When Chess players talk about decline in Chess strength due to old age are they referring to great players declining or are they saying all players decline?
Would an average club player see a decline? Or is it just strictly for very good players who are getting too old to play at that level?
@dillholesaid When Chess players talk about decline in Chess strength due to old age are they referring to great players declining or are they saying all players decline?
Would an average club player see a decline? Or is it just strictly for very good players who are getting too old to play at that level?
I agree with Trev. Most of us will see our chess skills decline as we age, however some have reversed that trend through disciplined training (chess and physical) It depends if one wants to make the effort.
I would say that in general, one's potential maximum level of performance declines as one approaches old age. But how many of us have approached our potential maximum at anything? I'm not saying that this is bad, given that attaining one's potential maximum would ordinarily require a concentrated effort to the exclusion of other worthwhile pursuits.
Applying this to chess, I'd imagine that a grandmaster is much closer to his or her potential maximum than a player below 1600 would be. This leaves the grandmaster little ability to compensate for declined performance owing to aging, given that the GM has already acquired a great deal of the knowledge that might have allowed him or her to compensate. In contrast, a player below 1600 presumably is lacking much skill or knowledge, such that acquiring some of it might well enable that player to compensate for a slight decline in performance owing to aging.
That might be an advantage I have, being given the impression that I am improving even though I'm in my late 50s simply because I have to learn the basics of not losing (catching mistakes and missed opportunities). Plus, chess is still a mystery to me. I grew up in south Texas in the 70s-80s, where chess was less popular than checkers, in turn less popular than marbles, and marbles was NOWHERE near as popular as American football and baseball past a certain age. I had to look into my high school year books to confirm this. Nothing of the sort to be seen in them.
So you think the decline affects the max potential and not current playing ability?
No, I meant that although the decline can affect both aspects, a player under 1600 has more scope for compensating for a decline in playing ability than does a GM.
@fmdavidhlevinsaid a player under 1600 has more scope for compensating for a decline in playing ability than does a GM.
right you are...Vishy Anand is 52 and still in the top 10. But I doubt he'll ever be in the top 5 again. BTW, Pia Cramling is 59 yrs. old and still in the top 25 of women's list. 😀
A lot depends on the individual and how active they stay as they get older.
The Laskers, Smyslovs and Korchnois are really exceptions and played at a
high level because, especially in the case of Lasker and Korchnoi, they had too.
Based on me, my friends and other GM’s whose career I followed.
Then 60 was when the decline became noticeable A lot of them gave up rather than
see their ratings plummet. Two over 2000 OTB players I grew up with carried on
playing and finished in the 1400’s. But they loved playing which is the important thing.
I think at our level,(well mine anyway) in correspondence chess there is a balance:-
Yes, we become slower and less alert as we age,particularly if we play while drinking alcohol, but that doesn't really matter that much on here unless you play blitz/short timeout games.
On the other hand I have learned a lot about the game playing here, and from Geoffs' blogs so my game has improved despite getting older.
OTB chess is totally different but if I were to play OTB(I'm not in a club or anything and rarely find anyone to play against) I think having played on here would have improved my game
12 Nov '22 19:001 edit
Decline from old age
Back to Top