Chess and AGE

OK... I am in my early 50's. I learned the game at about age 6, but never pursued it to much extent throughout my life. Now, I have fallen back in love with the game. My question is primarily for older players.... Do you think that age has any direct bearing on ones ability to improve and/or actually become competitive ? I have read so much about famous players becoming "past their prime". Frankly, I am skeptical. As long a person is of sound mind and body, I see no reason why a person could not become a GM at any age, given firm dedication, devotion, study, training and conviction. Any thoughts and comments from the "seniors" ... or younger folks for that matter... would be greatly appreciated !

LMAO

 

doesn't matter much

The brain is more adaptable in youth and has fewer connections that interfere with generation of new skills. You can improve in anything at any given age, but that involves rerouting your already existing connections since we can’t create new brain cells (which would cost you other skills). Considering that very few ever reach GM (a total 1500 for all time so far maybe?) and all of them (as far as I know) devoted most of their childhood to chess, it is difficult to achieve that degree of skill when you are 45 years (multiple thousands of hours) behind the curve. The coaches I have spoken with regarding this tend to tell students to focus on gaining 100 points at a time, regular study, practice, and play (6-12 OTB tournaments a year with analysis of games by a high level player), and that a USCF class A, possibly even Expert, are good realistic lifelong goals, which should be achievable within 7-10 years if chess is your main hobby. I hope they are all f—-ing wrong.

You're still young compared to me. I came back to chess a year and a half ago after 25 years away from it, and I'm playing the best chess of my life right now at age 67. Age does impose limitations, but you can certainly become a darn good player if you put in the work.

If you have some talent for the game and did put in ridiculous amounts of time and training, I think there would be no limit to what you could accomplish. The question then always becomes, "Why would you dedicate your life to a board game when you could do so many other things?" Make sure you're enjoying yourself. I think the results will come. Make some goals, but don't feel like you have to become a GM to be a successful player. Like Danny said, a good 10 year plan would be to become a class A player. Get 100 OTB tournaments under your belt and hours of daily training and practice, who knows where it will take you. 

I'm just a weak player and don't talk to the 95th percentilers much. What is the different story they are telling? Other than pure talent and hard work, what else is there....luck?

I REALLY appreciate all of your feedback! Just to clear. I honestly have no delusions about becoming a titled player personally. I love the game for what it is, win, lose or draw. If I can ( and hopefully will) increase my ELO 100 pts. a month for a year, I would still only be a slightly better than average player in the global scheme of things. So again, the question was not about ME, really. Like Danny said, "The brain is more adaptable in youth and has fewer connections that interfere with generation of new skills. You can improve in anything at any given age, but that involves rerouting your already existing connections since we can’t create new brain cells (which would cost you other skills). Considering that very few ever reach GM (a total 1500 for all time so far maybe?) and all of them (as far as I know) devoted most of their childhood to chess, it is difficult to achieve that degree of skill when you are 45 years (multiple thousands of hours) behind the curve. " That about pretty well sums it up.... I sure would like to see a chess star rise from the ashes like a Phoenix in later life though !

 

I am 62. Here are my thoughts on this.

I've played off and on (more off than on) since I was 8, but I never studied much, except for the simple basics.

It wasn't until I played against club players that I realised how poor my game was. I knew nothing about openings, strategies or tactics. The combinations I made were mostly intuïtive, which means they were mostly wrong or very superficial.

It wasn't till about a year ago that I wanted to learn more. When I joined chess.com I quickly dropped from 1370 to about 1050 I think. But looking at other people's games I thought that my rating should be about 1450. I don't know why I thought this, probably because I recognised the style of playing other people in that range had.

So I began to do some lessons, starting like a beginner and I learned some tricks I wasn't aware of, like how important the center was and other stuff that I won't mention here. So now after less than a year I've climbed to ~1400 and mostly because I didn't play against players above 1400 - 1500, so my progress was slow.

