lichess.org
Donate

Any masters who started late

To the old fellows: I had my national peak in March 2019 being >30 years in business (DWZ 2188, which should be regarded somewhat „better“ as Elo).

We don’t think that you make it to FM level but, anyway - we wish you good luck! Viel Spassky!
@PixelatedParcel @Sarg0n Adults learning chess frankly don't seem to develop good board vision easily. They tend to blunder stuff more often compared to comparable rated players. They also tend to not learn tactics as well as kids.

To make a long story short. Its harder for Adults to see the board well and they don't seem to learn tactics nearly as well as kids. You dont go anywhere in chess unless you can conquer those 2 hurtles. However, people wont admit it so we get 28 pages of players denying it, when its pretty much true.
#268

I played and sometimes beat several titled players on here as I’m sure my profile would prove, and on chess dot com I have (same nickname) a bullet, I believe, victory over a GM and several titled players, as again I’m sure my profile would show. I believe I’m a very bad player, and probably got lucky or played VS very old ill GM, or both. The point is that letters next to someone’s name should not scare one and not make one think he can’t achieve that level.

Examples: not sure if I’m allowed to post chess dot com links to here, but there I played and sometimes beat a few more titled players.



@Timegod #271 I would be inclined to agree with you about the board vision comment in general. Perhaps a class of blunder is demonstrably a consequence of faulty board vision in adult players in general and improvers in particular. It certainly strikes me as a plausible hypothesis. Perhaps it has been put to the test and conclusions independently confirmed for us so that any speculation and conjecture can definitely be put to rest in this thread. So, I welcome anyone providing a link to a scientific study on the subject published in a peer-reviewed journal. Not that I am trying to be difficult, just that we all love to chime-in on this type of subject but, in the end, it is all unsubstantiated opinion unless irrefutable scientific facts are presented in support of what we put forward as "truth".

Readers may be interested to know - if they don't already - that a whole field of research on "expertise and expert performance" has developed not from work on sports but as a consequence of the pioneering research focused on how world-class chess players differed from local players in chess clubs. So, there is considerable scientific literature on the general subject and how it applies to the world of chess. books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=gl8nqUjyXWUC&oi=fnd&pg=PA49&dq=deliberate+practice+ericsson&ots=49PnQg28au&sig=xfjRhQEuOG9XWiRLr6BPwdAOe5w#v=onepage&q=deliberate%20practice%20ericsson&f=false

Having said that, blunders are ubiquitous in lower-rated play and though less frequent in higher-rated play, they still occur regularly. I have a whole book of "mates in 1" from master games in which in each variation, the losing player had a move to prevent the mate, but didn't. Hundreds upon hundreds of examples. www.chessable.com/the-unexpected-mate-in-1/course/19247/

More generally, I think blunderous play is what defines play under a certain rank, irrespective of age. I also think the vast majority of kids hit a ceiling and become those adults stuck at the same play for ages. In large part because of an inability to overcome the "egregious mistake and blunder-phase" of chess development. So, these kids and adults intermingle in those lower-rated classes of players and are just as adept at blundering, irrespective of whether 15 or 50, I believe.

I do, however, believe that tactical ability, unless one is endowed with a natural gift, is more difficult to pick up as humans age. So, the sub-class of blunders that are a consequence of missing a tactic or tactical opportunity would square with the age-related thing, I think. I don't think tactical improvement in adults is impossible, per se, but my feeling is the rate at which one can achieve a certain performance level (and perhaps the level one can reach) is a function of age and neuro-plasticity. I don't, however, think this is a limiting factor preventing an adult beginner from reaching expert-level play. There is, however, a veritable chasm between 2000 (FIDE or USCF) and 2300, as amply demonstrated by the numbers. Not at all comparable to the divide that separates 1000 from 1300.

But generally speaking, and I'm certain there are exceptions, I don't think we can reasonably argue against the proposition that those who progress to very elite levels of play have a combination of innate chess-talent, personality traits and material circumstances that allow them to focus on chess in a big, big way for many, many years, usually from childhood (like any world-class athlete) I would say, and perhaps very, very rarely from a certain point in adulthood.

Just ask any parent about how innately talented a child was in any given sport or field of endeavour but the financial and human resources just weren't there to keep that kid into elite sport or on track to the musical conservatory, etc. My godson is a gifted musician studying at the conservatory to be a concert pianist had he been born in our family, there is no way he would have had a Steinway piano in his home and a trust-fund established in his name. He would have been like my own four children: a sight-reading multi-instrumentalist who played in the school's stage and big bands and have moved on to different fields of study despite loving music.
Ok, there was some interest in my post so I will respond:

I am sure I will achieve 2200+ FIDE eventually if I simply play FIDE events whether I will get FM or IM eventually I do not know. By playing 10-15 FIDE games a year over last several years I have made slow progress.

