After reading the original post I'm thinking why "never to be a master" should be a reason to quit chess ... I'll never be a master too - I probably don't have much "raw talent"; I began to play chess too late (in my twenties) while most masters play since childhood; and I don't have the time for intense training since I have a full time job. However I don't play to be a master; I enjoy playing in my low class and in C tournaments, I enjoy playing the real masters once in a while at a simul, and I'll celebrate if I ever make 1500 :)
Why I will never be a master
Sort:
its called drafts, not checkers
I knew I'd never be a Master many years ago, but I still enjoy playing.
I hadn't played serious(online; an hour a week at the club doesn't count) chess for three months, and I already know I'm not cut out to be a master...
Not everyone's a major league ballplayer, but those beer league softball games are still fun. It's the same for those of us who will always be "Classplayers." Just look at the World Open ... there are a lot of us "patzers," who just love to play.
WilsonYiuWahWong wrote:
I've got the motivation to become a GM and at the very least, titled but for the near future, the biggest deterent is the enormous sum of dough that goes into each tournament which just won't work considering I'm a full-time student. A large part of Chess is familiarity and understanding so I don't see how most people can't achieve it if they wanted to.
What's your otb rating ?
Well, most chess players want to become master but most don't make it, so wanting is obviously not enough. I know a guy who has played intensely since his youth and studied and wasn't without talent, and he never made master. He has been between 2100-2200 FIDE for God knows how long.
Atos wrote:
Well, most chess players want to become master but most don't make it, so wanting is obviously not enough. I know a guy who has played intensely since his youth and studied and wasn't without talent, and he never made master. He has been between 2100-2200 FIDE for God knows how long.
That sounds about right. 2200 FIDE is Candidate Master, so he's peaked very close to that and would just be a couple of good tournaments from making that.
I'm definitely not saying that everyone who wants to make master can make it. Being able to seriously study chess for many years is a talent in itself, and few people can maintain the discipline. But I think most people have enough natural talent that they would have a chance to make it to about that level and *maybe* peak just past the lowest master title. Could be wrong, though.
KyleJRM wrote:
Atos wrote:
Well, most chess players want to become master but most don't make it, so wanting is obviously not enough. I know a guy who has played intensely since his youth and studied and wasn't without talent, and he never made master. He has been between 2100-2200 FIDE for God knows how long.
That sounds about right. 2200 FIDE is Candidate Master, so he's peaked very close to that and would just be a couple of good tournaments from making that.
I think that he peaked at 2180. I also know another one who passed 2200 FIDE so I guess that he could have applied for CM title but didn't. Obviously, these guys have "day jobs" but most of their free time has been spent on chess for many years.
I suspect that 2300 FIDE (FM) is not supposed to be within the reach of most people; if it proved to be, the bar would probably be lifted.
Atos wrote:
KyleJRM wrote:
Atos wrote:
Well, most chess players want to become master but most don't make it, so wanting is obviously not enough. I know a guy who has played intensely since his youth and studied and wasn't without talent, and he never made master. He has been between 2100-2200 FIDE for God knows how long.
That sounds about right. 2200 FIDE is Candidate Master, so he's peaked very close to that and would just be a couple of good tournaments from making that.
I think that he peaked at 2180. I also know another one who passed 2200 FIDE so I guess that he could have applied for CM title but didn't. Obviously, these guys have "day jobs" but most of their free time has been spent on chess for many years.
I suspect that 2300 FIDE (FM) is not supposed to be within the reach of most people; if it proved to be, the bar would probably be lifted.
Agreed. I think the point of the master titles is that they are set at the very high end of what people can expect to reach through total dedication to chess.
I'm definitely not saying anyone can make master. I'm saying that I think that for most people, their potential peak rating if they really, truly put in the work (and I don't just mean playing blitz games every day), then they should peak anywhere from 1900ish to 2200ish. The lowest end of master is in the highest end of that range.
uhohspaghettio wrote:
You know, there are other Master titles other than FIDE Master. You can be a regional "Master" in your own Federation. The NMs on this site are usually National Masters awarded by the USCF, but each Federation has their own rules for that...
You know, there are so few people who play chess seriously in Ireland that even I could end up representing Ireland in chess at some point if I got pretty good. Maybe I might even get flights to international venues and stuff, paid by the "department of sport" which is something they can certainly do... and maybe I would be paired with beautiful Eastern European level in some tournaments... just my little fantasy lol. Of course we would get destroyed by tiny european countries like Andorra, but that's not the point.
But the only GM Ireland has ever produced, is actually Russian-born and not Irish at all. The only International Master in Cork (where I live, the second-largest city), is Alex Lopez.... who also isn't native to Ireland I'm going to guess by his name. So it's not beyond the realms of possibility completely.
Isn't Sam Collins a GM-elect? I could be wrong on that. He's definitely a strong IM at the moment. I know you were joking about the Irish team thing but would also like to point out that there's at least 100 players well ahead of you in the queue!
Another interesting point is that those who refer to Alexander Baburin as the only Irish GM (and of course he didn't originate on the Emerald Isle) are forgetting the great, great James Mason of Kilkenny, who Lasker reckoned would have been World Champion were it not for a stereotypically Irish affliction... Not sure what title he had but he was definitely one of the world's strongest players.
perhaps nutrition and exercise would invigorate you, and dark chocolate during extended chess competition
uhohspaghettio wrote:
What if they don't have your epiphany on how to get better?
The qualifier was "if they put in the work." My epiphany was that you have to put in the work to get better.
BorgQueen wrote:
But the counter epiphany is that you don't necessarily get better even if you do put in the work.
I firmly believe that there is a "talent max" that you reach where no matter how much work, study and practice you put in, you just cannot improve.
I definitely agree with that. I just think that for the meaty part of the bell curve of the population of chess players, that talent max is at least in the vicinity of the lowest levels of master.
Two reasons: (1) I would rather play than study; and (2) I make too many blunders!
I love the game, I study for ages, play every day, think about it every day, but yet, I will never make master. I just don't have the raw talent required.
Lack of desire, lack of time or inclination to put in the hard work, lack of concentration, trouble with nerves - these are all plausible excuses why someone might never make 2300. Lack of talent, IMHO, is a cop out. If you've beaten a 2150 there is reason outside those I've just listed that you can't make 2300.