Why are people talking about getting a title when they're complete beginners?
Sort:
Cherub_Enjel
May 27, 2017
0
#101
Quoting the original poster, @myratingis1523, with grammatical errors fixed... (I changed the last sentence, because my rating is no 1500): "Even a real 1800 USCF knows how much harder they would need to work to get NM title, but you have literal 1200s asking how to get a title when they keep hanging pieces in half of the moves in their games. My rating is 1500, and I know I would have to study for at least a decade to get a title." I don't believe any of this (so it's a joke in that sense), but I'm interested in what people believe regarding this statement.
Cherub_Enjel wrote:
Quoting the original poster, @myratingis1523, with grammatical errors fixed... (I changed the last sentence, because my rating is no 1500): "Even a real 1800 USCF knows how much harder they would need to work to get NM title, but you have literal 1200s asking how to get a title when they keep hanging pieces in half of the moves in their games. My rating is 1500, and I know I would have to study for at least a decade to get a title." I don't believe any of this (so it's a joke in that sense), but I'm interested in what people believe regarding this statement.
The thing is, all people are different. Some make GMs at 13, others struggle their whole lives to even get to 1500... How much time it will take for a given individual to get a title depends solely on the individual, their ability, their willingness to spend time and effort on playing and studying chess, their psychological resilience.
I don't see how a player at 1200, 1500, or even 2000 can reasonably make an assessment about how much time it will take for them to get FM, IM, GM, etc. Too many factors are at play. Personally, I don't think I'll ever get a title, primarily because, aside from chess, I have other countless hobbies, as well as a full time research position, and I want chess to remain an entertainment for me, not a second job - so if I manage to somehow get FM eventually, it will be a spontaneous process, not a dedicated work towards this goal. But if I had time and willingness to spend 10 hours a day 7 days a week to playing and studying chess, then I'd probably get FM in ~2 years. The problem is the "if" part. 
marianseether1 wrote:
Ok then, every beginner can be a master in any domain.
Nope, and that was never the point. Not everyone can reach mastery. But how can they really know until they give it a serious attempt? Everyone must be a beginner at some point. But if every beginner began with the premise that they could never reach the top, you'd never have mastery in anything. Without mastery the world as we know it would not exist. Our world is run by Masters of Science, Chemistry, Physics, Business and Economics. They all started somewhere.
Debistro wrote:
jengaias wrote:
Debistro wrote:
Do stupid people ever know they are stupid?
No!
Ask any stupid person, "Are you stupid"?
Same principle.
So are you stupid?
Relative. To a smart person, yes I am.
But you need to have higher IQ than my 147.
That's probably not hard. It's the internet, and everyone's IQ is at least 140-150 and usually goes up to around 190. 147 is pretty low by internet claims. I don't think I've ever seen anyone on the internet who wasn't a rich genius with a 9 inch dong and a supermodel wife.
Well to reach that position you gonna try hard
Plus some people that are only eight are already very good at chess in my school primary school
May 29, 2017
0
#107
FaceCrusher wrote:
Amplepawn wrote:
DanaMorgenrot wrote:
Wasn't there a 10000 hours rule?
I read a book about ....
yes it kinda does. The problem with chess is it takes longer than 10000 hours to master.... and 10000 hours = 417 consequtive days.
Depends on the person. There is that new 10 year old Indian International Master. I doubt he's spent 10,000 hours on it. He's barely been alive long enough to put too much into it.
More than "depends on the person" it depends on the age. My virtuoso piano teacher says if she doesn't get a kid by age 6, it's not impossible but very unlikely the kid will ever become an expert pianist. We also know that if certain aspects of abstract thinking are not learned by age 12 they can never be learned.
Jun 13, 2017
0
#110
We live in an age of TV 'talent' shows where people are encouraged to think they have talent when they don't!
It don't hurt to believe you were meant for greater things.
Even when you know ain't true.
talent shows is what tv does well, tv is only harmful when it take education, news and serious issues and turns it into entertainment
Sure, but it don't hurt to believe.
Jun 13, 2017
0
#114
It does if you don't focus on realistic things like an education while you pursue unrealistic dreams and end up living on a cardboard box with no job.
Jun 13, 2017
0
#116
Certainly they don't involve becoming a chess master as it is no more realistic than me flying to Mars.
"... Many aspiring young chess players dream of one day becoming a grandmaster and a professional. ... But ... a profession must bring in at least a certain regular income even if one is not too demanding. ... The usual prize money in Open tournaments is meagre. ... The higher the prizes, the greater the competition. ... With a possibly not very high and irregular income for several decades the amount of money one can save for old age remains really modest. ... Anyone who wants to reach his maximum must concentrate totally on chess. That involves important compromises with or giving up on his education. ... it is a question of personal life planning and when deciding it is necessary to be fully conscious of the various possibilities, limitations and risks. ... a future professional must really love chess and ... be prepared to work very hard for it. ... It is all too frequent that a wrong evaluation is made of what a talented player can achieve. ... Most players have the potential for a certain level; once they have reached it they can only make further progress with a great effort. ... anyone who is unlikely to attain a high playing strength should on no account turn professional. ... Anyone who does not meet these top criteria can only try to earn his living with public appearances, chess publishing or activity as a trainer. But there is a lack of offers and these are not particularly well paid. For jobs which involve appearing in public, moreover, certain non-chess qualities are required. ... a relevant 'stage presence' and required sociability. ... All these jobs and existences, moreover, have hanging above them the sword of Damocles of general economic conditions. ... around [age] 40 chess players ... find that their performances are noticeably tailing off. ..." - from a 12 page chapter on becoming a chess professional in the book, Luther's Chess Reformation by GM Thomas Luther (2016)
http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/ebooks/LuthersChessReformation-excerpt.pdf
glamdring27 wrote:
Still doesn't make them realistic, however long term they are.
SirCrislov is right. And you are partially right too. A realistic goal is one that can be achieved, one that is not impossible. And part of what makes a goal realistic, or achievable, is the belief that they can do it. If someone says "I cant do that" the goal automatically becomes unrealistic and unachievable.
Cherub_Enjel wrote:
Even a real 1800 USCF knows how much harder they would need to work to get NM title, but you have literal 1200s asking how to get a title when they keep hanging pieces in half of the moves in their games.
I know I would have to study for at least a decade to get a title.
Maybe they are children? For a very smart child, a child that is so extremely smart that he or she feels success in otb competition chess the chances of reaching FM is good. Seven years of A LOT good exercising (GM classes included), and competing a lot, ca 1000 otb long chess games will get the smartest kids very close to FM. In my club Nordstrand with 100 active players we have two teenage FMs and one IM (which is becoming GM at the next Fide-meeting) thats 19 or 20 now.