Generally you can get to about the level your friends or the people around you get to without any special efforts. However, there is nobody local who is substantially higher rated than me to push me to the next level for me who I can play frequently and discuss ideas; the closest challenging player for me available to push me forward is IM @spinaltap on this site who I see infrequently b/c we have other distractions in our lives besides chess.

I have played many very strong and young players as well so I am familiar with their methods and I am very selective of the rare major tournaments I play although I often seem to fall a shade short of truly extraordinary results. My main goal is to learn and have fun and I play accordingly. I am very content to take calculated risks and try to play all sorts of positions and types of chess events and players looking to make long term gains. It really helps to have good physical fitness, concentration, and willingness to play all positions to their proper conclusion - and most importantly, to really enjoy what you do. I find that I outplay and get outplayed all the time in my games against players of all levels, and this is very encouraging for me - how far I have come and how much further I can still go in a positive sense.

I studied endgames and attacking chess quite a lot - I am very aware of openings options, but usually I am out of my book knowledge by move 10, and almost certainly out of book my move 15 in most of my games, and often much sooner. Probably the best knowledge I can think of is to create an advantage for yourself somewhere on the board and keep all the long term advantages for yourself as much as possible. Also have fresh, new, exciting ideas and goals for yourself that you really want to play or actualize step-by-step!

There is a preparation aspect to over the board chess where you can really equalize your chances against much better players in major events. Make things as easy for yourself as possible and as difficult for your opponent - be open to good suggestions and cut out negative aspects and anybody can do just ok. Chess is an information game if you have better information and deductive reasoning you can outplay anyone; many players have lots of holes in their chess, all that is required is to play better than your opponent. Learning is an (inter)active process so use those tools you have to maximum effect. Success is a product of (among other aspects) attitude, resources and circumstance.

Mentally I am obviously a bit all over the map and animated; well, that's what I think anyway - all the best in your chess. I use the lichess study feature and chessable to read a few books, and play through some annotated games and commentaries in positions but have not really done much else for my chess - and I suspect having a constructive social chess atmosphere to exchange ideas is the best thing once you have good fundamentals, recall some strong players implying as much. Having a good memory and a sharp mind is a major plus too, not necessarily for memorization of moves but to remember ideas and plans and tricks of/in similar positions at the right moments.

The largest obstacle for adults is sometimes the lack of flexibility in terms of realistic expectations; they seem to me more easily frustrated (you need the ability to let bad experiences go) and certainly rely more on their instincts or experience than children. I have read a lot of literature and studies on chess, learning and mistakes, played freestyle and correspondence chess and have discussed methods with players of all levels including top levels, everything helps a bit although my methods for myself are certainly inefficient; the most efficient course would be to constantly challenge myself against players of slightly to moderately higher level and learn from them.

Really in short, though I was a much better soccer player than chess player and applied my techniques to mastery of fundamental soccer skills to chess, working on all facets of my game, engaging in different aspects of my game using a variety of techniques and mediums; the most essential part to living is to never be bored or boring. You can see clearly that top players play enterprising chess, of course there is some pattern recognition, but I guess that's why they can succeed at chess960 too.
@Kusokosla It doesn't settle it. It proves the point more. No one starts from scratch in 20s and goes on to be a Master. 1700 at 19 is not sratch (if that was even a genuine rating for him at the time) .
#277

1700 shouldn’t count as starting serious study of chess. 1700 is like an “average Russian school boy” who was taught by his dad and played casually in school since no video games existed.

I feel unusual amount of hostility from the “you can’t do it” crowd. As an example; you accused a titled player member of this forum of potentially lying. Because what he said doesn’t fit the “you can’t do it” narrative.

Let’s chill and enjoy the game.

@Kusokosla thanks for responding with the games. I hope you do not regard it as unfair when I say that 1+0 bullet chess is an arena which is full of blunders and premove gambles which go wrong (where else is 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Bh6!? a legitimate opening strategy!) and so not a good basis to generalise about how well GMs or IMs understand the game.

Also, I think you underrate 1700 (understood as FIDE ELO or FIDE-equivalent slow play strength). When I was a kid (late 80s/early 90s) this is the sort of strength that could be competitive for a medal in the World U10 championship, or (depending on the strength of the age group) could have a chance of winning a national (UK) championship up to about U12. There are adults who play chess regularly and never reach this strength.

Treating it as equivalent to 1800-1900 lichess blitz, it already makes someone better than ~80% of people on this site - who are a self-selected group of chess enthusiasts, much better than the general population at chess.

Kids of course get better now faster, with the internet, databases and chess engines. But 1700 is still way above the level reached by casual games at any ordinary school, even a Russian one.

(and just to show I am not trying to hide examples that might invalidate what I think: Jonathan Hawkins is another similar example to John Shaw, with an ECF grade of 102 ~ FIDE 1450 at age 14, 158 ~ FIDE 1800 at age 19 and now a GM)

IMO, you are generalising incorrectly from your own experience - to start as an adult and have the blitz/bullet ratings you do, you have high levels of natural talent, and you are in the tail of the Bell curve as to what is possible starting as an adult.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.