What's the point of achieving a high rating anyway? In the end chess is just a game, unless you're trying to go pro (and I'd say the chance of that happening is next to none). Stop trying to work hard studying A GAME. I have never studied a single thing about chess because I don't want to work for my fun. Everyone nowadays try too hard at everything, which is just making things harder for everyone and increasing the competition. In the end, the determining factor between top players is never hard work. It is always talent because anyone can work hard. Is life even worth living when you have to work hard to work and work hard to have fun?
This thread has some of the more ignorant responses I've seen, but I suppose the question sort of warranted it. I'm just going to ignore responding like a broken record to all the ratings-related commentary, since these threads are becoming a daily thing.
Instead I will actually attempt to answer the OP's question (what a novel idea).
Regardless of rating if your goal is to become a professional player, I'd say there's no reason you couldn't with enough drive and focus reach GM level some day. However, the problem will be two-fold. First, since you haven't trained to be a pro from an early age, it will take a long time to push yourself up through the ranks to qualify for tournaments and begin earning your norms. It's much easier to become a NM if you have established yourself in juniors. It's much easier to get your norms for IM if you're already a NM. And until you're an IM you won't be earning GM norms. That's why the top level professional players are generally young. The second problem is that as you get older, it is often harder on your body to play lengthy classical matches that require you to sit and think for hours. So once you reach a high level and start traveling to tournaments, playing lengthy matches for days on end, and then off to travel again -- all combined of course with your promotional schedule (exhibitions, lectures, instruction, website, books, whatever you do to pay the bills along the way) -- will begin to exert a great deal of wear and tear on your body.
There are of course GMs that are still top notch into their late 40s and even 50s. But the reality is in terms of professional play, this is a young man's game now. Gone are the days of the elderly sages dominating with their vast experience. Today it's possible to dedicate your childhood to gaining that same degree of focused chess experience by the age of 20. But I wouldn't let all this deter you. If you dedicate enough time and have the right motivation and some raw talent and mental aptitude for the game, I say go for it!
Instead I will actually attempt to answer the OP's question (what a novel idea).
Regardless of rating if your goal is to become a professional player, I'd say there's no reason you couldn't with enough drive and focus reach GM level some day. However, the problem will be two-fold. First, since you haven't trained to be a pro from an early age, it will take a long time to push yourself up through the ranks to qualify for tournaments and begin earning your norms. It's much easier to become a NM if you have established yourself in juniors. It's much easier to get your norms for IM if you're already a NM. And until you're an IM you won't be earning GM norms. That's why the top level professional players are generally young. The second problem is that as you get older, it is often harder on your body to play lengthy classical matches that require you to sit and think for hours. So once you reach a high level and start traveling to tournaments, playing lengthy matches for days on end, and then off to travel again -- all combined of course with your promotional schedule (exhibitions, lectures, instruction, website, books, whatever you do to pay the bills along the way) -- will begin to exert a great deal of wear and tear on your body.
There are of course GMs that are still top notch into their late 40s and even 50s. But the reality is in terms of professional play, this is a young man's game now. Gone are the days of the elderly sages dominating with their vast experience. Today it's possible to dedicate your childhood to gaining that same degree of focused chess experience by the age of 20. But I wouldn't let all this deter you. If you dedicate enough time and have the right motivation and some raw talent and mental aptitude for the game, I say go for it!
@static_shadow
I don't see how you can act so arrogant when you don't even have that high of a rating yourself. You're asking someone to dedicate years of their life into becoming a pro, at which point chess may already be a solved game (and what the heck is he going to do for a living before he becomes pro?). And you aren't even answering his question. In nowhere in his post does he say he wants to be a pro. He's just asking for a rating, which you did not even provide in your post. Just because you're one of the fanatics who like to work hard their entire life for meager gains, don't tell everyone else to waste their life with you. What does hard work in chess accomplish anyway? You cannot hope to memorize every single position and in the end you have to rely on your latent mental capacities to evaluate the positioning and correct move.
