you could've just said a 1 year old could be a master
never said nor thought that. try to actually make sense of a comment before assuming something like that.
you could've just said a 1 year old could be a master
never said nor thought that. try to actually make sense of a comment before assuming something like that.
you could've just said a 1 year old could be a master
never said nor thought that. try to actually make sense of a comment before assuming something like that.
why don't you follow your own advice, make sense of my comment
you could've just said a 1 year old could be a master
never said nor thought that. try to actually make sense of a comment before assuming something like that.
why don't you follow your own advice, make sense of my comment
already did. all I'm trying to do is show that age doesn't regularly correlate with elo. regularly in context means that it is a lesser factor in comparison to other factors.
happy?
you could've just said a 1 year old could be a master
never said nor thought that. try to actually make sense of a comment before assuming something like that.
why don't you follow your own advice, make sense of my comment
already did. all I'm trying to do is show that age doesn't regularly correlate with elo. regularly in context means that it is a lesser factor in comparison to other factors.
happy?
extremely.
chess is a game of wits. you can have wits from the age you're 5+. the only reason most people under a certain age seem worse is due to the fact that they don't dedicate themselves to the game like people who want to improve do. if any kid decided they wanted to play chess professionally, they could do so, they just need grit, effort, and determination. of course not everyone can play chess: people ~5 with no self awareness or people that have complications that disallow them from learning or putting their education to use (e.g older folks with things like dementia)