i wanna be a professional player . please help me
Sort:
...well, if you are thinking about becoming a chess pro, then the first thing (and the most important) you need to do is research...find out all you can about the life of a pro chess player...how much studying, travelling, costs, risks, family sacrifices, aptitude needed etc. Understand that most people who have started on this same journey that you are contemplating have not succeeded...
...if after you have done all your research, and still the hunger burns for the torment of a chess pro...only then should you begin your journey...
...most teenagers are at a "feeling out" stage of their lives where they are seeking meaningful direction...but one has to do the ground work first to determine whether one has the "it", that is required in any profession.
I believe this process is the most important...understanding whether one has all the necessary ingredients needed to achieve the objective...if the answer is yes...then we can proceed to the next step...and so we can systematically "find" the "best fit" for our careers...
...all the other micro issues of training, hours, coaches, focus etc. can be easily worked out, gotten, learnt etc...but the macro issue of determining whether your make up suits the profession you seek is the heart of the decision process...
All the Best.
Kinan wrote:
Give me a break, who said if he is not good enough during his teenage years he won't be great player in the future.
Any person can be the best player in the world even if he starts at 50.
This is simply not true.
The top ranks of chess are stuffed with people at the very far right edge of the bell curve for intelligence. This means that no matter how smart you are, you're not going to have any kind of advantage over them in terms of raw processing power.
So the deciding factor becomes practice time spent. There's simply no catching up with guys in your same age group who are at least as smart and talented as you, are already dedicating themselves to the game full-time, and have decades of experience on you already.
Clouseau741 wrote:
It is wrongly put.It's not about intelligence.Kasparov himself said that chess is 95% training and 5% talent.The differences between the top players are actually very small and they are mostly of emotional discipline's nature.I have said it a lot of times , chess is not the sport of the smart as many think but the sport of the emotionally strong.
The point is that if training is of so much importance,starting it as early as possible is of utmost importance.Today the players that are going to be the best are grandmasters at 16(even sooner), they don't start at 16 and the problem is that these years cannot be recovered whatever you do since they are the best "learning" years a person can have.
If you are 16 and you say you won't to be a gymnastics champion(without ever training before at it) , every coach will tell you that it's not going to happen even if you are in great physical state.You simply can't compete with those who started at 3 or 4.Chess unfortunately as a sport is extremely demanding.Even if you start at 4 you may end up like Joss Waitzkin( a great talent lost).
Thousands start at 3 or 4 and never become anything but average, there is noone at modern chess history that started at 16 and became a top player.Doesn't that say something?Even if someone does, he will be one among thousands that tried and the level of commitment and "outside" help needed(meaning infinite amount of money)is simply enormous.If you don't have both , simply forget it.
I would very much like to think that a kid can start at 13 or 14, with no money , take his backpack full of dreams,hitchhike to Europe , find a job ,meet a beggar (that happens to be someone like Karpov) that will train him for free, train hard and become a top player.This could be a good movie scenario but nothing else. I'm afraid good fairies that can transpose mice to horses and Cinderella to a princess don't exist in real life.Real life is tough and unforgiving.
Shahin ,find something to do in your life, keep chess just to relax and simply enjoy any improvement you can have.You can be very good but don't ask for more and don't believe your life can depend on chess.
thank you very much . Do you agree that I should get out of my country?
But I cant get out of my country now . and also Im not sure that in future I will go to Europe or no . !!!!!!!
There is no such thing as talent, not in chess, not in music, not in anything, it's a myth and a very bad myth which put off anyone dreaming to be great in something.
Shahin, you don't have to leave your country now, it's ridiculous, just improve as much as you can now with help of internet and then when you become very strong you can participate in internation tournaments. Most tournamnts organaizors would send you an invitation to sort your visa out even before you pay the entry fee.
The whole "You can start at age 50 and become the best, that isn't a problem" is a really bad argument.
Kasparov had his peak rating when he was 36 years old.
Karpov had his peak rating at age 43.
Fischer had his peak rating at age 29.
Spassky, peaked at age 34.
Vladimir Kramnik, at age 27.
Mikhail Botvinnik is the only exception I can find in the past 50 years. He had his peak rating at age 60, and won the World Chess Championship in 1961 at age 50.
It's pretty clear that by age 50, chess players are on a downward slide, even if they are still playing competitive chess. Starting at age 50 with the expectation that you'll be a top player is simply ignoring facts. The few examples of very strong chess players starting "late" are examples where they start at age 15 or 20, not at age 40 or 50.
