Huh, I was always told that by simply beating a chess grandmaster at chess automatically earns you the title of GM....
Why getting GM title is not possible at the age 30+? Is it a fact?
Sort:
BiggestSchnoz wrote:
Huh, I was always told that by simply beating a chess grandmaster at chess automatically earns you the title of GM....
And it wasn't a GM who told you that. Guess how I know 
BiggestSchnoz wrote:
Huh, I was always told that by simply beating a chess grandmaster at chess automatically earns you the title of GM....
Like conkers?
BiggestSchnoz wrote:
Huh, I was always told that by simply beating a chess grandmaster at chess automatically earns you the title of GM....
Whoever told you that lied .
"There can be only one!"
Genghiskhant wrote:
I'm aware of what I read thanks. Just google it. There is info everywhere on the subject. Dan Heisman was even referring to it during his Q&A session last week.
Funny how you make a bold claim with no evidence whatsoever then demand proof of other people's claims. Where are your sources? Or do you just assume they all have a genius IQ and decided to pass it off as fact?
Can you please provide a link?
scubeknight2 wrote:
Hi,
Been Playing chess from my college days [ I mean friendly matches] and was serious on settling in Engineering career. Now after that (at the age of 32) playing serious chess [tournaments in clubs] and of course dreaming about getting GM title. Why getting GM is not possible at this age? Is it a impossible thing? If not so how much minimum time and effort one should put on daily basis towards that goal? [including theory and practice]. How the time is shared among the Theory and Practical games?
There's no harm dreaming. Here are your first two steps :
- get a regular coach (IM level to start with) to design a strong training schedule and monitor it
- find a way to secure a minimum living income up to the end of your life without the need to work full time ; you'll also need money to travel and take part in tournaments. You'll need to schedule at least 60 rated games/year (more if possible) to catch up in practice - for example, there's a well-known GM in my living area who plays an average of 15 long rated games/month !
Of course, no children : you won't have any time to cater for them.
From now on, chess must be the center stage of your life, and every game be treated like a life/death sentence. Get ready to train 5-6 hrs/day minimum.
Good luck, keep us posted.
Alternatively, you may also choose to live a normal life, with a normal job, enjoy chess at the club, and just play for the pleasure of it. Who cares if you're rated 1000, 1300, 1600 or 2000 ? You can play wonderful and memorable games at any level 
lol...Why in the world do people keep coming up with this ridiculous question? I mean, how could you possibly be that clueless on a regular basis?
and tons and tons of each...
Bruch wrote:
NimzoRoy - you must have read Malcom Gladwell. I've heard the 10,000 hour rule as well. I'm not sure if its true, but its probably close.
I really liked Plutonia's comments. GM may not be attainable, but start with a smaller goal - like place in the next tournament for your rating bracket. Or increase your rating X points by 2014, etc. Meet enough of these goals and maybe good things will happen for you, maybe not. But unrealistic goals will only lead to disappointment.
I once dreamed of becoming a GM too. But with every loss or setback I became disappointed and frustrated! Then I realized that gaining a title is not the end goal. For me, I ultimately want to teach chess to my kids and eventually help out at the local elementary school club. So now I am working towards that, trying to improve my chess and learn about how tournaments work, how clubs are run, etc. These are much more realistic goals for me, and I find I'm happier with my chess.
I started teaching chess 2 years ago at my childs elementary school as an after school enrichment thing, and now I picked up a small private school also. We have had good success at tournaments. It is very rewarding goal.
Why not shoot for the stars and try to be a super-GM? I mean, GM's are overrated anyway, so, might as well.
orangeishblue wrote:
janis Klovans got the GM title by winning the Senior Open not because he got norm requirements.
This is true, there are other ways to get the GM title, and I wouldn't be surprised if some of them are far dodgier than this. Possibly you can find a way of "persuading" someone at that wonderful institution known as FIDE to award you the title, perhaps in return for a small cash gift.
Oh, oops, that's right:
The 10,000 hours is essentially bullshit feel-good talk to make people feel better about themselves if they work hard enough. Truth is, some people are just better at certain aspects (natural programmer, musician, athlete etc.) and no matter how many hours someone else puts into it they'll never be on the same level as the person whose strength is in that area. Talent is absolutely essential to get anywhere exceptional. By the time the average person is 20 and he's not a master level player, forget about GM altogether.
“All Truths Passes through three stages
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, It is accepted being self-evident.”
Ahh, the problem though, is that falsehoods also pass through the first two and park themselves firmly in the second.
Some falsehoods can make it to the third
Well, if MENSA is down with it, we should all be down with it because they are, naturally, the most talented and smartest members of our species.