I coach someone who didn't start taking chess seriously until 24 yrs old (he played a few dozen casual games as a kid/youth) and he's almost 1800 USCF as of now. http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?14688697
We talked originally about twens or later, new starters and becoming IM/GM (probably FM as well). If you dilute it into teens or include non-FIDE titles like NM or whatever: very well then. Good improvement, good work!
lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/any-masters-who-started-late?page=20#192
Quoting myself:
„Starting at 20, FIDE Elo 2149 at 30, that reasonable. Perfect example.
ratings.fide.com/card.phtml?event=2059150“
lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/any-masters-who-started-late?page=20#192
Quoting myself:
„Starting at 20, FIDE Elo 2149 at 30, that reasonable. Perfect example.
ratings.fide.com/card.phtml?event=2059150“
@Kusokosla
The original post wasn't 2000. He asked if it was possible for an adult player to make from beginner to FM. I agree.. That is very specific. But I think there is a few problems.
1. I think it is important that the NM at 257 spoke up. He shown it is possible.
2. There is a misunderstanding that because practice has not produced evidence. I think you can go by the evidence provided here as it stands that given the right situation an average person after lets say 20 to be fair and consistent can achieve FM. I agree going into teens is not even correct. Some people including @Sarg0n tried to make it a IM/GM thing. I would accept it was unintentional. I am not singling out Sargon just he is the most well known. The other side of that, he is the most critical when it comes to judging the failures. For example. Experts who lack FIDE access. Or NM's who might be just beginning. The NM in 257 clearly stated he made NM in around 5 years. And never stated a current age. I also didn't notice if he had FIDE access or problems. I would say that since @Sarg0n could be considered a young learner who failed, we can't really take him for a complete resource. We can obviously add him to the list of people that prove how difficult it is after becoming an adult.
-----------------
General info:
I would like to hear more about the NM if he is willing to share. If you want to know why people fail as adults it's a combination of the fact that kids do learn faster, but then there is the fact that you have horrible self study tools. And then the fact that NO ONE who is an older adult wants to do the proper training to obtain the levels they need to get. Look at the facts. What is the most studied areas? Openings? Endgames? Are either of those studied properly on average? Is there really a truly powerful system developed to teach people how to learn chess? Like I said in a previous post. The current training is not powerful enough. There isn't any good training that really helps a player know how to improve. And I noticed there are things GM's understand and can explain in personal lessons that are never expressed in written or video training. How many players in the 1300-2000 or even 2000-2100 rating ranges actually take the time to tear a position apart for real? I bet there is less than a handful of people out of the 100's of thousands that can even give the levels of analysis properly. What about being lazy? Copping out? How many people realize you can train positional chess similar to tactical chess? How many people understand that tactics isn't only trained by puzzles? The average learning player only think tactics are forks pins and skewers when in reality forks pins and skewers are only operations within a tactic. Or that tactics best laid out are ones that go with your natural plan.
How many of you "adult learners" have looked at your positions in your openings and compared them to your games? What about looking at a theme inside your opening where a GM was in the similar position and then deeply analyzing those positions? Have any of you looked at a position for more than an hour without staring at it with no thoughts? I have.. Even before this conversation started I have been trying to get conversations going about three positions. The best communication I get from people I am offering these analysis to is, "Well it doesn't stop this idea so it must be good." That's not analysis. That is a pass over statement that proves you are not truly learning chess. How many people do this on average and claim they are learners?
I think if we took a scientific conclusion to this would should at least make it real. The conclusion right now is while it is theoretically possible. No one has been noted to obtain the level yet. There have been some good tries but reality says it hasn't been done. You do have to consider though that Expert and NM are where people should look to attempt to make in order to get a good start to FM. The failure is most probably due to either lack of training resources/tournaments/ideas.. Or lack of people being honest with themselves and admit they just don't want to try. No one who claims they do really study chess. You can't look at an opening book for a few hours, get a superficial understanding, and claim you learned chess.
Look at this thread in reality. What do you think this represents? It's chaotic.. It has a lot of bickering and nonsense. I actually thought that was the best part. I usually chimed in to promote the obvious. When it comes down to it this thread gives the epitome of the reason why adult learners will find it hard to achieve this goal. No one wants to explore. No one wants to try to study for real. They simply say they do. I am going back to my studies though. I am Almost done with my entry for my companion study to Wojo's Weapons Vol 2. When I finish Vol 3 I am going to strip the games apart. At the rate I am currently going I should be getting to the stripping soon. Maybe within the next few weeks. Unfortunately for most people here they are not interested in my boring white play. My black play is a little more lively.
