I think you can achieve whatever level you want as long as you don't give up and work very hard. Some people will tell you that you're too old to succeed but I believe that 99 percent of fails are due to lack of discipline, lack of time to practice, losing interest in the game, etc, and not due to age.
I am 29 years old I just started playing chess, what level can I achieve ?
Sort:
Possibly of interest:
"... the NM title is an honor that only one percent of USCF members attain. ..." - IM John Donaldson (2015)
http://www.jeremysilman.com/shop/pc/Reaching-the-Top-77p3905.htm
What It Takes to Become a Chess Master by Andrew Soltis
"... going from good at tactics to great at tactics ... doesn't translate into much greater strength. ... You need a relatively good memory to reach average strength. But a much better memory isn't going to make you a master. ... there's a powerful law of diminishing returns in chess calculation, ... Your rating may have been steadily rising when suddenly it stops. ... One explanation for the wall is that most players got to where they are by learning how to not lose. ... Mastering chess ... requires a new set of skills and traits. ... Many of these attributes are kinds of know-how, such as understanding when to change the pawn structure or what a positionally won game looks like and how to deal with it. Some are habits, like always looking for targets. Others are refined senses, like recognizing a critical middlegame moment or feeling when time is on your side and when it isn't. ..." - GM Andrew Soltis (2012)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708093409/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review857.pdf
100 Chess Master Trade Secrets by Andrew Soltis
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708094523/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review916.pdf
Reaching the Top?! by Peter Kurzdorfer
"... On the one hand, your play needs to be purposeful much of the time; the ability to navigate through many different types of positions needs to be yours; your ability to calculate variations and find candidate moves needs to be present in at least an embryonic stage. On the other hand, it will be heart-warming and perhaps inspiring to realize that you do not need to give up blunders or misconceptions or a poor memory or sloppy calculating habits; that you do not need to know all the latest opening variations, or even know what they are called. You do not have to memorize hundreds of endgame positions or instantly recognize the proper procedure in a variety of pawn structures.
[To play at a master level consistently] is not an easy task, to be sure ..., but it is a possible one. ..." - NM Peter Kurzdorfer (2015)
http://www.thechessmind.net/blog/2015/11/16/book-notice-kurzdorfers-reaching-the-top.html
http://www.jeremysilman.com/shop/pc/Reaching-the-Top-77p3905.htm
"Yes, you can easily become a master. All you need to do is some serious, focused work on your play.
That 'chess is 99% tactics and blah-blah' thing is crap. Chess is several things (opening, endgame, middlegame strategy, positional play, tactics, psychology, time management...) which should be treated properly as a whole. getting just one element of lay and working exclusively on it is of very doubtful value, and at worst it may well turn out being a waste of time." - IM pfren (August 21, 2017)
"Every now and then someone advances the idea that one may gain success in chess by using shortcuts. 'Chess is 99% tactics' - proclaims one expert, suggesting that strategic understanding is overrated; 'Improvement in chess is all about opening knowledge' - declares another. A third self-appointed authority asserts that a thorough knowledge of endings is the key to becoming a master; while his expert-friend is puzzled by the mere thought that a player can achieve anything at all without championing pawn structures.
To me, such statements seem futile. You can't hope to gain mastery of any subject by specializing in only parts of it. ..." - FM Amatzia Avni (2008)
https://www.chess.com/article/view/can-anyone-be-an-im-or-gm
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/kids-fight-stereotypes-using-chess-in-rural-mississippi/
http://brooklyncastle.com/
https://www.chess.com/article/view/don-t-worry-about-your-rating
https://www.chess.com/article/view/am-i-too-old-for-chess
https://www.chess.com/article/view/how-can-older-players-improve
Train Like a Grandmaster by Kotov
Becoming a Grandmaster by Keene
What It Takes to Become a Grandmaster by GM Andrew Soltis
"BENJAMIN FINEGOLD (born Sep-06-1969 ...) ... Ben became a USCF Life Master at 15, USCF Senior Master at 16, an International Master in 1989, and achieved his final GM norm at the SPICE Cup B Section in September, 2009. ..."
http://www.chessgames.com/player/benjamin_finegold.html
"MARK IZRAILOVICH DVORETSKY (... died Sep-26-2016 ...) ... He was ... awarded the IM title in 1975. Dvoretsky was also a FIDE Senior Trainer and noted author. ... During the 1970s, Mark was widely regarded by the strongest IM in the world, ..."
