Grandmaster Blue Devil Knight
I know I am taking a risk when I attack the ideas of an International Master, but dadgummit, I'm right.
Blue Devil Knight wrote recently that he was crestfallen over the following conversation he had with his chess coach:
"I said it didn't seem like the kind of opening a GM would play, that it is the kind of opening I'd use for a while but later discard as too kooky. I want something that I'll want to keep. I jokingly added, I want an opening I can play when I become a GM. "You'll never be a GM," he said, not joking. While I know it is true, I still felt crushed, like I had just lost 50 games in a row."
Well, this blog article by Kathy Sierra I read about over at Streatham & Brixton Chess Club (via the chess universe nexus Boylston Chess Club) just flies in the face of the statement that BDK will never become a GM. It's bogus.
A little background. I worked with Kathy Sierra and Bert Bates on the book Head First EJB, which is part of a series of technical books on J2e (Java) technologies published by O'Reilly. You can go to any Borders or Barnes and Noble, pick up a copy and look in the acknowledgments section and see my handsome face [grin]. Kathy is an expert on learning strategies and education and she has done her homework (and quotes real research by real researchers who have empirical data to back her point.)
So, when it comes to determining what it takes to be a GM, I'm afraid the IM chess coach is just full of it. All of it. BDK can make it to GM and so could any one of us.
All it takes is passion.
So, all of you blog reading patzers out there, get back to work! One day when you look up, you're going to be standing in the GM circle along with GM Man de la Maza, GM Sancho Pawnza, GM Pale Morning Dun, GM Temposchlucker, GM Takchess (if he ever gives up the King's Gambit, that is), GM Blue Devil Knight and all the rest of you Knights Errant out there!
Pleasant chess to all.
A little background. I worked with Kathy Sierra and Bert Bates on the book Head First EJB, which is part of a series of technical books on J2e (Java) technologies published by O'Reilly. You can go to any Borders or Barnes and Noble, pick up a copy and look in the acknowledgments section and see my handsome face [grin]. Kathy is an expert on learning strategies and education and she has done her homework (and quotes real research by real researchers who have empirical data to back her point.)
So, when it comes to determining what it takes to be a GM, I'm afraid the IM chess coach is just full of it. All of it. BDK can make it to GM and so could any one of us.
All it takes is passion.
So, all of you blog reading patzers out there, get back to work! One day when you look up, you're going to be standing in the GM circle along with GM Man de la Maza, GM Sancho Pawnza, GM Pale Morning Dun, GM Temposchlucker, GM Takchess (if he ever gives up the King's Gambit, that is), GM Blue Devil Knight and all the rest of you Knights Errant out there!
Pleasant chess to all.
posted by J'adoube @ 4:06 PM
26 Comments:
Funny, I didnt see Kathy on FIDE's list of GMs. How does she know what it takes?
Huzzahh!
We should start a chess commune.
Never give up the KG Tak! Instead become the first grandmaster with the KG as his main weapon of choice (unbeatably mastered ofcourse) and breathe some new life into this dying game ;-)
Who do you think the first Knight Errant to become a GM will be?
Anon,
Read the article and then you can make an informed comment.
Tom,
Honestly, I think I have as much chance as anyone but if I had to pick someone else, it would probably either BDK, Tempo or Sancho, since they seem to be the one's putting in the most hours.
If I become a grandmaster it will not be by innate talent:)
Tempo,
I think the point is that no one will become GM's by innate talent - only by hard work and lots of it and that all of us are capable of it.
Dutch,
Don't encourage him.
We're trying to wean him off that opening so he can be a serious chess player [grin]
I have been thinking of this very same topic of late and what exactly constitutes GM Status. See this link which has this interesting statistic.
In 1972 there were only 88 GMs with 33 representing the USSR. In July 2005, the FIDE ratings list included over 900 grandmasters
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Grandmaster
Are there any recent cases of individuals to reach GM status who started playing in their 20's ? Who was a patzer at this age and made it. If so wouldn't this story find it's way to the chess public at large.
