is their a huge advantage of learning chess at a young age? as a kid you pick up everything so fast and you have a huge aptitude. i can speak 2 languages fluently and play tennis at a tournament level but i know in my heart that its only because i picked those things up when i was really young. i wish i would have got into chess at a young age, because i was always fascinated with the game but didn't really start playing it seriously until i turned 20 and now im 24.
is their any hope for us chess players who started playing chess late in life? are their any GM's, IM's or strong players who didn't start playing chess until their late teenage or early adult years?
I think that in respect to those your age who started when they were young: you will never catch up. That being said, the great thing about chess is that you can play people older and younger than you. With diligence and hard work you should be able to move up....just stay persistant, learn your endgames and tactics...I personally think too much emphasis is put on the early age stuff
Originally posted by ArrakI think it was Anand who famously said that if you are not a grandmaster by the time you are fourteen forget it! that may be as it is, however everyone should with some study be able to reach a proficiency, perhaps not IM and GM, but certainly a good player. check out wormwood, he started like myself in his thirties, and now he is 2000+
is their a huge advantage of learning chess at a young age? as a kid you pick up everything so fast and you have a huge aptitude. i can speak 2 languages fluently and play tennis at a tournament level but i know in my heart that its only because i picked those things up when i was really young. i wish i would have got into chess at a young age, because i wa ...[text shortened]... strong players who didn't start playing chess until their late teenage or early adult years?
Originally posted by Eladar2000 at correspondence chess is still 2000 at correspondence chess and is not inflated with regard to this site, which is after all a correspondence chess site, that being said, yes his over the board rating is considerably lower, but that does not mean that it will remain so, does it?
2000 at this site isn't exactly 2000 OTB. Unless he's actually started defeating 2000 level opponents (other than time outs) his numbers are highly inflated.
What I meant was that a while back I looked at a few of his games and the only wins against high rated opponents was by time outs. The other wins were against lower rated opponents (1600-1700's if memory serves). But that was a while back, perhaps he's gotten better by actually looking at openings.
Until you are defeating people consistantly at your level or above, your rating is inflated as far as I'm concerned. A 1500 who only beats alot of 1200's and 1300's is nothing more than a low 1400 who is playing down.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThere was a Scottish guy who was a fairly average club player until the age of twenty, and then suddenly got really good (in fact did he become an IM?). Can anyone remember his name?
Check out wormwood, he started like myself in his thirties, and now he is 2000+
Originally posted by Fat LadyIf you want a job done properly, do it yourself:
There was a Scottish guy who was a fairly average club player until the age of twenty, and then suddenly got really good (in fact did he become an IM?). Can anyone remember his name?
http://www.chessscotland.com/archives/johnshawgm.htm
"Shaw, 37, provides hope for all non-prodigies. At the age of 19 Shaw was rated just 1700, the equivalent of a better than average Scottish club player. His first performance of note was first place in the Scottish Open at Aberdeen in 1991. He won the Scottish Championship in 1995, 1998 and 2000 and was awarded the International Master title with the 1998 victory."
He's not one of Greenpawn's favourite players...
http://www.chessedinburgh.co.uk/chandlerarticle.php?ChandID=124
Just want to point this out to Arrak to deconstruct the original point. There is not actually a correspondence to language learning and age. The age only factors in physiologically (the sounds you can make, and what your ear cues into) and the expectations (adults want results now). So I think we should readdress your metaphors of chess learning first.
What is learning chess like? Patterning, memory etc.?
There are exceptionally gifted and many very good and good chess players who never played chess as a child,however it is a mostly accepted fact that children below the age range of 12 - 14 who show an interest in chess appear to view chess not as a complicated unsolvable set of mathematical problems,but as an interesting challenging game as seen through the eyes of a child,like most things simplicity is more obvious to them and the obvious is more simple. Many visual tests have been performed on chess playing children of different ages and the way in which they look at a chessboard and pieces differs greatly than the way it is physically looked at by adults of different ages,This is regardless of whether they have ever seen a chessboard before or not. This different'vision' is not quite fully understood but a general opinion from qualified observers is that the .brain map'[that area which appears to be responsible for forming opinions] of children appears not to be set in a fixed or rigid manner, so better enabling children to view quite complex ideas as though they truly were not complex atal. The learning capabilities of children so appear to be easier as a consequence of not looking for problems,but rather in finding solving solutions to existing problems. This therefore may be partly an explanation as to why chess learning at an age under or about 5-12 years,does appear to make such children better chess players in adult life generally,in addition to having x number of additional years available to learn chess to a high degree of excellence?😉
Originally posted by Fat Lady"He's not one of Greenpawn's favourite players... "
If you want a job done properly, do it yourself:
http://www.chessscotland.com/archives/johnshawgm.htm
"Shaw, 37, provides hope for all non-prodigies. At the age of 19 Shaw was rated just 1700, the equivalent of a better than average Scottish club player. His first performance of note was first place in the Scottish Open at Aberdeen in 1991. He won the S ...[text shortened]... pawn's favourite players...
http://www.chessedinburgh.co.uk/chandlerarticle.php?ChandID=124
...snd we used John as a running joke in Rampant Chess.
If I did not behave myself then I would have to do a John Shaw game.
Of course when I saw the games John had sent I was dead jealous -
a few brillaint whack and sac games.
He can kick butt when he wants to - of course he can - he's a GM.
They do not give out that title to British players unless they really are good.
A totally relaxed laid back guy who deserved and earned his title.
Re: the article. It's all harmless nonsense.
Originally posted by ArrakOf course there is, just like with anything else.
is their a huge advantage of learning chess at a young age? as a kid you pick up everything so fast and you have a huge aptitude. i can speak 2 languages fluently and play tennis at a tournament level but i know in my heart that its only because i picked those things up when i was really young. i wish i would have got into chess at a young age, because i wa ...[text shortened]... strong players who didn't start playing chess until their late teenage or early adult years?
Originally posted by EladarI fully agree on that. I don't really consider myself being 2000+ until I start scoring those wins, regardless of what the numbers tell.
Unless he's actually started defeating 2000 level opponents (other than time outs) his numbers are highly inflated.
but even though I haven't been able to produce consistent 2000+ performance yet, I still think I've shown that it's possible to improve relatively quickly even starting at 30.
Best of luck getting your title wormwood.
GP,
He can kick butt when he wants to - of course he can - he's a GM.
They do not give out that title to British players unless they really are good.
What country's players don't have to be as good as the Brit's to get a title?