My elo is about 1750 , and you all can look at my Rating , and YES i suggest its not that easy but maaaaaaaaaaaybe possible , i look forward to the day where i can be a good example :)
The most talented players in the world over the last 100 years working full-time at chess often with strong family/coaching support and youth can achieve this in around 3 years. If we make some stretches and assumptions we can say possibly a few prodigies like Praggnanandhaa have achieved it in 2 years. Thinking it can be done in 3 months is honestly just completely silly and feels like someone needs an ego-check.
It's been observed that to become an "expert" at something, you really need something in the order of 10,000 hours of deliberate practice (i.e. high quality skill training). This observation has been to some extent debunked in a lot of fields, but is probably more true of chess (which has repeating structures and static rules) than most other areas. So if you were to do nothing chess, in theory you could reach 10000 in about a year; in reality, you can't sustained the required level of concentration for more than about an hour or so at a time, so you're only looking at acquiring a few hours out of 10,000 every day.
I think it's probably reasonable that if someone with a reasonable aptitude for the game were to put in say 2-3 hours of per day, with professional coaching and optimal training, they would probably have a good chance of being a very strong player--maybe not IM-level but at least competitive with such players--within a few years. Nonetheless, somewhere there will be an 8 year old that will be able to clobber you.
I think it's probably reasonable that if someone with a reasonable aptitude for the game were to put in say 2-3 hours of per day, with professional coaching and optimal training, they would probably have a good chance of being a very strong player--maybe not IM-level but at least competitive with such players--within a few years. Nonetheless, somewhere there will be an 8 year old that will be able to clobber you.
The example of a Carlsen (who doesn't know too much theory, as they say) is an oversimplification. What is the ratio of masters with zero opening theory to the ones with theory? It is difficult to accept but chess is a routine activity at the tournaments with very less room for creativity.
The observation that good positional understanding is sufficient to get you by in tournaments is made by people who live in countries with a few hundred people participating in rating tournaments. We know what happens to those people when they go to China or India and play in open tournaments.
Also, one must understand that chess players are very careful about their ratings...like boxers.
The GMs and IMs avoid playing large open tournaments. They fear getting thrashed or held to a draw by a 1500-rated player. FIDE protects these artificially inflated ratings by placing these "elite players" in a cocoon. A 2700+ rated player can just while away his life playing the top category tournaments, never having to play any open tournaments. If the supposition that their superior understanding get them the wins, why don't they play the open tournaments and survive? One draw drops them 50-100 points, that's why!
Of course, all of us can google.
www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-buzz/massive-upset-grandmaster-is-defeated-by-a-14-year-old-600-elo-points-lower
thechessworld.com/articles/general-information/6-greatest-grandmasters-upsets/
The observation that good positional understanding is sufficient to get you by in tournaments is made by people who live in countries with a few hundred people participating in rating tournaments. We know what happens to those people when they go to China or India and play in open tournaments.
Also, one must understand that chess players are very careful about their ratings...like boxers.
The GMs and IMs avoid playing large open tournaments. They fear getting thrashed or held to a draw by a 1500-rated player. FIDE protects these artificially inflated ratings by placing these "elite players" in a cocoon. A 2700+ rated player can just while away his life playing the top category tournaments, never having to play any open tournaments. If the supposition that their superior understanding get them the wins, why don't they play the open tournaments and survive? One draw drops them 50-100 points, that's why!
Of course, all of us can google.
www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-buzz/massive-upset-grandmaster-is-defeated-by-a-14-year-old-600-elo-points-lower
thechessworld.com/articles/general-information/6-greatest-grandmasters-upsets/
This is your friend?
"Don’t you think I could also be a GM if put in one or two year on chess?" Donald Trump wanted to know, when he met Pal Benko back in 1994. "You need to be born again," Benko replied.“
"Don’t you think I could also be a GM if put in one or two year on chess?" Donald Trump wanted to know, when he met Pal Benko back in 1994. "You need to be born again," Benko replied.“
"One draw drops them 50-100 points, that's why!"
ELO rating changes are capped by the algorithm. Drawing against a much lower rated opponent would not have nearly so great of change as that.