I would say it takes Passion yes as well as a hell of alot of talent and hard work.
I do think that Gallagher fits the category of a King Gambit GM'er but I understand he doesn't play it much anymore after falling asleep too many times playing against the French *)
This post has been removed by the author.
re bdk comment
"Huzzahh!
We should start a chess commune."
Live Free or Die, Brother !
Jim Takchess
(note this is New Hampshire's State motto)
IM Schroer's comment is a truism in my opinion. this is not a put-down to anyone but simply a self-evident reality: none of the aforementioned bloggers will ever be a GM, and neither will i.
i can still enjoy the game (socially and competitively), and i can still try to write an entertaining blog. the only advantages a GM-title would confer are intellectual admiration and personal pride. which means, i can either earn those things in other ways OR (preferably) not value them so much. peace out.
Tak,
The French rules!
BTW, I will try to catch up with you on Playchess some time.
Patrick,
I would have to say that neither the research agrees with you nor does Dan Heisman, who I heard say it is possible if you spend the time and money to play enough tournaments.
My own personal experience also points to being able to become an expert in a field later in life - I've done it in a number of areas.
I will tell you one thing - of you believe you can't be a GM, than I'm sure you won't.
I tend to think patrick is right, but then again as I said before this is not based on any actual research. While it is possible to become an expert in something later in life, chess is not just any old endeavor. It is certainly harder for me than learning new programming languages, math, or any other technical thing I'm good at. There doesn't seem to be much data specifically about chess.
I need a benefactor so I can quit my day job and be part of this experiment. Give me 10 years to do chess full time (with three GM coaches: one for the opening, one for the endings, and one for post-game analysis). I bet I'd be a GM by then. But, then again, what kind of life would that be? Fun, actually. Someone, please be my benefactor. I'll only need 50k a year to do this.
I should write an NIH grant for money for this experiment. Hee hee.
The biggest problem seems to be that the subjective experience of time isn't linear. The first 20 years equals to the last 60 or so. So you will need 3x as much time as in your youth.
BDK,
The thing is I don't think you need 10 years. Probably 7 would be enough.
The thing is, I don't think chess is any harder to learn than any other new subject. Just in the past few years I picked up some new higher mathematics (basically self taught from some books) and while it took some time, it was just a matter of sitting down and doing it.
As for Patrick and myself, we'll have to agree to disagree, but I'm going to believe the research that's been done.
You are really overstating the "research" in the cited blog article.
I'll leave aside the fact that the blog entry cites no experiments or science journals but only cites 'research' very generally. Adn the fact that it's an informal article full of slang rather than an academic one.
The blog article is vague as to proficiency level. The authors talk about the “expert” level, the “kicking ass” level, and the “kicking butt” level, but nowhere do they quantify or qualify these. They certainly do not spell out the Grandmaster standard, which in chess amounts to being among the top few hundred in the world.
The article’s most specific language, though still quite vague, tends to refute rather than support your assertion:
“The rest of us--even without the special sauce--could still become world (or at least national) class experts, if we do the time, and do it the right way.”
The authors clearly bothered to insert the parenthetical, implying there is in fact a glass ceiling for late starters after all. The proficiency of a “national class expert” clearly falls short of “world class Grandmaster” status. I would be the first to agree that most people could reach 2000 USCF, which is a distant mirage from the 2500+ FIDE typically achieved after three GM norms. Even in the article’s title-- “How to be an expert”-- the authors chose “expert” rather than that more ambitious word, “master”. Also in your comment to me, you say “it’s possible to become an expert later in life”. The difference between expert and GM makes your argument incongruent. In chess, an expert is closer in skill level to a beginner than to a GM. Ratings are not linear (eg, 1200-1600 is an exponentially easier jump than 2000-2400).
So all this "real research by real researchers who have empirical data" (as you call it!) clearly falls short. My point is not that you can never be a GM (though I happen to believe that to be true), but rather that your assertions are not substantiated by this vague "research". I will never make GM if i don't believe i can, but neither will i make GM if i never make national master first. I can reassess my potential for GM after my first IM norm.
