To late to become good at chess?

i started last year to play seriously after a 9 year break ( i'm 18 now) and i have gone from 1100 to 1600 too late for me?

Fascinating article on this theme at http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=00010347-101C-14C1-8F9E83414B7F4945

Also see: http://www.chessville.com/instruction/instr_gen_path_to_improve.htm

Supports the theory, I think, that you can become very strong playing from any age (but not that you wouldn't have become stronger from playing from a young age).

Chess is different from language-learning in that the brain has a specific system to learn languages which only operates in infancy (as implied in an earlier post). It also differs from playing a musical instrument in that learning the latter involves becoming proficient with specific motor skills which also can be learned much easier in infancy. (Studies have shown that a virtuoso violinist has a larger portion of her brain devoted to the operation of the fingers on her left hand than ordinary mortals.) The skills needed for chess - performing mental spatial manipulations plus being able to think logically and strategically - I suspect are a bit more general, so adult learning may be a bit easier.

But yes, intensive training from an early age is the only way to become extremely good.

Originally posted by masscat
Jeff Sonas’ Chessmetrics website lists historical rating calculations for everybody who was anybody and is worth a visit. Staunton is listed at about 2700.

When Paul Morphy made his tour of europe, Staunton was the man he wanted to play to prove his dominance. Even though Staunton was past his prime and had been overshadowed by Adolf Anderssen, Staunton's reputation was still such that he was considered one of the big guns in europe.

Just realised that Scott made exactly the same points as me, and better expressed - sorry Scott.

But I can't agree with his conclusion - I think it must still be somewhat easier to learn as a child.

Originally posted by masscat
Jeff Sonas’ Chessmetrics website lists historical rating calculations for everybody who was anybody and is worth a visit. Staunton is listed at about 2700.

As far as I can tell the formula used by Sonas assumes that the players ranked from #3 to #20 in his historical lists have the same average rating. This means that the players ranked 3rd to 20th in January 1840 would have exactly the same average rating as those ranked 3rd to 20th in January 2006.

I can well believe that Staunton was the best player in the world for some time in the 1840s, but that doesn't mean he would hold his own against a typical 2700 rated player today.

I'm afraid I don't think that the players before 1900 were anywhere near as good as those after 1900, and I think the players around today are the strongest ever.

it is said that some of the grandmasters of the 1800's only had the strength of a 2100 or 2200 player today.

Originally posted by Fat Lady
As far as I can tell the formula used by Sonas assumes that the players ranked from #3 to #20 in his historical lists have the same average rating. This means that the players ranked 3rd to 20th in January 1840 would have exactly the same average rating as those ranked 3rd to 20th in January 2006.

I can well believe that Staunton was the best player in t ear as good as those after 1900, and I think the players around today are the strongest ever.

I would agree; I just thought it was an interesting site. As Prof. Elo, himself, said, ratings measure results, not ability. Google Claude Bloodgood and read how he became one of the highest rated players in the US by manipulating the system.

I always thought Bloodgood got a raw deal there. He warned the people in charge of the grading system in the US about the inherent weakness in the system (*), then got penalised years later when it turned out he was right. It's not as though he had much control over the people who were available for him to play chess against!

(*) I may have this wrong, but my understanding is that new players to his prison tournaments were given some sort of starting rating of, say, 1200, even if they barely knew how to play. Their rating points would then be gobbled up by those players who could play well (of which Bloodgood was the strongest).

Originally posted by kmac27
it is said that some of the grandmasters of the 1800's only had the strength of a 2100 or 2200 player today.

Whoever says that is full of carp.

Originally posted by Fat Lady
I always thought Bloodgood got a raw deal there. He warned the people in charge of the grading system in the US about the inherent weakness in the system (*), then got penalised years later when it turned out he was right. It's not as though he had much control over the people who were available for him to play chess against!

(*) I may have this wrong, b ...[text shortened]... then be gobbled up by those players who could play well (of which Bloodgood was the strongest).

It's streaching my memory to say how the rating system worked in those days, but I do know when I started, 1200 was the lowest your rating could go. They did have some open tmts at the penitentiary where anybody could play, and he was escorted to a few outside tmts. It would be interesting to try to find some of his games, if any, where he beat strong masters. I've seen a few where he beat relatively weak players.

Originally posted by Saemi
Just realised that Scott made exactly the same points as me, and better expressed - sorry Scott.

But I can't agree with his conclusion - I think it must still be somewhat easier to learn as a child.

No problem. We agree on language acquisition vs. chess. It would interesting to compare, for example, a 10 year old and a 30 year old both learning chess for the first time, exposed to an equal number of hours of training and the same instruction. I would guess that in the beginning the adult would progress faster since his/her abstract reasoning skills would be more developed, but that's obviously just speculation on my part. In fact, this is also seen in language acquisition. When both children and adults are exposed to language instruction, the adult tends to learn more quickly initially, but the child will ultimately reach a higher level. Anyway, I guess I'm just hoping that adults can still master chess, since I didn't discover it until I was 33 :-).

Scott

i've found it easier to learn chess now than when i was 8 or 9. i try to teach my cousins but they never pick up anything.

A good article on expertise:

http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=00010347-101C-14C1-8F9E83414B7F4945

According to it John Nunn had examined games played 1911 and 1993 and found out that the overall level of play was way better -93.

- bahus