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.
It's called "Setting a goal and seeing it through". Sure, many do not make it, but then what is life without experiencing things for yourself?
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.
Apparently you can't afford the $59.95 required for a fide title, the going rate. Everyone has one nowadays.
It is a little weird to ask how to get to a level 5 levels above you, without asking how to get to the next level. I think someone should ask something more like: "As a class D player, how do I become a Class C player?" But you have to remember that they are fresh and clueless, just like we were a few years back. I think that us people giving the advice should just give advice on how to get to the next 200 rating points. I think that it will take me very little of a decade to make NM, but I'm still young and spend very little time on school. Who knows though? Maybe I will never make NM.
I am gay... joking I beat my wife
I think there are many very young kids on this board, and they typically don't think anything is that hard or impossible (except piano practice). It is good that they think that way -- dream big and achieve big.
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.
Look, I know as chess players, we like to tell everyone how hard what we do is. How many decades it takes to get anywhere. But if you're 2027 USCF right now, then no...it would not take you 10 years to get 2200. If you busted your ass you could do it in 2 or 3 years. Hell even sooner if you had one great tournament where two good players messed up against you (Luck, but it damn sure happens.) Chess is hard, but it's not Temperal Quantum Mechanics or something.
I know a guy who never played an opening in his life, other than 1. e5 ..2. Qh5, and made 2200 and national master.
So any 2027 can make master with a little work, in under 10 years.
I think the OP is talking about 100 USFC rated people : )
I think the OP is talking about 100 USFC rated people : )
The OP is 2027 USCF and said it would take he, himself ten years to a title (2200). No way. If you're reasonably smart, and already over 2000 in high school, master is not far off if you work at it.
It's important not to give people a false sense of possibility (Saying they can be 2600 in 5 years if they are just learning the moves at age 24) but I think it's almost important not to be discouraging.
its like every other sport if you don't have the genetics you won't get anywhere no matter what.
Oh, and I do not believe that someone who only opening 1. e4 ---- 2. Qh5 made master with no other openings. bull. double bull. triple bull. just lots of bull.
http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?10286514
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1411256
http://www.thechessdrum.net/talkingdrum/TheMatrix/
I would probably be skeptical too. But...Yup, someone did. Bernard Parham Sr. I know him. Played him. The man only opens with e4, Qh5. He's been around here for 30 years, playing only 1.e4, 2.Qh5, which he has referred to as the Parham Attack. Type it in Google, and a dozen or so Chess.com threads come up, Youtube Videos, Wikipedia, and Indiana chess Articles. Sure, it's called Danver's Opening, Patzer Opening, and Wayward Queen, but he's played it so much, and it's become well known enough that his name is now associated with it in databases, wikipedia, articles, and the internet in general.
Yeah his rating is floored out now at 2000, but the man's over 70 years old. In the 90s, he held 2200 for years, recieved his official National Master certificate, and only played that opening as white.
I don't know how much opening knowledge he has as black, but as white, he spent his whole chess life, on that opening. It's one of those "Star Bellied Sneetches" things where everyone was doing one thing, but one person did the other thing, and even though it was inferior by theory...he spent 30 years on every possible line you could get into, and just surprised people who never took it seriously. If you run it through Stockfish, it's pretty damned even with perfect play, oddly enough. It's just no one practiced against Qh5 other than to say "attack and trap the early queen." But when that didn't work...they found themselves in the middle of a nightmare. And I guess it got him to 2200 for years.
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.
"... what then is one to make of Laszlo Polgar's bold claim that genius is made and not born? ... It is one thing when the pupils share the same genes as their university-educated teachers, it is another thing altogether when they do not. ... From a purely scientific perspective, it is regrettable that Klara Polgar vetoed the best, or perhaps only, way to properly test the hypothesis. The late billionaire sponsor Joop van Oosterom apparently once proposed to financially support the celebrated educators in adopting three boys from a third-world country. ... Nowadays it is popularly assumed that 10,000 hours are necessary to master any difficult subject. People evidently learn at very different speeds, so it is implausible to assume that the same conveniently rounded figure applies to everyone. If industry alone determined success, Portisch and Polugaevsky would have been World Champions. ..." - GM Nigel Short (2017)
"... Studies claim to have proved that independently of talent anything can be achieved if you work at it for 10,000 hours. But on looking at it more closely, there is always an element of doubt attached to such bold statements, ... I believe in hard, persevering work and the success it brings, but the results are in no way so clearly predictable and assured as such statements might lead us to believe. Every reader probably knows a chess lover who trains intensively, but in spite of everything never attains master strength. ..." - GM Thomas Luthor (2016)
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.
The more of a newbie you are and the less experienced in life, the less you realize how much time and work goes into high achievement in many things. Yes you must have talent, but usually you must start young as well. In my case chemistry, where I am the equivalent of an IM at least, and piano, where I'm roughly a class B OTB player, are good examples.
I was heavily immersed in science beginning somewhere around age 3 by my father and uncles. By age 12 I wanted to be a chemist. When I graduated from high school I thought I knew 90% of all there was to know about chemistry - kind of like the member here who thinks a 1200 online rating makes you an expert. By my 2nd year of college at UMBC, I was doing theoretical research under a professor's grant. In my Senior Year I gave a talk on my research at the Annual Meeting of the American Chemical Society in Washington, D.C. I then got a full scholarship and teaching assistant to the graduate school in chemistry at IIT. Three years after graduating, I was chief chemist of process development for a subsidiary of Dow Chemical where I developed processes for manufacturing non-cancer causing materials for children's flame-proof clothing fibers and I had something to do with the fuel for the Tomahawk Cruise Missile.
How much of all there is to know about chemistry did I know at that point? About 10%. But when I was that egotistical high school kid, I wasn't yet standing on the shoulders of the giants of chemistry and physics and biology so I couldn't see far enough ahead to realize the great amount of learning I had yet to achieve before I could call myself a chemist.
When I began playing piano in my 50's, I began studying piano and within a couple years was granted a position studying under a great classical virtuosa, Frances Cheng-Koors, chairperson of the piano dept in the Adult Division of the World Class Peabody Institute of Johns Hopkins University. After more time I passed the two rigorous auditions to play in Peabody's ACE Recital - which is what I'm doing in my logo, playing Chopin's Prelude in E Minor directly from the music. In addition to piano lessons, I had to take courses in music theory, history, composition, improvisation, and performance technique.
BUT...I realized I wasn't all that. With the wisdom of age and knowing how far I had to go in chemistry, I could see how far beyond me the virtuosos, the Grandmasters of the piano are. When I saw people with virtually now musical skill or experience on American Idol claim, "I'm a musician," I just laughed in disgust. I am barely a musician myself. I've been among the best and there's a major difference. Here's me with the great Chinese piano virtuoso Lang Lang:
Maybe because it´s a forum and its for fun. Don't take everything so dam seriously.
Maybe because their wish for admiration, success, and money & women (lol) is bigger than their actual interest in the game.