The original post wasn't 2000. He asked if it was possible for an adult player to make from beginner to FM. I agree.. That is very specific. But I think there is a few problems.
1. I think it is important that the NM at 257 spoke up. He shown it is possible.
2. There is a misunderstanding that because practice has not produced evidence. I think you can go by the evidence provided here as it stands that given the right situation an average person after lets say 20 to be fair and consistent can achieve FM. I agree going into teens is not even correct. Some people including @Sarg0n tried to make it a IM/GM thing. I would accept it was unintentional. I am not singling out Sargon just he is the most well known. The other side of that, he is the most critical when it comes to judging the failures. For example. Experts who lack FIDE access. Or NM's who might be just beginning. The NM in 257 clearly stated he made NM in around 5 years. And never stated a current age. I also didn't notice if he had FIDE access or problems. I would say that since @Sarg0n could be considered a young learner who failed, we can't really take him for a complete resource. We can obviously add him to the list of people that prove how difficult it is after becoming an adult.
-----------------
General info:
I would like to hear more about the NM if he is willing to share. If you want to know why people fail as adults it's a combination of the fact that kids do learn faster, but then there is the fact that you have horrible self study tools. And then the fact that NO ONE who is an older adult wants to do the proper training to obtain the levels they need to get. Look at the facts. What is the most studied areas? Openings? Endgames? Are either of those studied properly on average? Is there really a truly powerful system developed to teach people how to learn chess? Like I said in a previous post. The current training is not powerful enough. There isn't any good training that really helps a player know how to improve. And I noticed there are things GM's understand and can explain in personal lessons that are never expressed in written or video training. How many players in the 1300-2000 or even 2000-2100 rating ranges actually take the time to tear a position apart for real? I bet there is less than a handful of people out of the 100's of thousands that can even give the levels of analysis properly. What about being lazy? Copping out? How many people realize you can train positional chess similar to tactical chess? How many people understand that tactics isn't only trained by puzzles? The average learning player only think tactics are forks pins and skewers when in reality forks pins and skewers are only operations within a tactic. Or that tactics best laid out are ones that go with your natural plan.
How many of you "adult learners" have looked at your positions in your openings and compared them to your games? What about looking at a theme inside your opening where a GM was in the similar position and then deeply analyzing those positions? Have any of you looked at a position for more than an hour without staring at it with no thoughts? I have.. Even before this conversation started I have been trying to get conversations going about three positions. The best communication I get from people I am offering these analysis to is, "Well it doesn't stop this idea so it must be good." That's not analysis. That is a pass over statement that proves you are not truly learning chess. How many people do this on average and claim they are learners?
I think if we took a scientific conclusion to this would should at least make it real. The conclusion right now is while it is theoretically possible. No one has been noted to obtain the level yet. There have been some good tries but reality says it hasn't been done. You do have to consider though that Expert and NM are where people should look to attempt to make in order to get a good start to FM. The failure is most probably due to either lack of training resources/tournaments/ideas.. Or lack of people being honest with themselves and admit they just don't want to try. No one who claims they do really study chess. You can't look at an opening book for a few hours, get a superficial understanding, and claim you learned chess.
Look at this thread in reality. What do you think this represents? It's chaotic.. It has a lot of bickering and nonsense. I actually thought that was the best part. I usually chimed in to promote the obvious. When it comes down to it this thread gives the epitome of the reason why adult learners will find it hard to achieve this goal. No one wants to explore. No one wants to try to study for real. They simply say they do. I am going back to my studies though. I am Almost done with my entry for my companion study to Wojo's Weapons Vol 2. When I finish Vol 3 I am going to strip the games apart. At the rate I am currently going I should be getting to the stripping soon. Maybe within the next few weeks. Unfortunately for most people here they are not interested in my boring white play. My black play is a little more lively.
I would be doing this more but I figure since I have been thinking about streaming my activities I would do it now. I tried getting lichess to add me to the streamers but they won't. I guess it could be my activity. Anyway I am going to post a link. And lately I have been focusing A LOT on chess.
