=) With your coach being an IM, I think your rating could be going 2200+ if you put all the effort in, but being a GM...
Let´s say I´m not very experienced (btw also 16yrs =P) with my 1420 OTB-rating...
Is it possible for me to become a Grandmaster?
Sort:
Of course its possible but the amount of time you would have to dedicate would be phenominal. You would be studying so much chess, you would have no time for a girlfriend or schoolat all and I stress even if you could hit maybe low to mid 2500 you would not make alot of money. Though what you would be getting is very cool being a 2500 level GM has no practical purpose in everyday life and seems like a waste of your time. I myself am aiming for 2200 to 2300, i'm sitting at about 1970 right now.
It depends on your talent of course, but I just read in Chessopedia on this site about a guy named Arthur Dake, who started playing at 17, and became a GM at 40.
woodshover wrote:
It depends on your talent of course, but I just read in Chessopedia on this site about a guy named Arthur Dake, who started playing at 17, and became a GM at 40.
This is completely differnt if you look at his history, yes it took him awhile to get his IM and GM title it is clear that he had a huge amount of natural talent for the game not at the 1800 level
PositionalAttack wrote:
woodshover wrote:
It depends on your talent of course, but I just read in Chessopedia on this site about a guy named Arthur Dake, who started playing at 17, and became a GM at 40.
This is completely differnt if you look at his history, yes it took him awhile to get his IM and GM title it is clear that he had a huge amount of natural talent for the game not at the 1800 level
I don't quite understand your statement.
Actually Dake rose very quickly to GM strength, and he was winning master tournaments a few years after learning the game. In his case, his talent was phenomenal. His IM title was awarded well after his top form and essentially when he had retired from serious play. His GM title came as a kind of honorary one much later, though his relative accomplishments were enough to warrant it when compared to what it took for a modern player to become GM.
He actually defeated WC Alekhine in the Pasadena 1932 tournament (a peak time for Alekhine--he lost very few games) after just having played the game for 5 years.
Woodshover you are trying to say that yes it is doable because Arture Dake did it, I'm comparing Artur Dakes history of chess with Novastars. I don't think Novastar could beat Alekhine at the age of 22 (Dake did). I know Novastar is 15 years old but even with 7 years of hard ass study he would never beat a player of Alekhines calibre as did Dake.
Um, I don't really understand the amount of cumulative effort needed to become a GM, but I believe that if you match or exceed that limit, you should reach your goal.
Jun 21, 2010
0
#10
PositionalAttack wrote:
Woodshover you are trying to say that yes it is doable because Arture Dake did it, I'm comparing Artur Dakes history of chess with Novastars. I don't think Novastar could beat Alekhine at the age of 22 (Dake did). I know Novastar is 15 years old but even with 7 years of hard ass study he would never beat a player of Alekhines calibre as did Dake.
If you play and study 6-8hrs a day for seven years, I'm pretty sure you could be quite powerful at this game. Then just exhume Alekhine's corpse to settle this question. I would have my money on NovaStar
I' beginner now, my dream is to be a master in 20 years time. I wont plan more.
Even my friend who is 15th in the country also plan only to be a master as an amateur.
I think its clever to think it over.
Andrew
trysts wrote:
PositionalAttack wrote:
Woodshover you are trying to say that yes it is doable because Arture Dake did it, I'm comparing Artur Dakes history of chess with Novastars. I don't think Novastar could beat Alekhine at the age of 22 (Dake did). I know Novastar is 15 years old but even with 7 years of hard ass study he would never beat a player of Alekhines calibre as did Dake.
If you play and study 6-8hrs a day for seven years, I'm pretty sure you could be quite powerful at this game. Then just exhume Alekhine's corpse to settle this question. I would have my money on NovaStar
I dont believe it matters how much/long you work at chess IF you lack the talent for the game you will NEVER make GM ! Most GMs have talent for the game AND they put in the work. A few in history had so much talent they didnt even work at the game as much as many others did.