"If the supposition that their superior understanding get them the wins, why don't they play the open tournaments and survive?"
Professional players rarely play in amateur leagues in any sport, and chess is no exception. You probably aren't going to see LeBron James joining a club basketball league either.
ELO rating changes are capped by the algorithm. Drawing against a much lower rated opponent would not have nearly so great of change as that.
"If the supposition that their superior understanding get them the wins, why don't they play the open tournaments and survive?"
Professional players rarely play in amateur leagues in any sport, and chess is no exception. You probably aren't going to see LeBron James joining a club basketball league either.
One draw drops 50-100 pts lol :D
ratings.fide.com/calculator_rtd.phtml
2800 (k=10) losing to 2000 in classical loses 9,2 pts, if he draws he loses 4,2 pts, if he wins he gets +0,8 pts. So for 2800 or 2700 or even 2500 (rating difference of >400 counts for Fide as max anyway) it's a bit discouraging to participate in a tournament where 9 straight wins would give only +7,2 pts and two draws would make -8.4 pts :)
ratings.fide.com/calculator_rtd.phtml
2800 (k=10) losing to 2000 in classical loses 9,2 pts, if he draws he loses 4,2 pts, if he wins he gets +0,8 pts. So for 2800 or 2700 or even 2500 (rating difference of >400 counts for Fide as max anyway) it's a bit discouraging to participate in a tournament where 9 straight wins would give only +7,2 pts and two draws would make -8.4 pts :)
chess-results.com/tnr377792.aspx?lan=1&art=1&rd=10
I did a small calculation. Let's pretend that 10,000 hour rule worked 100%. Which it has been proven to work sometimes with kids for example. The idea is, if you took a plan to master something. You should focus and study it seriously for at least 10,000 hours, and you should master the subject.
Again.. Pretending it worked 100% of the time. If you worked 12 hours a day 7 days a week. It would take you approximately 2 years to complete the goal. And if you worked 12 hours a day for 5 days a week it would take about 3 years. If you are consistent of course. This is pretty consistent with the idea that we have 11-13 year old IM's.
If we took the "More than average working person" and used the 6 hours a day formula, you might see mastery of this magnitude after 6.5 years. Again.. This is assuming the 10k rule works 100% and you are 100% working properly to improve.
For the average person this is not good because the chess education is sloppy. There is false belief that opening theory is important even at the 1700 level. Which I can attest that it's not really important even to IM's. Factor in the average person is lazy about chess, and have a lot of misconceptions, may have a lot of work that is not chess related, and might have a sig other with children.. And that cuts into the improvement.
I once trained a person from 900-1800 in 4 months. That is possible. And I have proven it. I believe though that the transition from 1800-2200 is a much harder process. And even more so 2200-2500 is even harder. It's unrealistic to set the goal of 3 months. However if you're truly diligent you can set a goal for 2-6 years. If you successfully set the goals and then beat those goals by a massive margin, you could conceivably write a book about how you did it. ;-)
Again.. Pretending it worked 100% of the time. If you worked 12 hours a day 7 days a week. It would take you approximately 2 years to complete the goal. And if you worked 12 hours a day for 5 days a week it would take about 3 years. If you are consistent of course. This is pretty consistent with the idea that we have 11-13 year old IM's.
If we took the "More than average working person" and used the 6 hours a day formula, you might see mastery of this magnitude after 6.5 years. Again.. This is assuming the 10k rule works 100% and you are 100% working properly to improve.
For the average person this is not good because the chess education is sloppy. There is false belief that opening theory is important even at the 1700 level. Which I can attest that it's not really important even to IM's. Factor in the average person is lazy about chess, and have a lot of misconceptions, may have a lot of work that is not chess related, and might have a sig other with children.. And that cuts into the improvement.
I once trained a person from 900-1800 in 4 months. That is possible. And I have proven it. I believe though that the transition from 1800-2200 is a much harder process. And even more so 2200-2500 is even harder. It's unrealistic to set the goal of 3 months. However if you're truly diligent you can set a goal for 2-6 years. If you successfully set the goals and then beat those goals by a massive margin, you could conceivably write a book about how you did it. ;-)
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.