Here is the link:
http://www.twitch.tv/mewantcookietoo
I am on now. I will make it on probably every day around this time.
My DISCLAIMER is: I am doing the grunt work. So a lot of time I am going to be databasing and entering games. If there is an interesting game or someone wants to look at something that came up I will gladly take requests. However.. This broadcast is about MY training. So a lot of the work will be based around my opening interests. And there is a GOOD chance I will focus on one position for a long time. I will have a chat box up so people can interact. Hope to see people there. It will be a combination of resources from lichess to chessbase.
Here is the link:
http://www.twitch.tv/mewantcookietoo
I am on now. I will make it on probably every day around this time.
My DISCLAIMER is: I am doing the grunt work. So a lot of time I am going to be databasing and entering games. If there is an interesting game or someone wants to look at something that came up I will gladly take requests. However.. This broadcast is about MY training. So a lot of the work will be based around my opening interests. And there is a GOOD chance I will focus on one position for a long time. I will have a chat box up so people can interact. Hope to see people there. It will be a combination of resources from lichess to chessbase.
@MeWantCookieMobile
#262 is one of the best posts in this topic. I will follow your further work on this theme.
#262 is one of the best posts in this topic. I will follow your further work on this theme.
@MeWantCookieMobile I think I am a case in point. Though I had a certain knack for the game as a young child, I quit rather early (12?) and never studied despite picking up the game once in a while, through life, mostly blitzing over coffee and cigarettes.
When I returned to the game around my 56th birthday, almost one year ago, I wasted (from a study perspective) the first three months exclusively playing blitz on chess.com. The entertainment factor sucked-me right in despite the fact I had established in my mind egregious mistakes and blunders were the most important factors to contend with in my level of chess and beyond.
An online friend or two suggested I try correspondence chess and that is really the format that helped me establish a modicum of control over these behaviours. At first, I blitzed through many games and didn’t really use the opportunity to “position search” and familiarize myself with openings, but with time this format certainly contributed to a concrete upward progression.
Having said that, I remain horrible at blitz and even more atrocious at bullet. I just returned to club play so giving a rating isn’t very useful but I estimate it at 1350. Our club is member of a FIDE associated chess federation.
For the past six months I have studied endgames almost exclusively, though spending significant time on 25 of Morphy’s games and, more recently, studying the London and Petroff because I got wiped-out the first time I showed up at the club, its scheduled event for that evening being a blitz tournament.
At this juncture in my first year of serious study, I have taken a break for the remainder of the year to renew with the pleasure of playing again. One thing has progressively become abundantly clear to me through these months of study and relative lack of observable, objective progress. I am now more than ever convinced that the royal road to progress for me probably lies in two things, once the mistake+blunder thing is under control:1- analysis of my own games, as well as specific master games; 2- Learning a very limited number of openings and learning their associated tactical motifs.
This is my “master plan” for 2020, along with working with a board and a book like Réti’s “Masters of the chessboard” and occasionally calling on the services of a Philippino titled player for guidance in my studies. I will follow your endeavours and try to keep you posted concerning mine throughout the coming year. I invite any adult improver to join me here: lichess.org/team/adult-improvers
Once you have joined the Lichess team, I will send you a Discord link.
When I returned to the game around my 56th birthday, almost one year ago, I wasted (from a study perspective) the first three months exclusively playing blitz on chess.com. The entertainment factor sucked-me right in despite the fact I had established in my mind egregious mistakes and blunders were the most important factors to contend with in my level of chess and beyond.
An online friend or two suggested I try correspondence chess and that is really the format that helped me establish a modicum of control over these behaviours. At first, I blitzed through many games and didn’t really use the opportunity to “position search” and familiarize myself with openings, but with time this format certainly contributed to a concrete upward progression.
Having said that, I remain horrible at blitz and even more atrocious at bullet. I just returned to club play so giving a rating isn’t very useful but I estimate it at 1350. Our club is member of a FIDE associated chess federation.
For the past six months I have studied endgames almost exclusively, though spending significant time on 25 of Morphy’s games and, more recently, studying the London and Petroff because I got wiped-out the first time I showed up at the club, its scheduled event for that evening being a blitz tournament.
