It's only too late when you're dead.
When is it too late to start playing (and getting good at) chess?
Sort:
GreedyPawnEater wrote:
Around age 75-80 your mind starts losing the ability to learn new things.
At the age of 98, George Dawson decided to learn how to read. On his 100th birthday, he read his birthday cards on his own, for the first time in his life. At the age of 102 he became a best-selling author.
Just play the game and have fun-god another I will not be a GM post and I am ruined for life.
Jul 3, 2015
0
#126
I did play a little bit in high school, for about 1.5 years (age 15-16). Then I didn't play more than 5 games in the long 15 years until 2 months ago, now the age of 30.
I'm already setting my sights on 2000 and I'm still a dirty casual. The naysayers using "scientific studies", I guarantee, have not taken into account the extreme limitations of research into cognitive potential. There are so many thousands of unique lifestyle, genetic, and environmental factors that play a role in every aspect of our biology that making concrete conclusions about any of it is frankly laughable. No offense
Is it too late for you? Maybe it is if you want to become the world chess champion. But your only 25 years old. In 10 years time you could become an extraordinary player. And you'll only be 35. That's young dude. Good Luck!
Dec 28, 2015
0
#128
9thEagle wrote:
When you're dead or don't have full control of your mental faculties. So unless you get in an accident or develop early alzheimer's, you've got a while yet.
great post
my answer too
if you want to do something just get on with it and see what happens
Dec 28, 2015
0
#129
It is never too late, although skill development post 40 is vastly more difficult than pre-30. The older you get, the less nimble the brain. Even so, in my mid-50s, I am improving. I've been playing chess almost 50 years and with some degree of seriousness for the better part of 40 years. I did take about a decade off in my 20s, playing only with family and friends--none of whom gave me a challenge.
Apr 26, 2017
0
#130
The short answer to the question may be: if you're already thinking it may be to late -- it's too late. I prefer to think that taking on something new to learn is like walking through a door and into a room for the first time. You cannot begin to seriously consider your relationship to the room until you enter it. The longer you stay, the more you see. The more you see, the more you learn about what you want from the room. Maybe you enter because you've heard that there's a pot of gold or a promise of fame in the room. Once you're inside the room and spend time in it, you may decide the room's not for you, or you may decide that there is much more of value than what got you into the room.
Apr 26, 2017
0
#131
If on the other hand, when you walk into a room and your first thought is usually "what did I come in here for" ? Then it may be too late to get good at chess...
Has Dingmao been here since 2013?
🍔🍔🍔🍔🍔🍔🍔🍔🍔🍔🍔🍔🍔🍔🍔
SamuelNDK schrieb:
SamuelNDK schrieb: 🍔🍔🍔🍔🍔🍔🍔🍔🍔🍔🍔🍔🍔🍔🍔
🍔🍔🍔🍔🍔🍔🍔🍔🍔🍔🍔🍔🍔🍔🍔
Apr 26, 2017
0
#135
kindaspongey wrote:
Has Dingmao been here since 2013?
Yeah, but look at his states, he's played very few games.
Apr 26, 2017
0
#136
JoshuaTheRed wrote:
"If you define reasonably good as Master strength. Yes, you're too old. "
Pure retardation.
Actually it's almost certainly too late to be a master if you're a beginner at 25. You'd need an ideal scenario... something like no job, no kids, lots of money, lots of motivation... and even then most people would still fail.
Although if the "beginner" played a lot as a kid, then maybe there's hope... sometimes people use the world "beginner" loosely.
The_Chin_Of_Quinn wrote:
Actually it's almost certainly too late to be a master if you're a beginner at 25.
People will go to great lengths to deny this, even though it is the truth.
It is too late to play after 1am, believe me
Apr 28, 2017
0
#139
My question is how do you unfollow a very boring old thread in which nobody reads or responds to each other
Apr 28, 2017
0
#140
Sure. I was in my mid-20's in graduate school where I has a scholarship and was paid from September through May but had to do chemistry research all summer unpaid. One August I realized I had $7.50 left to spend for fun that whole month. I walked into a bookstore and discovering Chess for Matchplayers, by William Winter. Inside were all those funny terms I saw under newspaper diagrams: Ruy Lopez, Sicilian Defense, etc. I was good enough that I beat almost everyone I played in casual chess, so I decided to pay the $5 wanted for the used book and that would be my entertainment for August.
Within a couple years, the mid-1970's I was playing OTB tournaments in which I didn't have access to the things available now and didn't get past a 1300 rating - which is still in the top 40% of adults. In the late 1970's, I achieved a 2116 rating in correspondence chess. Today, a 66, I'm getting back into it and expect to put in a good attempt to raise my rapid rating and do some OTB stuff.
I don't expect to get anywhere near a master's rating, but I'd be pleased with 1600-1800 OTB.
No, it is very accurate as shown by learning new languages. The need to filter and eliminate old information gets in ithe way of learning the new.
Also, new neural pathways need to be constructed and that is just not going to happen at advanced age.
There is a process called 'information sculpting' and adults are just not as good at it as are the young.
I would be interested in which research you are referring to. I am skeptical that anyone could find adults and children in comparable environments to conduct unbiased research into this topic.