http://www.chessgames.com/player/mark_izrailovich_dvoretsky.html
"To become a grandmaster is very difficult and can take quite a long time! ... you need to ... solve many exercises, analyse your games, study classic games, modern games, have an opening repertoire and so on. Basically, it is hard work ... It takes a lot more than just reading books to become a grandmaster I am afraid." - GM Artur Yusupov (2013)
http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/ebooks/QandAwithArturYusupovQualityChessAugust2013.pdf
https://www.chess.com/blog/smurfo/book-review-insanity-passion-and-addiction
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/09/26/books/books-of-the-times-when-the-child-chess-genius-becomes-the-pawn.html
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2017/05/05/making-a-living-in-chess-is-tough-but-the-internet-is-making-it-easier/#4284e4814850
https://www.chess.com/news/view/is-there-good-money-in-chess-1838
"... Many aspiring young chess players dream of one day becoming a grandmaster and a professional. ... But ... a profession must bring in at least a certain regular income even if one is not too demanding. ... The usual prize money in Open tournaments is meagre. ... The higher the prizes, the greater the competition. ... With a possibly not very high and irregular income for several decades the amount of money one can save for old age remains really modest. ... Anyone who wants to reach his maximum must concentrate totally on chess. That involves important compromises with or giving up on his education. ... it is a question of personal life planning and when deciding it is necessary to be fully conscious of the various possibilities, limitations and risks. ... a future professional must really love chess and ... be prepared to work very hard for it. ... It is all too frequent that a wrong evaluation is made of what a talented player can achieve. ... Most players have the potential for a certain level; once they have reached it they can only make further progress with a great effort. ... anyone who is unlikely to attain a high playing strength should on no account turn professional. ... Anyone who does not meet these top criteria can only try to earn his living with public appearances, chess publishing or activity as a trainer. But there is a lack of offers and these are not particularly well paid. For jobs which involve appearing in public, moreover, certain non-chess qualities are required. ... a relevant 'stage presence' and required sociability. ... All these jobs and existences, moreover, have hanging above them the sword of Damocles of general economic conditions. ... around [age] 40 chess players ... find that their performances are noticeably tailing off. ..." - from a 12 page chapter on becoming a chess professional in the book, Luther's Chess Reformation by GM Thomas Luther (2016)
http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/ebooks/LuthersChessReformation-excerpt.pdf
chessiono wrote:
Hi,
I am a beginner at chess I like the tactical spirit of the game.
I regret that I discovered this game at 28 yo, I saw in the internet that the younger you start the easier you can achieve an advanced level in chess.
My question is, at 28 yo should keep hope of becoming a very good player (IM for instance) in the future ?
I am a beginner at chess I like the tactical spirit of the game.
I regret that I discovered this game at 28 yo, I saw in the internet that the younger you start the easier you can achieve an advanced level in chess.
My question is, at 28 yo should keep hope of becoming a very good player (IM for instance) in the future ?
Beginning your chess journey by setting an arbitrary rank as your goal is a waste of time. Everybody here wants to "level up" as fast as possible, as if that is the only thing that matters. Pick a great player from the past and try to emulate (or at least learn from) his or her style of play. Play through famous games and let the game teach itself to you. In this way you will fall in love with chess, and you will see your skill grow automatically.
It all depends on your level of dedication and potential, Just as long as you have fun and don’t overwork yourself you should be fine.
Sep 3, 2022
0
#7
I started off aged 28 three years ago, rated 600. I am now 2100.
I think a goal of "expert" is sensible to have.
International Master is not impossible, but you'll need to be dedicated, if not obsessed with study for probably 5-7 years to reach it.
Most adults don't have the time - but if you do, I wouldn't write anything off!
Sure there will be people claiming you can reach over 2000 rating and maybe even get a title like FM, but realistically you will be competing with children and teenagers whose brains are still rapidly developing and capable of absorbing information like a sponge, so in terms of mental acuity you will be out-calculated and beaten repeatedly before you can actually start winning. Even then I think your progress will depend on your motivation but you have to understand the competition is fierce.
Sep 3, 2022
0
#9
The most important chess "talents" are visualization--the ability to accurately see what something (in this case a chess position) will look like after a number of changes have been made--and visual memory--the ability to recall exactly something you have seen before. If you are in the top 1/100th of 1% of people in these categories you should be able to reach IM strength despite your late start.
Of course children engrain what they learn in a deeper level of their brains than adults, so those with equal talent that started young will outperform you. Some people (for example Capablanca, Morphy, Reshevsky) learned the game at a tender age and with just a little coaching were GM strength by age 10 or 12. Talent matters--don't believe those who say that if you work hard enough for long enough you WILL succeed.
Of course, for most of us normal people, we play because we like it. So play some, learn a bit and don't worry about how high your rating might become.
Sep 3, 2022
0
#11
Kraig wrote:
I started off aged 28 three years ago, rated 600. I am now 2100.
I think a goal of "expert" is sensible to have.
International Master is not impossible, but you'll need to be dedicated, if not obsessed with study for probably 5-7 years to reach it.
Most adults don't have the time - but if you do, I wouldn't write anything off!
That's impressive beyond imagination! You could have been a GM if you started earlier.
My answer to the OP. You can improve, that's all that matters. If you enjoy playing and studying chess, you'll certainly get much stronger. How much stronger? That's a trap. Stronger than you are today! What others do is their business. If you don't intend to play chess professionally, such as trying to earn a living from playing chess, then be Zen and let things happen. Failing in chess is not a failure. So, why fail then? Greetings and salutations!
