Originally posted by greenpawn34 Hi isthislikecheckers
Never too old to start playing chess.
I know plenty of guys who did not take up the game till in their late 20's and
went on to be good at it. Even knew a 57 year who had never pushed in his life
join our club and within two years was a good club player.
Forget being a great player unless you are naturally gifted.
But ...[text shortened]... do think will win?
[fen]rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/Q1Q1Q1Q1/1Q1Q1Q1Q/Q1QQK1Q1 w kq - 0 1[/fen]
Thanks for the advice. Also, my screen name was just a joke.
Originally posted by Sam The Sham If you just started to play tennis at the age of 20 how good would your chances be of becoming a pro?
Same thing with chess.
I'm not looking to make profit playing chess. Money isn't an issue. I simply enjoying learning and studying games. I did the same with poker and found myself in the top 3,000, but I personally can't handle the swings that the luck factor in poker provides. And in poker, progression in skill requires a progression in gambling wagers to increase the challenge.
i started at around 20... 5 years on i still say i suck but others say i'm ok.
Good enough to be able to compete and win in local and regional tournaments. Also, what are some books you'd all recommend. My local bookstore had, The Mammoth Book of Chess, McKay Libraries Modern Chess Openings and McKay Libraries Basic Chess Endings so I bought them. So what is the best reading material I should be ordering online?
Originally posted by isthislikecheckers I'm nineteen and thinking about taking up chess seriously. I've know the rules since I was about seven but rarely played. I'm a quick learner and have a high IQ but I'm afraid I've waited too long. How young do you have to start to become a great player?
I'm aiming for Master at 60. I met my goal of class A by 50 a full 47 weeks early (and have climbed into the high 1800s in my 49th year).
Originally posted by isthislikecheckers The only reason I mentioned IQ is because people with higher IQs tend to learn things more quickly which would help offset a late start to the game.
People that learn quickly learn quickly. Bobby Fischer, reputed to have a high IQ--not tested AFAIK, never understood certain basic realities concerning representative government and law. He was SLOW in that regard, although he got into chess in a way few others can comprehend.
Originally posted by greenpawn34 The thing that has me against having a good memory as a necessary factor
for being a good player are Child Prodigies.
What are they remembering?
Let us bring in Capablanca on memory in chess.
"It is not correct to assume, however, that my chess ability depends upon an
over-developed memory.
In chess, memory may be an aid, but it is not i ...[text shortened]... depend so much upon the memory
as upon the peculiar functioning of the powers of the brain.’
There are different types of memory. What you call brain power is based on memory. And the reason why Carlsen can calculate deeper than I can is based on memory. If I could take time and write down all variations of a calculation, I would do as good as he does (in that department, lol). The one other criterion that may have to be fulfilled is wether I would have the same drive to calculate everything. And yet he would still outplay me because he is better at generating ideas and turn them into moves, but that's conscious thinking, no?
Because Capablanca said that memory isn't important, does not mean he was right. He was brilliant in chess, not necessarily in neurophysics 😛
Originally posted by isthislikecheckers The only reason I mentioned IQ is because people with higher IQs tend to learn things more quickly which would help offset a late start to the game.
Having a high IQ doesn't mean one will be good at chess, only that they might be. Robert Oppenheimer was a devotee from an early age and played a ho-hum game.
Being stupid however, means one will usually suck at it.
Originally posted by Sam The Sham Having a high IQ doesn't mean one will be good at chess, only that they might be. Robert Oppenheimer was a devotee from an early age and played a ho-hum game.
Being stupid however, means one will usually suck at it.
Being stupid can help to take away (or being insensitive to) inhibitions, but not to be great at anything.
I was not putting forward an opinion just pasting what Capa wrote.
Gifted players are probably a bad example as they really cannot explain
how they became good because there were never really bad.
Fishcer's own explanation was "Suddenly I got good."
Many things make up a good 'normal' player.
Here are some I think matter.
Memory has it's part but so does imagination (and you cannot teach that),
though too much imagination can be a curse.
I think it was Nimzovitch who said he knew some players who were
very unimaginative. I'm sure he mentioned Johner?
(So much for having a good memory). 🙂
The ability to calculate, the skill to know WHEN to calculate.
"before you look first you must see."
Belief in yourself, beating OTB nerves, (experience only), knowing your weakness,
pattern recognition (training and playing). A knowledge of stem games.
(not being able to reproduce these games but 'knowing' theses games. )
A love of the game.
Possibly others but have to leave now and catch a train to Dunfermline to
see a chess tournament.
Because Capablanca said that memory isn't important, does not mean he was right.
I think it is important to consider that many chess players will often dismiss memory as an aid to their play, simply because it implies a lack of originality or creativity in their play, and implies that they were merely copying someone else.
After a beautiful sac, a player would much rather say "I found it after deep calculation" rather than " Oh, I read that in a book". Capa had his pride just like anyone else.
Originally posted by greenpawn34 I was not putting forward an opinion just pasting what Capa wrote.
Gifted players are probably a bad example as they really cannot explain
how they became good because there were never really bad.
Fishcer's own explanation was "Suddenly I got good."
Many things make up a good 'normal' player.
Here are some I think matter.
Memory has it's p ...[text shortened]... rs but have to leave now and catch a train to Dunfermline to
see a chess tournament.
A good response.
I'd add one non-chess attribute, you have to work hard at the board for the entire game. Easier said than done though, as we tend to lose focus and drift/daydream.
Anyone that can focus throughout the entire game will be alert to spot & capitalize on the "obvious" errors that we amateurs all make.
Originally posted by Wulebgr I'm aiming for Master at 60. I met my goal of class A by 50 a full 47 weeks early (and have climbed into the high 1800s in my 49th year).
Interesting to read about your ambition.
what are your studying plans to reach master level. in my opinion one can reach the 2000 USCF level by waiting for opponents to make mistakes, but to reach 2200 requires more exact technque at all facets (opening,middlegame, and endgame) to compete against 2100+
In my case, at 2100-2150 I questioned my narrow openings and middlegame knowledge and didn't have the inclination to broaden my chess knowledge which would have meant alot of new material to learn.
Main point is when you approach the 2100 level, you realize it takes much more effort to defeat a stronger player.
Originally posted by tonytiger41 Interesting to read about your ambition.
what are your studying plans to reach master level.
Diet and exercise are critical.
Study plans vary from year to year, and even month to month. I will continue to sharpen tactics, hone endgame skills, and develop my openings. I study classic games and modern ones. Currently I'm looking at some of Karpov's gems, and Anderssen's.
Am I too old to get good at chess?
14 Mar '10 02:37
Back to Top