Just wait a couple of years, inflation will do its job^^ that’s what I do :)
People massively downthumbing me because I said you can't become a master beginning at 52... oh well, that's why I used to avoid forums, so many haters and bullies, lots of kids and people who behave like them.
Even @Sarg0n's comment for example, there was no reason for downthumbing it...
Even @Sarg0n's comment for example, there was no reason for downthumbing it...
Cheat without being caught
You will learn nothing out of cheating against other human players.
Reference: lichess.org/how-to-cheat
Reference: lichess.org/how-to-cheat
@giancz91 I think your bitterness is unwarranted, honestly. People aren't just "thumbs downing because [you] said you can't become a master at 52." I thumbs-downed your comment because I found it needlessly extreme. In particular the statement, "You can't master anything without starting young, and chess doesn't make an exception." That's just not true. And I think if you're going to respond to someone with a discouraging statement, you should make sure what you're saying is strictly accurate. That's why I didn't approve of your comment.
If you had stuck to the more qualified statements in the rest of your comment, like "everything is possible but I think you should set realistic goals," likely your comment wouldn't be getting so much "hate."
:)
If you had stuck to the more qualified statements in the rest of your comment, like "everything is possible but I think you should set realistic goals," likely your comment wouldn't be getting so much "hate."
:)
@NowIAmDiscouraged I disagree with your statement (it's false you can't master anything without starting young). Give me an example of something you can master even if you start after 20. Maybe things that don't require much training to improve (like cooking)... things like sports or mental challenging games like chess, you can't master them without starting young. Kids' brain is more elastic and they learn much quicker, if you don't learn during that time you lose a lot of your potential. Kids' brains are made to learn, adult brains are made to perform... they perform better, but they're much less elastic. If you learned when young, as an adult you can do very well, but if your brain isn't used to that task yes, it can learn it, but NEVER how a kid's brain does.
Setting unrealistic goals leads to disappointment. Better being discouraged since the beginning. It may seem harsh, but it's best.
Setting unrealistic goals leads to disappointment. Better being discouraged since the beginning. It may seem harsh, but it's best.
About 3 years ago I had asked a similar question on the chess.com forums. Back then I was around 2250 to 2350 (at both blitz and bullet on both websites) depending on the day I was having.
Someone had mentioned that one of the big differences between players at my level and 2500+ (online) players is very good positional understanding combined with better analysis/planning/evaluation. While this is certainly true, it's only half of the story.
It's taken me over 2 years to get there and I can mention a few things I've done that helped.
Opening theory -
I used to play pretty much any and every opening. Loved attacking/sharp positions. However, when I played stronger players, they were usually able to neutralize everything I threw at them and came out with a nice advantage (+1 to +2 or higher) that they would keep pressing until they won. I decided to experiment with a few opening and then finally picked one opening with white and then two with black (against e4 and d4) and have learnt them quite well. All the main lines that arise combined with the various deviations. I'm not saying I remember everything but it's rare for someone now to get an advantage against me straight out of the opening. Usually the engine evaluation is about equal and almost always < 1 and if they don't know what they are doing, I'm the one with an advantage.
Middle Game -
This is tough to improve on. It helps to watch GMs analyze their games to see how they think. This is where you always need to keep working towards a plan while trying to thwart your opponents plans. Lot of lower rated players can play very passively here. Positional understanding needs to improve here. Always think about pawn breaks and resulting pawn structures and how it ties into the endgame. Where is your advantage going to come from? Ability to evaluate the position in greater depth. To be fair, I've still got a lot to learn here.
End Game -
Spent time watching theoretical end-game videos (Karsten Muller videos). End of the day you have to practice these but you should know all the basic end-games ideas (Opposition, Lucena, Philidor, etc). This subject is so vast that even 2600 (FIDE) GMs have a lot to master. That's the biggest difference between FMs/IMs and GMs btw...endgame knowledge. You have to be VERY precise cause unlike the opening/middle game, you cannot recover here.
To the original poster, your rating is a bit low to be aiming for 2500. Try and get to 22/2300 first. Puzzles help a lot at this level. Also, if you have the time then you can certainly study on your own. I don't think you need to have a coach but if you don't have the time then having a coach helps speed up your progress.
Someone had mentioned that one of the big differences between players at my level and 2500+ (online) players is very good positional understanding combined with better analysis/planning/evaluation. While this is certainly true, it's only half of the story.
It's taken me over 2 years to get there and I can mention a few things I've done that helped.
Opening theory -
I used to play pretty much any and every opening. Loved attacking/sharp positions. However, when I played stronger players, they were usually able to neutralize everything I threw at them and came out with a nice advantage (+1 to +2 or higher) that they would keep pressing until they won. I decided to experiment with a few opening and then finally picked one opening with white and then two with black (against e4 and d4) and have learnt them quite well. All the main lines that arise combined with the various deviations. I'm not saying I remember everything but it's rare for someone now to get an advantage against me straight out of the opening. Usually the engine evaluation is about equal and almost always < 1 and if they don't know what they are doing, I'm the one with an advantage.
Middle Game -
This is tough to improve on. It helps to watch GMs analyze their games to see how they think. This is where you always need to keep working towards a plan while trying to thwart your opponents plans. Lot of lower rated players can play very passively here. Positional understanding needs to improve here. Always think about pawn breaks and resulting pawn structures and how it ties into the endgame. Where is your advantage going to come from? Ability to evaluate the position in greater depth. To be fair, I've still got a lot to learn here.
End Game -
Spent time watching theoretical end-game videos (Karsten Muller videos). End of the day you have to practice these but you should know all the basic end-games ideas (Opposition, Lucena, Philidor, etc). This subject is so vast that even 2600 (FIDE) GMs have a lot to master. That's the biggest difference between FMs/IMs and GMs btw...endgame knowledge. You have to be VERY precise cause unlike the opening/middle game, you cannot recover here.
To the original poster, your rating is a bit low to be aiming for 2500. Try and get to 22/2300 first. Puzzles help a lot at this level. Also, if you have the time then you can certainly study on your own. I don't think you need to have a coach but if you don't have the time then having a coach helps speed up your progress.
@giancz91 I mean, you're just not right tho: www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/1xmd5d/who_is_the_grandmaster_that_started_playing_chess/
@giancz91 further counterexamples: paulrohan.medium.com/ten-of-historys-greatest-late-bloomers-people-who-found-their-purpose-and-went-for-awe-6b733c6fa154
Again, if you'd qualified your position it would be easier to swallow. "It's hard to become a master without early training," something like that. You've somehow decided to die on the hill of "you CANNOT become a master at ANYTHING without early training," which is almost trivially false.
Again, if you'd qualified your position it would be easier to swallow. "It's hard to become a master without early training," something like that. You've somehow decided to die on the hill of "you CANNOT become a master at ANYTHING without early training," which is almost trivially false.
The statement "You CANNOT become a grandmaster with out early training" is mathematically false but true for well over 99% of the population, which means objecting to it is overly pedantic.
And calling people out for down thumbing you is just weird.
And calling people out for down thumbing you is just weird.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.