Why do you have to be good at a young age?

Hmmm... If you love the game like that, you wont need a norm nor do you need to even speculate what it takes..?

The essay I wrote wasn't actually about chess, but how western society is too fixated on the idea that wealth brings happiness in general.

Anyway, I don't really understand what your post says. Could you please explain? Thanks.

Simply put, the developing brain of a child is much, much more pliable than the rigid brain of an adult. During developmental years, the child's brain is soft-wired, very easy to mold. The brain is actively learning how it wants to lay down its neural pathways.

The adult brain is rigid, stiff. The pathways have been laid down and are very, very, very difficult (if not impossible) to "re-write" in a new way.

Someone mentioned that adults sometimes learn new languages. To a degree they do, but (with incredibly rare exceptions) they will *never* be fluent and accentless. Really, you should be exposed regularly to a language before the age of two if you want to have a chance to be truly fluent in it.

Think of your brain as a drawing. A child starts with a blank piece of paper and begins drawing on it in pencil. Between the teenage years and adulthood, whatever you have written in your brain is traced over in pen and becomes nearly impossible to remove, with little chance to rewrite any big sections.

Grandmastery is to chess is much harder than even becoming fluent in a foreign language. There is only room for a small number of grand masters, and no matter how hard you work, you (almost) certainly won't be able to work hard enough to pass a person whose brain was wired for chess at a young age and is working almost as hard.

 An interesting concept. So theoretically, if you lost your memory at age 20 and rating level, say, 1500, when you might have a greater chess potential?

However, I disagree that learning a language has to be from the age of two to be accentless, and furthmore, that accents even relate to fluentcy.

Capablanca didn't start playing Chess till he was 20... I don't think age has anything to do with it personally, I think it's purely down to how much time you can set aside for it. Of course I don't believe that everyone has it in them to become a GM, however I think if someone started at say age 20; and set aside 7-10 hours a week over a period of 5 years, I would like to think they at least have a shot at becoming an FM by then. A big factor will also be how determined the person is.

That's a good point. How long do you think it would take an 20 year old starting out in chess to become a CM, working 10 hours a week on chess?

Not quite true, I think.A 14 year old Capa defeated the then Cuban Champion Cozio? So the story goes, if I remember correctly....

Any age? Can you provide names? I would find it both interesting and motivational.

I'm 50 and started playing chess a little more than a year ago, with no prior experience. I started with Chess Titans on a PC, learning how to do certain tricky moves, like castle. When I clicked on a piece, the computer colored the legal squares so I could learn how to move the chess pieces. I had no book knowledge, i.e., importance of center squares, etc.

After a year of part time study and play, I still hang pieces in slow time controls (one move per three days). I read somewhere that players stop hanging pieces around 1600 USCF. My 1560 internet rating translates to a few hundred points lower for USCF, so perhaps I'm only a Class D player currently.

If I am able to retire at age 60, with ten years of part time chess study and play under my belt, how many more years will it take me to reach Master, for the love of the game?

Will I get there by age 70? 75? 80? 85? ...

Then there is this question:  Why do you want to be a master?  

To enjoy the game more.

 Also, perhaps because you want to be able to understand the game and showcase your skills to others, to help them?

If you like chess, then becoming a chess master is what it's at: doing what you love, all the time! :D

i think because when you are younger you have more time to study chess and learn lots off stuff.when you get older you have kids, work ,house work lots off stuff to do.

Interesting.  I already enjoy the game, and the learning, and improving comes (or may come) with my continued learning.  But I can't imagine gaining the right to use some label would increase my enjoyment even further, unless I develop a need to have others know my abilities.

Yes those problems definately exist. Quite simply, adults have other more pressing commitments. Also I agree with whoever said that work causes a problem.

I remember a man telling me that he loved to fish, but wouldn't want to do it for a living.  It would be work to him then.  But on the other hand, I think most golf professionals enjoy the game.

I think it is necessary to understand why one wants to do something before striving hours on end to achieve it.  

Not to mention that a mere 12 hours a week is probably nowhere near what would actually be required to be truly exceptional, although it might work for a "mere" master. 

Another interesting question is how much hours a week for how many years does it take to high jump over 2m?

My point, in case it is not obvious, is that not everyone has the potential to reach the top echelons of achievement, and starting a few decades late puts the most grandiose goals solidly out of reach. You should not be at all concerned about this if you enjoy playing rather than dreaming.

I enjoy playing and dreaming, at this moment I would rather be dreaming instead of not being able to sleep. But when I cannot sleep I find chess.com a good way to handle that problem.  

I could certainly agree with that one - Simon Spies (one of the richest hippies to ever live in Denmark) once said that money won't buy you happiness, but it WILL enable you to occasionally rent it. :)

Fundamental happiness in my opinion is always there (within), only sometimes something casts shadows upon that happiness. This is often directly connected to ones perception of self or identity. To me happiness is deeply connected with personal growth it would seem, how about you?

This brings us to what I meant: I don't believe a title of any kind would change my sense of identity as such. I believe that the process itself is what keeps me ticking.

On the other hand, coveting never lead to anything good in my experience. Doing something just because it felt good doing it always seemed to be the key motivator in anything I ever did.

An example: I'll be skateboarding if I'm broke, if I'm rich, girlfriend, no girlfriend. The title/status I've achieved in my local community never really meant anything to me (maybe it menat something to my little ego, but that's not a good thing imo). All that matters is going for it and coming home with dirty sweaty clothes, body aching, adrenaline pumping, feeling vitalized. :)

 I'm pretty sure that I have developed a mild case of insomnia because of chess.com being so darn addicting! :D