Now I think that with more study I could maybe reach 1600 or 1700. I don't say that I can't go higher, but it would be arrogant for me to say so, because I'm poitive that I wel never be a Master, let alone a Grand Master.

I think for that I would have had to start studying the game when I was a kid. Most Grand Master did so and furthermore were stimulated by their parents. If one has learned the game "with the porridge spoon" you will have gotten a much deeper and playful insight in the game than when older I think, because of the flexibilty of the young brain.

Also at a later age it is hard to overcome "bad habits" that you adopted when younger.

But leaving talent and natural insight aside, I have improved a great deal in the last year and in a while I will take up the lessons again and try to cross the 1500 barrier.

So you (OP) will definitely improve with lessons and advice/analysis from higher rated players. And also by playing a lot of games. With every game you will gain new insights (sometimes quite painful ) and make less mistakes, like letting pieces hang or giving away your queen. Scientists stay as bright and sharp as they were at younger age. Please coreect me if I am wrong. Someone like Donald Trump became the leader of the most powerful nation of the world at the age of 71.

So to conclude: there is no reason why you couldn't improve, depending on how much time and effort you put in the game. And how much fun it gives you. How high you can go is not up to me to say.

 

But then again, I have been shown players who were once very good, but somehow lost it. But they were in their eighties and one in his nineties. But I also know a player in his late eighties who still plays a mean game every time.

so far for my two cents.

 

 

 

 

I turned 43 last Sunday.  I am going through a course right now and already have seen improvement in both my blitz games here and my over the board games.

 

The reason you hear about past their prime is that they are talking top level GMs.

 

If your dream is to become a 2700 player in your 50s, dream on!

 

However, anybody, at any age, can at least hit master if they put int he time and effort.  You might want to check out www.chessmasterschool.com.

 

I am actually in the middle of the Core Course myself.  About 90% of the way through Month 6 of 13.  While it labels it by month, which is more of a measure of how much you should probably do a month as trying to go faster is just too much.  There is no problem if your pace is slower.  Better that you understand it than rush through it.  I am about half a month behind pace myself, but again, no reason to rush.  If I was on pace, I'd have finished Month 6 on May 2nd (started November 2nd of last year).  I'll probably be starting Month 7 last in the week, which would put me about 2 1/2 weeks behind.  But again, understanding it, not speed, is what matters!

 

In the feedback area, someone mentioned that they did the Core Course at age 55 and their rating immediately went up 450 points!

 I would like to comment on "we can’t create new brain cells"

That is true, but thinking is not so much dependent on the number of cells (neurons) , but on the exchange of information between these neurons and the intensity and the path these neuro-connections take. And a lot of this depends on the intake and the bodily production of vitamins, minerals and neuro transmitters like Choline and Phenyl-Alanine. I have found that taking these food supplements improve my thinking (and overall energy) a great deal, as at a later age the body has more difficulty synthesizing and producing these essential brain nutrients (like magnesium for example).

So it's not a matter of growing new brain cells (neurons) but of improving the interaction between them. There are also substances that repair brain cells when their dendrites (through which the neuro transmitters flow) have been damaged bij free radicals.

 

Also I would like to say this. The brain is not a muscle, so the comparison with an olympic turner is not a good one. It is a known fact that we do not use all of our brain most of the time to manage every-day reality. On the contrary: most of the time a big part of our brain is in quite a dormant state. It is said that there are ways to improve that.

Also, new connections can be made in the brain. That is shown by people who had brain trauma (like for example a stroke or a car accident) and in the course of time other parts of the brain took over the functions that were controlled by the damaged part. The brain is a wonderful flexible organ and we still don't know very much about it. But I am not a physician, so If'what I say is incorrect, please correct me.

 

That is a nice observation: You can't improve much when you're already on top of it, but there is always room to improve at a lower level.

Does anyone know of someone that started to learn the game around the age of 30 and beyond and became a GM?