At this juncture in my first year of serious study, I have taken a break for the remainder of the year to renew with the pleasure of playing again. One thing has progressively become abundantly clear to me through these months of study and relative lack of observable, objective progress. I am now more than ever convinced that the royal road to progress for me probably lies in two things, once the mistake+blunder thing is under control:1- analysis of my own games, as well as specific master games; 2- Learning a very limited number of openings and learning their associated tactical motifs.
This is my “master plan” for 2020, along with working with a board and a book like Réti’s “Masters of the chessboard” and occasionally calling on the services of a Philippino titled player for guidance in my studies. I will follow your endeavours and try to keep you posted concerning mine throughout the coming year. I invite any adult improver to join me here: lichess.org/team/adult-improvers
Once you have joined the Lichess team, I will send you a Discord link.
From all these postings, i evaluated my self...I know 1% in chess when comparing to other members...At one point i am jealous...
@PixelatedParcel
Truly the best thing would be to set up a board and play. Online and offline. I did just that this morning in my training games.
What do you know about principled chess?
Truly the best thing would be to set up a board and play. Online and offline. I did just that this morning in my training games.
What do you know about principled chess?
@Kusokosla
As you have now mentioned this several times - where did you gain these victories against GMs/IMs/FMs etc you refer to?
Your profile does not show any evidence of wins against players with the sort of ratings GMs would have, and it is far easier (although still quite hard) to get paired against GMs here than it would be over the board.
As you have now mentioned this several times - where did you gain these victories against GMs/IMs/FMs etc you refer to?
Your profile does not show any evidence of wins against players with the sort of ratings GMs would have, and it is far easier (although still quite hard) to get paired against GMs here than it would be over the board.
@MeWantCookieMobile #267 I have recently come to the same conclusion concerning the value of studying chess with a book and a board. I am working to correct this and have started on Réti's "Masters of the chessboard" and Chernev's "Logical chess".
Having said this, setting up a board and keeping it undisturbed if often easier said than done, especially when one has many children, streams of friends as well as dogs and cats to contend with in a limited space. So, many of us must settle for the convenience the computer provides.
As for my knowledge of "principled chess", I am a lower-rated older player who has recently returned to a game he never studied. I do understand the value of quick and harmonious development of the pieces and quickly castling (generally) before mounting an attack, the use and value of open lines - files and diagonals - to control and penetrate into ennemy territory, the relative value of the Bishop pair - especially in open games - the importance of contolling or fighting for the centre because of its influence on piece mobility, the importance of having and keeping or fighting for the initiative because it allows one to dictate how a game evolves, how pawn structure must serve the pieces and allow them to be at their most active, etc. I could go on and on... But tye fact remains I am a tactically weak player with little OTB experience and much work to be done in the "behavioural" aspect of chess, i.e. checking for threats, captures, checks, hanging pieces and pawns, finding right candidate moves, doing useful calculation, managing time appropriately, taking my opponent's moves and plans into consideration, etc.
I'm not sure if this answers your question. BTW, the only chess book I have read cover-to-cover is Michael Steans "Simple Chess" which I found enormously enlightening.
Having said this, setting up a board and keeping it undisturbed if often easier said than done, especially when one has many children, streams of friends as well as dogs and cats to contend with in a limited space. So, many of us must settle for the convenience the computer provides.
As for my knowledge of "principled chess", I am a lower-rated older player who has recently returned to a game he never studied. I do understand the value of quick and harmonious development of the pieces and quickly castling (generally) before mounting an attack, the use and value of open lines - files and diagonals - to control and penetrate into ennemy territory, the relative value of the Bishop pair - especially in open games - the importance of contolling or fighting for the centre because of its influence on piece mobility, the importance of having and keeping or fighting for the initiative because it allows one to dictate how a game evolves, how pawn structure must serve the pieces and allow them to be at their most active, etc. I could go on and on... But tye fact remains I am a tactically weak player with little OTB experience and much work to be done in the "behavioural" aspect of chess, i.e. checking for threats, captures, checks, hanging pieces and pawns, finding right candidate moves, doing useful calculation, managing time appropriately, taking my opponent's moves and plans into consideration, etc.
I'm not sure if this answers your question. BTW, the only chess book I have read cover-to-cover is Michael Steans "Simple Chess" which I found enormously enlightening.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.