I don't see how you can act so arrogant when you don't even have that high of a rating yourself. You're asking someone to dedicate years of their life into becoming a pro, at which point chess may already be a solved game (and what the heck is he going to do for a living before he becomes pro?). And you aren't even answering his question. In nowhere in his post does he say he wants to be a pro. He's just asking for a rating, which you did not even provide in your post. Just because you're one of the fanatics who like to work hard their entire life for meager gains, don't tell everyone else to waste their life with you. What does hard work in chess accomplish anyway? You cannot hope to memorize every single position and in the end you have to rely on your latent mental capacities to evaluate the positioning and correct move.
I retired some five years ago after not having played for decades because of to much work. Nowadays it´s a nice hobby and competion has always been an important part in my life. However I must admitt that age plays an immense role in achieving good results in chess. I never heard about grandmasters aged 60-70 or more. It´s also a big advantage if you have started to play at an early age like most of the big names like Lasker, Fisher among others. Even if I lost a lot of strength since my younger years the fascination of chess is still there and I enjoy the game on my own level (+/- 100-200 in rating). There is no game to my knowledge that offers such a large variaty of possibities. Interaction of pieces,
planning, basic knowledge about openings and last not least patience means a lot. Personally I prefer classic chess with a reasonable time frame. A good game needs time for evaluation and planning. To sharpen my concentration at my age I have decided not to allow or ask for take backs. After all chess is a nice
game a high rating is not the most important aspect in chess.LICHESS is the best place to play chess and meet interesting people.
planning, basic knowledge about openings and last not least patience means a lot. Personally I prefer classic chess with a reasonable time frame. A good game needs time for evaluation and planning. To sharpen my concentration at my age I have decided not to allow or ask for take backs. After all chess is a nice
game a high rating is not the most important aspect in chess.LICHESS is the best place to play chess and meet interesting people.
Rain, I did not provide a rating, because as it's been pointed out 100 times on these forums already, ratings are RELATIVE to the people you play against. There is no way to really determine what someone's possible highest rating will be because depending on their player pool they could end up at 1800 against a highly competitive pool or 2100 against a weaker pool. I did not ASK him to become a pro, however, someone who doesn't dedicate their life to tournament preparation and obtaining norms and so forth will not likely ever receive a "high rating" by FIDE standards because the highest rated players are doing just that, and in order to reach their level of rating, you'll eventually have to start playing them somehow.
While it's trust that the OP could simply hope to have a high online chess rating at lichess, when someone generally talks about dedicating 30+ hours a week to a game, and inquires about rating plateaus and the like, it sounds to me they are looking at the idea of turning it into a career, not just a hobby, at which case they're inquiring about the highest their FIDE rating might become. So indeed, YES, I did answer his question.
Furthermore, my rating on lichess, the liklihood or lack therof of chess ever being "solved," nor anyone's ability to memorize positions is all irrelevant to both the OP's question and my response. Learn to construct a logical argument or go troll somewhere else.
While it's trust that the OP could simply hope to have a high online chess rating at lichess, when someone generally talks about dedicating 30+ hours a week to a game, and inquires about rating plateaus and the like, it sounds to me they are looking at the idea of turning it into a career, not just a hobby, at which case they're inquiring about the highest their FIDE rating might become. So indeed, YES, I did answer his question.
Furthermore, my rating on lichess, the liklihood or lack therof of chess ever being "solved," nor anyone's ability to memorize positions is all irrelevant to both the OP's question and my response. Learn to construct a logical argument or go troll somewhere else.
Typo in second paragraph:
*While it's trust that...
should read:
While it's true that...
*While it's trust that...
should read:
While it's true that...
#13
"You're asking someone to dedicate years of their life into becoming a pro, at which point chess may already be a solved game"
I know static_shadow pointed out that ratings are a relative thing, but time must be *really* relative for you if you're going to perceive sufficiently tremendous leaps in (possibly) quantum computing as fair comparison to one dedicating years of their life to going pro.
