As a matter of fact I think I would have rejected any given title, and I'm rejecting it if given.
Master over....30!?
Sort:
the convo is crazy.
mr COP insists we're all argueing and not agreeing on stuff, then everyone seems to be saying the same thing.
---
its almost like the only argument is about What IS possible, the number we draw the line at. and the reason why we say its That number.
but I still favor skepticism over any answer. you simply do not know what's possible and whats not- instead, work hard and try to go as far as you can- the limitation is probably more about your training effort than you mental ability.
is THIS the consensus. I hope it is, goes we have a thread like this every week, and it would be novel to actually agree on a consensus rather than a big Huge argument day after day.
or... does actually agreeing on something make the chess.com forum "dead" 
Arena candidate master.
solskytz hat geschrieben:
This argument makes a lot of sense actually.
Thank you, and I'm sorry for my rudeness. The grandfather thing was actually a misunderstanding from something you wrote earlier. (And you do look a little bit older than you are 
).
Jul 16, 2016
0
#106
I look older than my age when I don't shave my hair and facial hair - as unfortunately it's all white and became so at a young age...
As a compensating factor, when I do shave - people generally think I'm a bit younger... a saving grace!
Jul 19, 2016
0
#109
aglitatta wrote:
I have been told by players who have been playing this game for over 100 yrs,that, if a person doesnt reach master level i.e. 2200, by the time one reaches the age of 30, they never will in the future. I dont know if this is based on scientific fact or not,however I dont believe it out of hand. I feel that yes it is possible to become a master eventhough you mmay have begone playing Chess at an older age. Have there been any late bloomers who have taken up chess later in life and did actually reached the high plateau of master level? I say yes, not based on fact, only my gut feeling. Can anyone substantiate this??? Thanks Aggie
Now that chess is all but solved, the peak age for a player has risen to 55 from 35. Chess is now like a video game.
The old rule applied in a world where people were not likely to start late, and if they did, not likely to improve, neither of which is the case anymore.
I'm forty-nine, and while I did make expert at twenty-one (after beginning at twenty at around 1600 strength), I quit for 25 years and have been training 12-16 hours a day for the past 18 months. I've improved about 450 points in that time and if anything it's speeding up.
It's like training to be a classical pianist: BORING! Hours and hours a day of drills, for the most minute improvements that no one will notice until you put in the *years* rather than the days or the months. Worse yet, the things you need to do to become a top player are things most players won't appreciate, and will tell you not to bother studying.
I do know that if I fail to become a champion, age won't be the reason.
Ray960 wrote:
Now that chess is all but solved, the peak age for a player has risen to 55 from 35. Chess is now like a video game.
The old rule applied in a world where people were not likely to start late, and if they did, not likely to improve, neither of which is the case anymore.
I'm forty-nine, and while I did make expert at twenty-one (after beginning at twenty at around 1600 strength), I quit for 25 years and have been training 12-16 hours a day for the past 18 months. I've improved about 450 points in that time and if anything it's speeding up.
It's like training to be a classical pianist: BORING! Hours and hours a day of drills, for the most minute improvements that no one will notice until you put in the *years* rather than the days or the months. Worse yet, the things you need to do to become a top player are things most players won't appreciate, and will tell you not to bother studying.
I do know that if I fail to become a champion, age won't be the reason.
Well I might as well continue with my trend of being a **** on this thread with this gem of a joke.
I might as well start at the top with the ridiculous claim about the peak age changing by 20 years, which I think (but I'm not sure) you think you backed up with some evidence... But you just didn't.
Oh and I've just seen your name on your profile and I'm done... I'm stopping this mid post because... Well just because...
Jul 19, 2016
0
#113
ChessOath wrote:
Ray960 wrote:
Now that chess is all but solved, the peak age for a player has risen to 55 from 35. Chess is now like a video game.
The old rule applied in a world where people were not likely to start late, and if they did, not likely to improve, neither of which is the case anymore.
I'm forty-nine, and while I did make expert at twenty-one (after beginning at twenty at around 1600 strength), I quit for 25 years and have been training 12-16 hours a day for the past 18 months. I've improved about 450 points in that time and if anything it's speeding up.
It's like training to be a classical pianist: BORING! Hours and hours a day of drills, for the most minute improvements that no one will notice until you put in the *years* rather than the days or the months. Worse yet, the things you need to do to become a top player are things most players won't appreciate, and will tell you not to bother studying.
I do know that if I fail to become a champion, age won't be the reason.
Well I might as well continue with my trend of being a **** on this thread with this gem of a joke.
I might as well start at the top with the ridiculous claim about the peak age changing by 20 years, which I think (but I'm not sure) you think you backed up with some evidence... But you just didn't.
Oh and I've just seen your name on your profile and I'm done... I'm stopping this mid post because... Well just because...
Reason doesn't matter, that's on you.
Try and find out,Database knowledge based helps but not always.