Please masters... Don't try to increase the heat in topic...Post opinions in the topic..If we trying to argue , issue will go way word direction..Once again it is a request ...
hahahahahah masters grand life masters 16 years old :D
a person controlling my account in order to understand if I'm coherent instead answering to what I have written is not an adult
last topic....
all persons there answer to the question with some stupid statistical data....
is this happen before?
and thing like that
if just there was a person who understand something of statistic you would know that data take sense only when contextualized...
so yes probably there is not a famous master who became fm at 30...but means that is not possible? absolutely not
first how much person begin playing chess at 30 compared to the number of persons who begin when they are 7
second compare the number of person who have begun playing chess at 7 and compared this number with the number of those persone who menaged becoming a fm
third contextualized the all....30 years old persons have bigger problem of becoming a fm
fourth...you receive your answer: there is not a statistical answer
all persons there answer to the question with some stupid statistical data....
is this happen before?
and thing like that
if just there was a person who understand something of statistic you would know that data take sense only when contextualized...
so yes probably there is not a famous master who became fm at 30...but means that is not possible? absolutely not
first how much person begin playing chess at 30 compared to the number of persons who begin when they are 7
second compare the number of person who have begun playing chess at 7 and compared this number with the number of those persone who menaged becoming a fm
third contextualized the all....30 years old persons have bigger problem of becoming a fm
fourth...you receive your answer: there is not a statistical answer
qualitative: the answer is not
quantitative: you can not answer because of absence of relevant information
quantitative: you can not answer because of absence of relevant information
A lot of people here don't realize the difference between improvement and increasing elo.
You started learning chess at 20 -> You study a lot and increase your knowledge.
You are improved.
Now you have to increase your elo by playing and "playing" is not the expression of your kwnoledge, it's about the competition with other players.
At that point, you have to BEATthe players.
And competition asks for determination, energy, economic sacrifice.
All things that young people can afford (the economic "sacrifice" by the parents that works to make you able to pay the hotels, the travels for the competitions).
But let say you reach 2000 Fide points, you know what happens.
That now you have to compete(!) with stronger players that make the same thing as you and a lot of them are YOUNGER!
They're fresh at the board, they're healthy, they torture you at the board in equal endings trying to trap you, and suddenly you blunder at move 50 because you're tired. And than it comes the excuse "Oh i played so well until that moment, i'm at his level, if i only hadn't blundered"....
Young people can, old people cannot. Easy.
You started learning chess at 20 -> You study a lot and increase your knowledge.
You are improved.
Now you have to increase your elo by playing and "playing" is not the expression of your kwnoledge, it's about the competition with other players.
At that point, you have to BEATthe players.
And competition asks for determination, energy, economic sacrifice.
All things that young people can afford (the economic "sacrifice" by the parents that works to make you able to pay the hotels, the travels for the competitions).
But let say you reach 2000 Fide points, you know what happens.
That now you have to compete(!) with stronger players that make the same thing as you and a lot of them are YOUNGER!
They're fresh at the board, they're healthy, they torture you at the board in equal endings trying to trap you, and suddenly you blunder at move 50 because you're tired. And than it comes the excuse "Oh i played so well until that moment, i'm at his level, if i only hadn't blundered"....
Young people can, old people cannot. Easy.
@LukaCro This deserves longer than I am able to write just now, but to me chess skill is some combination of instinct, knowledge and personality. The knowledge bit (e.g. learning by heart long lines in the Najdorf, or how to win/draw various rook endgames) one can acquire in adulthood. The personality bit (grinding someone down for a win as per @BarryAttack above) one can also get in adulthood / from outside chess. The instinct bit (board vision, knowing and spotting tactical patterns the way one knows times tables or the sounds of ones mother tongue) I think is best developed as young as possible.
So, for me, players who are ~1800 at late teens and then become GMs do not act as counterexamples, because (at that age) they can still have well-developed chess instincts and chess flair but still lack technical knowledge or not care enough to have the killer instinct.
So, for me, players who are ~1800 at late teens and then become GMs do not act as counterexamples, because (at that age) they can still have well-developed chess instincts and chess flair but still lack technical knowledge or not care enough to have the killer instinct.
@BarryAttack
The difference between increasing Elo and improvement is very difficult and what's up to the question of reaching master level non existent.
A master must have performance and competitive qualities. Getting better there shows at the end a higher Elo rating, except in the case of health problems.
A player around 2000 may learn something and get even worse in his rating for other reasons. The difference between skills and knowledge is well known. Active and passive knowledge is another topic to discuss here. How to use your knowledge otb is a part of knowledge and chess skill too. If your rating gets higher, there are only two reasons behind it: Better skills or inflation, aka measurement error.
As the domains of improvement in chess, mastery over all, good training, are to complicated to be explained with one single measurement in all facets, there is still a lot to discuss. But to reduce this to youth is also simple too.
The difference between increasing Elo and improvement is very difficult and what's up to the question of reaching master level non existent.
A master must have performance and competitive qualities. Getting better there shows at the end a higher Elo rating, except in the case of health problems.
A player around 2000 may learn something and get even worse in his rating for other reasons. The difference between skills and knowledge is well known. Active and passive knowledge is another topic to discuss here. How to use your knowledge otb is a part of knowledge and chess skill too. If your rating gets higher, there are only two reasons behind it: Better skills or inflation, aka measurement error.
As the domains of improvement in chess, mastery over all, good training, are to complicated to be explained with one single measurement in all facets, there is still a lot to discuss. But to reduce this to youth is also simple too.
@piscatorox yeah, i mean that for a young player is easier playing in grinding style. "Easier" means it gives more positive results. There's no way that an old amateur can play with the same effort of a younger one at 2000+ Elo.
Q. Any Masters who started late?
Q. Any Master (NM minimum) who started (from scratch, doesn't even know the rules, not `1800 in teens) late (20s +) ?
A. Pretty much NO. Handful of dubious examples.
Q. Any Master (NM minimum) who started (from scratch, doesn't even know the rules, not `1800 in teens) late (20s +) ?
A. Pretty much NO. Handful of dubious examples.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.