Kinan wrote:
There is no such thing as talent, not in chess, not in music, not in anything, it's a myth and a very bad myth which put off anyone dreaming to be great in something.
Based on that, if you just started running every day, you could be the fastest man in the world. After all, there isn't any talent needed, you just need to practice.
Anyone could become a professional NFL quarterback making millions a year, because there is no talent needed.
And anyone can become the best chess player ever, becauseu there is no talent needed.
Everyone has the same mental and physical capabilities - we are all created exactly even.
Sorry, I don't think that's a very good argument.
Jul 9, 2011
0
#69
wannabe pro chess player
hopefully its just a fad and you will soon be cured
>:)
yes, if you run everyday, practiced everyday and invented new ways and methods that fits your body every while then you can be the fastest person on Earth.
Some people are raised in a way that gives them advantage over other people in specific areas, it doesn't mean that others can't catch up with them.
Maybe I am dreamer but I live everything is possible, you should just find your own plan and way in practicing which triggers your development in the best way possible.
Train hard shouldn't be the only advise, you have to add "train smart" to it.
Even creativity can be taught and acquired.
While it's true I'm never going to be a great athlete, I take solace in the fact that there's no chess gene
I think if you want to become a good chess player you should buy a premium membership if you dont have one and use tactics trainer which will improve your game. I've talked to a lot of people that have used tactic trainer and I have heard it really improved their game. From then on you should study openings and endgames. Eventually read some books on chess!Hope that helps 
Soulslayer wrote:
I think if you want to become a good chess player you should buy a premium membership if you dont have one and use tactics trainer which will improve your game. I've talked to a lot of people that have used tactic trainer and I have heard it really improved their game. From then on you should study openings and endgames. Eventually read some books on chess!Hope that helps
You're a membership but your rating ... . anyway thanks .
U can learn by yourself though..... determination...perseverance and nvr ever give up..... but sure ...u need someone to teach u... ive learned chess by myself but I learned something from few ppl i know who could help me to improve... ...watching your opponent's moves and other's games could really help....=) oh yeah...and also solving chess puzzles....
I dont think anyone is saying you MUST leave your country to become a chess professional/GM . What I am saying ( and I believe others are also ) is that if thats your dream/goal it will be easier to achieve in Europe than anywhere else in the world because Europe has many events in which IM and GM norms are possible. How many such events exist in Iran ?
Reb wrote:
People that talk about poker never mention how much the " buy ins" ( entry fees ) are for big poker tournaments nor how much many people have LOST playing poker, I wonder why that is ?
That's because those that win win big, and those that lose simply quit and learn a valuable lesson. It's not like people lose their life-savings or anything...
Reb wrote:
I dont think anyone is saying you MUST leave your country to become a chess professional/GM . What I am saying ( and I believe others are also ) is that if thats your dream/goal it will be easier to achieve in Europe than anywhere else in the world because Europe has many events in which IM and GM norms are possible. How many such events exist in Iran ?
Yes I agree with you that its easier , but pay attention . Europe is not a country . It's a continent . And a continent has many countries ! But Iran is just one country . Do you compare one country with one continent with many countries ?!!! And also we have Ehsan ghaem maghami in our country who has the guines record . Isnt it ?
Yes , I know Europe is not one country but most who go to Europe for chess purposes like you have travel to and play in several countries. If you want me to name just one country then its your turn to pay attention : SPAIN ! It dont matter how good your best player(s) is/are in Iran they alone can never get you the GM title as you must make norms in tournaments in which there are GMs from at least 3 different fedeartions. How many tournaments a year does Iran have in which a GM norm is possible ? How about an IM norm ?
Baldr wrote:
The whole "You can start at age 50 and become the best, that isn't a problem" is a really bad argument.
Kasparov had his peak rating when he was 36 years old.
Karpov had his peak rating at age 43.
Fischer had his peak rating at age 29.
Spassky, peaked at age 34.
Vladimir Kramnik, at age 27.
Mikhail Botvinnik is the only exception I can find in the past 50 years. He had his peak rating at age 60, and won the World Chess Championship in 1961 at age 50.
It's pretty clear that by age 50, chess players are on a downward slide, even if they are still playing competitive chess. Starting at age 50 with the expectation that you'll be a top player is simply ignoring facts. The few examples of very strong chess players starting "late" are examples where they start at age 15 or 20, not at age 40 or 50.
and what about alekhine? you could argue he was strongest when he was the verry oldest, than no1 could beat him. At least when he was verry old there was no1 who could beat him.