantasy quality that in a sense magically makes people better.
You mention marketing and personality, that's interesting, I hadn't thought of that. Another element I'd add maybe is determination. Some people work very hard, and maybe there is some psychological burn out. Others work hard and (for the most part) enjoy it! If there is burn out maybe they can push through it when others quit. I think of this as a component of talent.
I guess where we might disagree is the idea that it would take nearly the same amount of effort for every individual to reach a high proficiency. I do think there are geniuses, who certainly work, but are only labeled "genius" due to others recognizing they have something you can't quite get with work alone... or at least not as little as they put forth.
myriadwhims wrote:
Speaking as a private music (piano) teacher that has taught hundreds of students, the factors that my best students share are passion, guidance (someone to help them practice at home), and time on the insrument. That also goes for my adult students.
Also, the notion that having a noticable accent when speaking a foreign language disqualifies achieving mastery is absurd. Actors mimic accents successfully all the time - Singers as well. An accent is a different skill than grammar and vocabulary, and often an unneccessary one for someone trying to pick up a second language.
I speak from experience: I became fluent in spanish in 6 months at age 19 living in Mexico. I did spend a little time working on my accent, but only enough to the point where I could be understood clearly. I had a choice -- I could practice my "R" rolls, or I could study the nuances of insulting someone's mother. It was an easy choice to make ;)
I do believe some people make progress faster than others. This is indisputable -- But the notion that it is some "talent", is a really hazy and un-scientific idea.
As a teacher, one concrete reason I can offer up is practice strategies -- Some people go about learning in a terribly inneficient way without guidance. For example, 99% of my students when they first begin believe that repeating a song over and over will help them learn, and that if they make a mistake they should go back to the beginning of the piece and play it again. What they don't realize is that they end up learning the beginning sections, only to suck at the later ones. They would save a lot of time by going directly to the difficult passages first, and only working on the areas that they struggle with.
For another example, many students try to run before they can walk -- They will attempt a piece trying to play both right and left hand parts simultaneously. After they fail miserably, I often point out that it would be easier if they tried just the right hand part. After they fail the right hand part, I ask them what made them think they could play with both hands at once when they can't even do one hand alone. *shrug*.
Many people also really dislike working on weaknessess, and would rather work on things they are already good at. Case in point - Many beginning students equate working on an old piece to practicing. What they don't realize is that true practice is studying new things.
Anyways, I'm rambling. From all my experience as a teacher, anyone can learn with the right guidance and consistent effort. To the original poster: Be encouraged, you can make Master with a lot of hard work.
Dan Heisman said something along those lines too. I think becoming a master at chess without an instructor is like getting a degree without a professor, can it be done? Maybe...but your shooting yourself in the foot if you don't know your mistakes and how to correct them. I"m sure there are people out there that can just read books, play games and improve but getting someone (a stronger player) to help you would be a huge advantage. Without the proper feedback you would be training in a vaccuum.
Apr 17, 2015
0
#116
Whether you think you can or you can't...you're right ~ Henry Ford
I am a 31 year old club player with the goal of reaching Master some day. A lot of the comments in here are poison. There is another quote that goes something like "Those who say it cannot be done should get out of the way of those doing it." The reason adults have a hard time achieving titles is time commitment and effort. This conjecture about adult brains being less able to learn chess than childrens' is very misleading.
I met a guy in San Francisco who started playing chess and became a master in his 40s using Bird's opening and the modern defense. It takes a few very dedicated years to learn tactics and get up to 1800-2000. He then used these offbeat openings, which are generally garbage at the GM level, to beat his unprepared Expert opponents and eventually earn his title. He then moved to Las Vegas to play poker professionally and I never saw him again. But he was smart, talented and driven.
There are a million ways to play and to train thanks to technology these days. Good luck to everyone with the same goals that I have. Don't let anyone tell you the odds or that you cannot do it.
The most important criteria for improving as an adult are:
- Time and energy - If you have a job, a significant other, and kids, then you are not going to have enough time. If you do find time, you may not have the energy.
- Interest and motivation - Chess has to be something that you are truly interested in. After you get home from a long day of work, and spend time with your family, and you are exhausted, do you want to watch TV, or do you want to spend 3 hours doing deep analysis of a few moves from a master game and then read a book about pawn structures? Some people who are really into chess will avoid other forms of entertainment and do the 4-5 hours of analysis, and they consider it fun and enjoyable.
You're 25? It's all over. You're over the hill. Buy a rocking chair and call the Social Security administration about getting your benefits.
In my thirties, after my kid was born I was feeling over-the-hill. I had been interested in TCM (Accupuncture) and our accupuncturist sensed that I thought it was too late, and assured me it wasn't. I'm sure it is *now*, but... it wasn't my calling.
But you should probably set realistic expectations. I doubt there are many people who can make a shift at that point to become a Magnus level, just guessing. He has other talents besides, like being able to play multiple boards in his head simultaneously. There is some neural platisity but 25 is about the point of brain maturity so ... you have to set realistic goals and achieve them, but probably not bet the farm on a long shot. Don't give up. There's probably a lot you could accomplish with a lot of hard work. You could probably get very very good and beat your own or other's expectations. But statistics suggest that you will be rare to hit the top of the game if starting now and aren't showing signs of being exceptional in relevant ways.
its never late. 20th is such a yound age. The most important is how you are going to study and what.
TheMouth888 wrote:
MuhammadAreez10 wrote:
It isn't too late unless you're dead.
HAHA so true my friend!!!
TheMouth888! Seeing you here after a long time after Sochi Prediction Game! ;)