Ok. just wondering because of all the inquiries if they could become a GM. I'm sure there  is not a whole lot of 7 year olds here.

As many have pointed out before me in other similar threads age matters little. Its time needed to spent learning thats so hard for adult learners.

 

Even the so called chess prodigys dont become GMs until they spend 8 to 9 years working on chess full time.

 

Thats for the very best of them like Karjakin and other Guinness quality cases.

 

Normal Super GMs that study chess from 4 or 5 years old  will need at least 10 to 15 years to achieve such status.

 

Now these are some of the most talented & devoted people in chess that also happent to have a supportive enough background to provide them all they need to do so.

 

A normal adult has lots to do and even more to think about either as conscious or subconscious thoughts. Even a lottery winner in his 30 has to spent time with his girlfriend/boyfriend and his friends because his social needs are so much greater than that of a 7 years old kid.

 

If we leave the case of the lottery winner w/o kids behind anything else is super complicated and will have huge amounts ot timesinks.

 

Even a part-time job will take a good 5 hours a day from your daily routine. That is if you live close to where you work.

 

The more realistic scenario  is someone who spents at least 11 hours a day working, commuting and doing chores add about an hour of social life per day (because otherwise the numbers wont add up) and a good 7 hours sleep. So this person has 5 hours a day to study chess. This is some super devoted individual.

 

Oh and double the time on weekends.

 

That sums up to 5x5 + 2x10 hours of chesss workout per week !!

About 45 hours.

 

Now a chess prodigy works about 3 hours a day since the age of 5 to the age of 15 to achive its GM status. That is 365 x 10 x 3 hours = 10950.

 

So the average adult will do that in about 243 weeks or 4.7 years of no life but chess and work.

 

I know none who can support such schedule even if they had some terminal desease and they had to find a cure. So I ll just double the amount of time and say its decent.

 

So in 9 years time given you spent time, money (on books, mentors and trips to decent tournaments) and stay focused you ll be able to achieve about 90% of your full potential !

 

Now lets make a survey of people over the age of 18 who knew very little or nothing about chess and spent that amount of time and resources and their elo.

 

 

 

 Petrucus, that is a very logical analysis, but the OP is 67 so I guess he has a lot of time to spend on the game (if he wants to). So if it only were a matter of time he could be a GM by the age of 75?

Also, some people learn fast and others slower, so time in this respect is not a rigid measurement

^^^ 

It would be badass to even be a candidate master like yourself. I started playing when I was 17, and have turned 20 less than a month ago. Do you think there's any hope for me to become a master by 23-24 ish?

@ Ayov as for the last part of your comment I left individual characteristics aside. But although I do agree I also believe that its just an other multiplier.

 

 

 

As is how one is capable of tackling the psycological issues in chess. But I sincerely believe that in about 15 years everyone who is of sane mind and decent capacity can get titled if he has the right amount of money (to get decent training, it actually costs more than a decent new car to sustain mentors) time, devotion and the mind to tackle the psychological issues in chess.

 

All those factors are not that easy to come by.

 

 

In the end its also about the Club Logic. A 50 year old who turned titled after 12 years is a chess story for these forums. A 15 year old NM kid is a good enough story for every local paper/blog.

 

Clubs care more for such stories as well. Parents with kids is the target audience. Not grown women and men.

 

I'm over 60; I played a lot of OTB in the 90's, came within a hair of USCF 2000; recently started daily games, which in my opinion are much more valuable than blitz for developing chess skill.  I had a long hiatus from chess.  I've improved quite a lot over the past two months.  Go through the lessons on this site (take notes); play daily games.  There are quite a few players who play over 50 or even over 100 games at once.  I think they are just reinforcing the same weaknesses over and over again.  The higher-rated players seem to only play fewer than 10.  Try to learn from every game.  Sometimes losing has much greater value toward improvement than winning.  Grandmaster is kind of like a full-time job.

I get satisfaction just from feeling like I'm progressing.