Sep 3, 2022
0
#12
Hi! I found a statistical study on the subject by NM Matt Jensen from ChessGoals.com. I quote the specific part it might interest you:
"Let’s look at an example 30-year-old spending 20 hours per week following average progress,
starting at a rating of 600.
● Age 30 600 + 365 = 965
● Age 31 965 + 263 = 1228
● Age 32 1228 + 180 = 1408
● Age 33 1408 + 116 = 1524
● Age 34 1524 + 116 = 1640
● Age 35 1640 + 116 = 1756
● Age 36 1756 + 71 = 1827
● Age 37 1827 + 71 = 1898
● Age 38 1898 + 71 = 1969
● Age 39 1969 + 71 = 2040
● Age 40 2040 + 14 = 2054... this is where the extra focused study is needed! "
Hope this helps.
Good luck!
Sep 3, 2022
0
#14
I started at a very young age (3 or 4, according to my parents -- I can't remember myself). I took it pretty seriously, studied regularly, went to the club two times per week, played in all the middle school, high school, and college leagues, played rated tournaments regularly, including the US Open a couple of times. Read a lot of books. The highest rating I ever got was 2137, when I was about 30.
I think I maybe could have gotten a lot higher. But that would have taken way more study and training than I was willing to do. My friends who were masters (>2200) were studying a LOT more than I was. And grandmasters were studying way more than the masters - pretty much studying chess full time. I had other interests in life - a college degree and career, for example.
It probably does help a little if you start early, but there's no telling how much talent you have. I met some people who started out as adults and got stronger than me.
So it is a difficult question to answer without knowing how much time you really want to spend on it. I think that ends up depending on how much you like it. Bobby Fischer started several years later than me, but he became obsessed by the game, really loved it, so he ended up studying all the time.
Instead of worrying about a long term goal, I'd suggest setting some short term goals. When I was in grade school, my goal was to beat my dad. When that happened, we joined the local club and started entering tournaments. My new goal was to eventually be 1500, because that was the "median" for USCF players at the time, and I wanted to be above average for serious club players because that would mean I was "good". When that happened, my new goal was to be 2000 because that had a "title" rather than a "letter". After I reached 2000, my new goal was to be 2200 because that was "master" and that's the title that the general public knows. But I never made it, because I wasn't willing to devote the time necessary for it, so I really couldn't be disappointed. I did manage to beat some masters (and even one senior master >2400), so looking back it was good to know that even if I never became master, I was able to scare them a little. I also collected a lifetime of stories, wonderful memories, and friends.
So see, it's good to have short-term goals, and other than that don't worry about where the journey ultimately takes you.
@1
"My question is, at 28 yo should keep hope of becoming a very good player (IM for instance) in the future ?" ++ With time and dedication you can reach 2000 in 1 year.
A title is probably out of reach at age 28.
Sep 3, 2022
0
#16
tygxc wrote:
With time and dedication you can reach 2000 in 1 year.
For the OP's sake it's worth mentioning no rational person agrees with this.
Don't bother with your misinterpreted Capablanca quote either.
@16
It was Lasker, not Capablanca.
"Having spent 200 hours on the above, the young player, even if he possesses no special talent for chess, is likely to be among those two or three thousand chessplayers [who play on a par with a master]. There are, however, a quarter of a million chessplayers who annually spend no fewer than 200 hours on chess without making any progress. Without going into any further calculations, I can assert with a high degree of certainty that nowadays we achieve only a fraction of what we are capable of achieving."
Sep 3, 2022
0
#18
tygxc wrote:
@16
It was Lasker, not Capablanca.
"Having spent 200 hours on the above, the young player, even if he possesses no special talent for chess, is likely to be among those two or three thousand chessplayers [who play on a par with a master]. There are, however, a quarter of a million chessplayers who annually spend no fewer than 200 hours on chess without making any progress. Without going into any further calculations, I can assert with a high degree of certainty that nowadays we achieve only a fraction of what we are capable of achieving."
No one agrees that it's reasonable to expect a 29 year old beginner to reach 2000 in 1 year with a lot of free time and hard work.
Well ok, someone will agree... but that's a bit like when you conduct a poll on people's opinion of blood parasites. There will be some 5% who are in favor, because they're extremely dumb or misunderstood the question.
You like taking old quotes from dead people and asserting contentions things no one agrees with. This topic is no different.
@18
I take the word of the dead Lasker over that of the living Llama...
Sep 3, 2022
0
#20
tygxc wrote:
@18
I take the word of the dead Lasker over that of the living Llama...
"Master" and "2000" didn't exist in Lasker's time as we know them today. You're twisting his words to mean things he didn't say... I wouldn't care except you say this stuff in topics with beginners who don't know things like a rating system didn't even exist until many years after Lasker's death.
I am a beginner at chess I like the tactical spirit of the game.
I regret that I discovered this game at 28 yo, I saw in the internet that the younger you start the easier you can achieve an advanced level in chess.
My question is, at 28 yo should keep hope of becoming a very good player (IM for instance) in the future ?