Thanks for the laugh, I really needed it.
"You're asking someone to dedicate years of their life into becoming a pro, at which point chess may already be a solved game"
I know static_shadow pointed out that ratings are a relative thing, but time must be *really* relative for you if you're going to perceive sufficiently tremendous leaps in (possibly) quantum computing as fair comparison to one dedicating years of their life to going pro.
Thanks for the laugh, I really needed it.
RainOfMeteors: "What does hard work in chess accomplish anyway?"
Arguably if you're lucky enough, you could play random moves every move and never lose! But for the mere mortals among us, it's difficult to improve at chess without study and discipline.
Arguably if you're lucky enough, you could play random moves every move and never lose! But for the mere mortals among us, it's difficult to improve at chess without study and discipline.
@static_shadow
In nowhere did you mention there being any limits or plateaus. You did not even answer what his final status would be even relative to the others. A proper answer would be pointing out that he might achieve grandmaster but would never become the world champion or the like. But I'm guessing since you didn't mention anything, in your mind, everyone can become the world champion if they simply put in enough hard work.
You come in here telling everyone they're ignorant and you're saying I'M the one trolling? I would not have even commented on your reply if you didn't act like you were above everyone from the moment you entered the topic. Why don't you come up with a logical argument?
Those points are completely relevant if someone is to become pro. If you're not even a pro yourself, you in no position to comment on the competitive scene or whether someone can make it. And chess being solved is completely within the realm of possibility and would affect the competitive scene. And the last point was a question directed on you. If you thought that hard work is so important what does it accomplish? I've made major blunders in chess where I completely overlook obvious attacks on my pieces and I cannot simply imagine waking up one day and not making these mistakes simply because I put in hard work.
@AdmiralA
I didn't say that it was definitely going to happen, but simply mention it as a possibility. You're rejecting any possibility of it happening and such narrow-minded ignorance is laughable as well.
@ Toadofsky
I was making a comment on talent being more important than hard work in chess, not saying that hard work does absolutely nothing.
In nowhere did you mention there being any limits or plateaus. You did not even answer what his final status would be even relative to the others. A proper answer would be pointing out that he might achieve grandmaster but would never become the world champion or the like. But I'm guessing since you didn't mention anything, in your mind, everyone can become the world champion if they simply put in enough hard work.
You come in here telling everyone they're ignorant and you're saying I'M the one trolling? I would not have even commented on your reply if you didn't act like you were above everyone from the moment you entered the topic. Why don't you come up with a logical argument?
Those points are completely relevant if someone is to become pro. If you're not even a pro yourself, you in no position to comment on the competitive scene or whether someone can make it. And chess being solved is completely within the realm of possibility and would affect the competitive scene. And the last point was a question directed on you. If you thought that hard work is so important what does it accomplish? I've made major blunders in chess where I completely overlook obvious attacks on my pieces and I cannot simply imagine waking up one day and not making these mistakes simply because I put in hard work.
@AdmiralA
I didn't say that it was definitely going to happen, but simply mention it as a possibility. You're rejecting any possibility of it happening and such narrow-minded ignorance is laughable as well.
@ Toadofsky
I was making a comment on talent being more important than hard work in chess, not saying that hard work does absolutely nothing.
That's true! By studying chess and dedicating time to it can not always give good results as it depends on our opponent too.
If we have a good position [ say 2 pawns up] against an opponent whose rating is more than ours, we can not be fully sure about winning. Though it depends on the time too, I say that our opponent could defeat us in seconds! By the way, chess is a game not life, we do not need to take it to seriously.
If we have a good position [ say 2 pawns up] against an opponent whose rating is more than ours, we can not be fully sure about winning. Though it depends on the time too, I say that our opponent could defeat us in seconds! By the way, chess is a game not life, we do not need to take it to seriously.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.