to be a grandmaster

Sort:
Avatar of eightsquare

Hello, you may have heard of will taylor, aspiring to be a chess grandmaster. I have the same ambition. My rating ( FIDE ) is 1537, though , to be honest im underrated. My low rating is because im not consistent and blunder sometimes ( positionally only, not tactically) . Could you please tell me a study plan for achieving my dream? im 12 years old, have around 10 hours a week during school time. And also, and important question : Do you need to be an aggressive and attacking player like Alekhine to be the best? Please reply it means a lot to me. ( Btw, my USCF rating is 1808, more reflects my abilities ) Please dont give me the usual, solve tactics thing.  Please reply asap.

Appreciate it,

eightsquare.

Avatar of paripooranan

if u want to become a granmaster u must only focus to capture the centre of the board

i am onlt 14 years old

99% is concentration only 1% is tactics

pin is mightier than the sword

Avatar of paripooranan

my rating is 1820!!!!!

how is that? all come from the centre of the board

Avatar of paripooranan

a nice capturee of the center by white isn't it?Sealed

Avatar of kco

to the OP your rating should be least by 2000 by now for your age, it will be a long hard road for you to get there (GM). Just take one step in a time. The main thing is to enjoy it.

Here take a look at this

  http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7369

Avatar of eightsquare

<Dirzy> and <kco> thanks a lot for your advice. I appreciate it. As for <paripooranan>, honestly, that is NOT the advice i wanted to hear.

Avatar of MV_NY

You haven't played live chess or online chess?

I was planning to look at your games

BTW I'm 12 too

Avatar of KyleMayhugh

I'll bet on OP reaching it before Will Taylor does, no offense to Mr. Taylor, whose blog I enjoy :)

Avatar of Cystem_Phailure
KyleMayhugh wrote:

I'll bet on OP reaching it before Will Taylor does, 


Is there a pool?  My money says neither one of them ever makes GM.

Avatar of KyleMayhugh
Cystem_Phailure wrote:
KyleMayhugh wrote:

I'll bet on OP reaching it before Will Taylor does, 


Is there a pool?  My money says neither one of them ever makes GM.


You could get very, very rich with a pool in which you bet against people making GM.

Avatar of Cystem_Phailure

Yeah-- amazingly there's no shortage of people who think they can/will achieve that rank.

Avatar of duskrevival

Look at what forum section the OP put this thread in....

Help&Support....

That's saying something

Avatar of sodayodadude

Why is it that every single chess player I meet they think their always 200-300 points HIGHER than their actual rating? It''s disgusting.

Avatar of KyleMayhugh
sodayodadude wrote:

Why is it that every single chess player I meet they think their always 200-300 points HIGHER than their actual rating? It''s disgusting.


 

On the one hand, yeah, it's an interesting example of how the human mind always interprets information in the most favorable light it can come up with.

On the other hand, a lot of players early in their career are "underrated" in the sense that there aren't enough rated events to keep up consistently with their improving performances.

That said, I constantly get told that I'm underrated, and I simply tell people "I don't want to hear it, my rating is my rating until I prove otherwise."

Avatar of chessgdt
sodayodadude wrote:

Why is it that every single chess player I meet they think their always 200-300 points HIGHER than their actual rating? It''s disgusting.


I knew I was at least 200-300 rating points higher when I tied for 3rd in an under 1500 section when my rating was 902. How is that disgusting?

P.S: I was undefeated in that tournament.

Avatar of N-k5
sodayodadude wrote:

Why is it that every single chess player I meet they think their always 200-300 points HIGHER than their actual rating? It''s disgusting.


Because people think that their true strength = when they're playing their absolute best.  They don't like to think of the guy who plays brilliant games and uncorks tactical shot after tactical shot is the same guy who didn't really know the opening they were faced with, or misplays a rook endgame, or blunders a pawn.  But evaluating a chess player based on their rating is a garbage idea - it is simply a measure of their past performance in tournament play.  How do you become a 1600, or a FM, or a GM? Win games against higher rated opponents.  But how do you win these games? Become a stronger chess player.  As long as you're learning, forget about that silly little four-digit number in front of everyone's name.  A strong move is a strong move, whether it is played by a 600 or a 2600.  And don't expect that blind hands won't grasp seeds occasionally, or even that the player is as blind as you think! I've seen 800s beat 2000s for a variety of reasons.  

You're never as good as you think you are, but you're also not as bad as you want to think you are.  And one thing for the OP: I'm not sure of the source, but they interviewed all of the competitors at a prestigious youth chess tournament as to what their ultimate goals in chess are.  The players in the lower half listed among their aspirations as becoming the best in the world, or grandmasters, or etc.  The players in the upper half mostly just wanted to be stronger chess players.  

 

A journey of a thousand steps takes, well, a thousand steps.  One can only move their legs so far in one pace.  Focus on slowly improving aspects of your game, like tactics or knowledge of a common pawn structure or ability to manage clock time well.  Progress will slowly be made.  

Avatar of crazycult

very nice post

Avatar of GlennBk

If you sat down and wrote respectful letters to Grandmasters I expect some would reply in view of your young age and keen attitude. I certainly can't help you being only a moderate player of no particular ability.

The problem then might be which advice to follow as they all have their own ideas.

Avatar of Cystem_Phailure
N-k5 wrote:  Because people think that their true strength = when they're playing their absolute best.  They don't like to think of the guy who plays brilliant games and uncorks tactical shot after tactical shot is the same guy who didn't really know the opening they were faced with, or misplays a rook endgame, or blunders a pawn.

That's exactly it.  A lot of people like to think that if they really wanted to they could play their "absolute best" all the time, and so they consider that measure their real ability.  Their more common performances of lower ability get explained away somehow: "I wasn't trying my hardest," "I was distracted," I didn't have time to prepare properly," "That game didn't matter," or whatever other excuse they can use to convince themselves.

Avatar of trysts
Cystem_Phailure wrote:
N-k5 wrote:  Because people think that their true strength = when they're playing their absolute best.  They don't like to think of the guy who plays brilliant games and uncorks tactical shot after tactical shot is the same guy who didn't really know the opening they were faced with, or misplays a rook endgame, or blunders a pawn.

That's exactly it.  A lot of people like to think that if they really wanted to they could play their "absolute best" all the time, and so they consider that measure their real ability.  Their more common performances of lower ability get explained away somehow: "I wasn't trying my hardest," "I was distracted," I didn't have time to prepare properly," "That game didn't matter," or whatever other excuse they can use to convince themselves.


Both: +1