Clouseau741 wrote:
Tere is no real reply to it.Everyone that has played tournament chess knows that in chess ,improvement is not something that can be predicted.I started chess at 14 ,I was around 1800 at 16 stayed there for 3 years playing very average chess, without any particular success at the tournaments I played and suddenly at 19 won the Greek Championship under 20 and was 6th at the world championship under 20 ,losing the grandmaster norm for just half point.
Karpov was a very average player at his youth.Botvinik said for him that "this young player doesn't even know the basics.He will never play good chess in his life."
Consider this, if Karpov asked Botvinik if he must continue chess, he would never become a World Champion and one of the best players of all time.
You are asking if you can become a grandmaster.Nobody can answer that.Even Botvinik couldn't(he made a mistake with Karpov after all)
But this is not your real problem.Chess needs a lot of commitment.8 hours a day study and even more at pre tournament preparation.And it will come a day when you will be beaten by anyone you play.Can you overcome the disappointment? Do you really love chess that much?
I say no.If you did you would never ask anyone.You are trying to find a guaranteee.There are no guarantees in life my friend.
If you really love chess you don't have to care if you will become grandmaster.You will go for it anyway.If you are looking for guarantees to do it then you simply don't love it.
p.s. There is also a practical question.Do you have the money to start travveling around the world and play?
I didn't and I had to stop when I was 20
Great post, very insightful.
Clouseau741 wrote:
I will totally disagree with Reb.
Are all grandmasters talented players?Certainly not.I have met quite a few and I can positively say that you don't even have to be smart to be a grandmaster.
To be a grandmaster you need high level of commitment , effort and the financial ability to travel and play continuously.
To be a good grandmaster with creativity in your game you need talent and to be a high level talented grandmaster you need to start playing at 3 and having a grandmaster as a coach.
Everyone of us is trying to give an answer that no one can know.
Some of us are realists and say that he can't and some of us are trying to encourage him and say that he can. But NOONE knows the answer.
Does it matter if someone called "something" started at x age and some years later beat "someone"?What does this prove?Actually nothing.
You are not in the same environment with the same books the same coach or the same opponents and games.So if someone started at 58 to play chess and at 59 he became a grandmaster proves nothing.Doesn't mean that we can do that.
.And why being an international Master is less important?Some years later you can be a coach and the teacher of many future grandmasters.
There is no answer to the question Novastar puts.His love to this sport is the only answer.
If you feel happy playing chess......
if this is the only thing you like or you need to do........
then stop searching for guarantees and go for it.
Even if you don't become a grandmaster you will certainly become happy.
Ok, I know people who fit this formula of yours and yet are NOT GMs but according to what you say they should all be. Why are some not GMs then ? I think its because they lack the necessary talent.
Is it possible for player X to become GM..... without knowing anything about player X noone can really say, that I agree with. Many people believe anything is possible, others do not.
Now you know what I can and can't know ?! Are you a psychic or something ? 
Of course it is possible, just highly unlikely. Even if you don't make GM, if you try hard enough and have enough innate ability you will become a very good player (2200+ OTB).
Anyone who thinks Karpov wasnt a good player in his youth obviously doesnt know what he is talking about.
I can remember playing at 9, but unfortunately I did not keep at it. I played again at 12, then at 18. Still later at 29 a resumed for a very few years. In my upper forties I started off again, and now in my 63rd year I am back at it with Mentor this time. I do hope to improve my play. My life time or stops and starts is not conducive to any sort of mastery, but I might do well down at the senior citizens center toward the end of my 64th year.
I know this sounds silly, but I'm wondering if I have a real shot at becoming a grandmaster sometime in my life (even if it's 60 years from now). I'm 15 about to become 16 years old and my rating is around 1800 right now. I'm willing to put the hard work into it - I just want to know if it's even remotely possible. (I asked my coach, who's an IM, and he said it was impossible - I don't believe him). Thank you.