Is 35 too late to start playing chess`

Hey All,

I recently got fairly interested in Chess fairly late in life. I work in historic strategic board game design which is sort of chess adjacent, but none of my military history chops have really helped in terms of chess strategy lol. I hover around a 400 ELO currently and have recently bought a bunch of books and lessons with a coach bi-weekly.

I've noted that most people decent or competent at chess started very young. If one day I could get to a level around 2000 that would be thrilling, but is that even a realistic goal at this point? Thanks for reading.

I don't think that reaching 2000 is realistic at this point but it's not impossible either.  When you're just starting out, forget about ratings.  Don't even concern yourself with thinking about ratings.  I'm 42 years old, have been playing chess since I was a young kid (7, 8, 9-ish) and I haven't cracked 2000 (yet, hopefully it's a possibility for me still).

As an analogy to music, if you were just starting out at guitar, you need to only worry about learning the fretboard, chords etc.  Concerning yourself with whether or not you'll one day play Glastonbury is a waste of time.

Thanks for this, that makes total sense to me - I've been playing guitar since I was 10 so that resonates

Good luck to you, I wish you the best.  I try to be pragmatic with expectations so don't let my reply discourage you.  It just takes a lot of time.

I saw a recent article on adult learning, and it referenced chess though that wasn't the focus of it.   It's been a while since I read it so forgive my memory...

They basically tried to dispel the notion that you can only learn certain things when young.  It focused on brain plasticity (I think that's the term they used) and said that while we largely accept that young brains are more able to learn, that's not really true.  There's factors that make us believe that, and in practice it is largely true.  But in reality, the disadvantages to older people advancing knowledge in a particular area is the amount of distraction they have and the amount of time they've got to devote,  vs younger folks.  

Now, they didn't go so far as to say there's no advantage to the younger brain, but the widely accepted notion that it's almost absolute are way off.  

In other words, yes, you can improve to whatever level you want. But be prepared to put in a LOT of work to get there.  If you can devote 24 hours a day to it, you're going to improve pretty quickly.  

@1

"a level around 2000 that would be thrilling, but is that even a realistic goal at this point?"

++ You can reach 2000 in 1 year, if you do the right things and refrain from the wrong things.

My favorite story of starting late is Hungarian master Eva Karakas. She played her first rated game aged 28, after her hairdresser(!) found out that she can play chess and invited her to the club training of Vasas (Budapest).

This was in 1950. Four years later, in 1954 she won the Hungarian Championship. Next year she played well in the zonal tournament, and qualified for the Candidates tournament. Imagine this: 5 years from being an unrated amateur to the Candidates!

Too late, start again next life. lol.

The truth is, no matter when you start, the majority of people will cap around 1600 ~ 1900.   Chess's difficulty is exponential, so climbing past that rating requires a lot of effort.  I think a lot of GMs start young because you find yourself able to obsess at a boardgame at an early age, or you don't have it in you. 

Magnus Carlsen plays 8 hours of hardcore classical chess, then unwinds by playing speed chess.  There's just something unwholesome about that kind of dedication.

However, that is basically among the strongest of your club, and able to beat 99% of chess players with ease, which is pretty respectable. 

If you worked at it with any sort of regularity, and deliberately made an effort to learn and improve from every game you play (rather than just playing for fun, without any conscious effort to learn), you could certainly reach a 2000 level, or even higher.

But it would take time. Realistically, it would take several years.

You have to build on knowledge and ideas learned at each level in order to climb higher, to the next level. It's an incremental process.

Nothing yet, our first meeting is last week, I sent him an overview though of my playing history, I only really started playing a bunch a month ago.

Yes. You could definitely get to 2000 at the age of 35. You probably won't be a world champion, but that would be true no matter what age you started.

Thanks everyone! Yeah I've only really been playing bullet recently as its been convenient, but I much prefer having time to think through my moves, I'll start playing more rapid and blitz games in the meantime though.

I have learned to play chess when I was like 10 years old and never played it a lot, lets say just randomly with friends so I just knew how to move pieces... I joined this website 2 years ago (when I was 41)... And after playing few hundred games I was around 900-1000 rating here... so that should be some average for occasional players... 

I paid subscription and did all the guides here (from beginner, intermediate and advanced)... After few more hundreds of games I made around 1200 rating here with those guides which I learned very fast... Then I bought a book "logical chess: move by move" and made from 1200 to 1400 in around 2-3 months... I bought then book "chess: the art of logical thinking" which I am finishing now and it helped me achieve 1500 rating (my peak was 1570 if you check my profile)...

So I think 2000 is possible, I do not consider myself some genius... If I made from 900 to 1500 in around a year in ages 41-42 then I think it is possible for you in 35... 

What I like when learning is to play instructive games, I do not like puzzles a lot although people say it skyrockets your rating... Instructive games help me but I do them slowly... For example, I play from a book 3-4 games of Queens Gambit and then try it in hundreds of games... 

But you must play a lot and try to incorporate what you read in your games... I have a friend with rating around 800 and bought same book, read it in a week (33 games) and improved nothing... You cant improve just by reading book, you need to try that in games. And always when I read something new I first drop my rating then improve a lot... For example, in a book I learn sicilian defence and then try it in games... First 10-20 games a lot of confusion until things settle down and finally you know basics of sicilian defence... 

After all I play it for enjoyment and fun... I try to improve and would like once to have 2000 but I will be also happy if I stay this level, I just like the game!

I also bought that logical chess book, I've been enjoying it a bunch.

2000 is a fine goal to have overall.

But set shorter goals, like getting 100 points, and be comfortable with the fact that eventually it will take 1 year to increase your rating 100 points (not at first, but eventually).

just have fun. who cares how old u are. ur never gonna be any good a/w. they dont let old ppl get int'l titles. o/w ur sitting there fighting it out w/ abuncha teenagers & TDs/promoters would be jealous cuz they never worked out & their dream got broken. thats why theyre TDs. lol !

and dont get all serious abt it. thats hilarious. itsa board game for goodness sakes. BURST !

p.s. if u can ever, by faraway chance, get to a consistent 2000+ ? i'll personally title u as a GP (Grandpatzer). howzat ? fair enuf ?   

I also played quit a lot when I was 7..10 years with my older brother, then joined Chess com at 51. I am at ~1400 now and I don't think I'll ever climb higher. However, I am sure I could because I will never start memorizing all those debuts and tricks used by stronger players. I play for pleasure and IMHO memorizing tricks like fried liver or Danish opening just make a victory less valuable. In the opposite, I like when my opponent plays them against me, often people do not memorize them well enough. So, if you really want to reach 2000, it is doable, just work harder.  

One more thing, after a game I  sometimes look at the profiles of the opponents. There are many players even at 1300, or  lower who reached some 1600+ a while ago or higher.

"logical chess: move by move" is probably not yet for you... You should read books first for your level then go higher once you achieve goal with first book... In my opinion "logical chess" should be read once you achieve at least 1000 here... Before that you need some more basic things...

For example, I do have books like "how to reassess your chess" but I know that I ma still a lot below level to read that book. 

@olebon

I think for ratings over 1400 you still do not need to memorize anything... I never tried to memorize any opening for example neither learned it... I just know basics by reading instructive games and still accuracy in opening is at 90% says it... Also, I found that there were a lot of troublesome tricks after I play e4 as first move so I switched to d4 which is more positional and found that it suits more my style...