Above all, be objective and draw your own conclusions. Notice the absence of any sort of personal attack in the above-- as opposed to, for example, your comment that IM Schroer is "full of it. all of it." The real solution, IMO, is not to vainly (two meanings) try to prove him wrong, but to laugh it off and put less stock in ratings. Peace out.
Patrick,
You really are reaching here. Do you think I would be stupid enough to write something this adamant without knowing there was other evidence that my assertions, as well as what was written in Kathy's blog, wasn't backed up by other research?
Go read this
article from Scientific American.
I can save you the trip though. The gist of it is this one statement:
"The preponderance of psychological evidence indicates that experts are made, not born."
I think that some of you may indeed become IM's, but the illustrious GM title is so out there that I don't really feel that it's very plausible to shoot for. Unfortunately, time is against you. The older you get, the less likely it is that you will become a Grandmaster. Just like any other sport/hobby, players tend to lose their sharpness after about 40, 45 if they're lucky. Chess players, I find, can typically make it to maybe 60 and still be sharp. There are exceptions, but I think this is true in general. If this is so, you guys have only 10, 15, maybe 20 more years before 60, so not only would your stay as a GM be brief, but it's likelihood of occurring is even lower. I wish you guys the best of luck. I personally would love someday to achieve the IM title, but we'll have to see how I develop. Good luck with your quest guys.
Hello,
For background info, I'm a 35 yo French guy, who has been playing competition chess since I'm 20, and have been teaching chess for a few years too. My FIDE rating is around 2050 these days.
I agree with Jim's statement that experts are made rather than born. And I agree that work can improve one's level of chess up to a very decent standard (let's say 2000 FIDE).
However, I believe the GM status to be well above this standard. I've only heard of one person achieving GM status who has started competitive chess after 20 (Romanian GM Michail Suba), and never of anybody starting competition chess after 30.
I'd like to point out that playing chess is not only about knowledge, but much more about the ability to quickly and efficiently process this knowledge so as to make the right decision over the board. I know many knowledgeablt players, who are simply bad fighters.
Chess is a sport, not only an academic pursuit. A GM is a sportsman, not a teacher.
Can someone become a GM at a late age?
Dutch GM Yge Visser became a GM recently when he was over 40 already.
Personally I think any Knight can become an IM by hard work. The hard part is making the jump to GM, which is only attainable when you decide to become a professional, meaning at least working 8 hours a day on chess for some years.
There are players who get the GM title after 20 (or 30, or 40) of course (another fine example is GM Jon Tisdall)
But I would be surprised if these people had started competition chess after 20.
Another fine reading on this topic is English IM chess coach Jon Levitt thought-provoking book 'Genius in chess' (Batsford). His thoughts are still on the web :
http://www.jlevitt.dircon.co.uk/chargen.htm
None of you will be GMs. But who cares, have fun playing the game and improve as well as you can.
Honestly, it doesn't take a large amount of research to understand what it takes to be a grandmaster in chess. If you actively play and start participating in tournaments, you'll have a pretty clear idea of what it will take. The trick, just as the article states, is realizing your weak points and working on them more and more. As long as you have the drive, it's pretty systematic.
I assume you're already an intermediate player. That puts you at around a 1600. Now, you need to kick it into high gear. That means play at least a few games every night, study some tactics, and do a little bit of "assorted" research. That can be studying over your old games, studying over annotated GM games, studying an opening, or whatever else. It's just common sense that your rating will boost while you are doing this.
Eventually you'll hit 1800-2000, at which point you hit another "threshold" which requires you to kick it into another gear. This means focusing more and more on your weaknesses and look into getting an instructor of some sort. Participate in more tournaments, go over more and more of your games, and start hitting the "serious" research such as seriously questioning specific moves in different GM games. The key here is to better understand MASTER LEVEL games.
Now, after some amount of time, it only makes sense that you should be able to reach IM by doing this. Of course, you'll have to stick to it pretty rigidly (which I believe is what causes most people to fail), but if you don't "cheat" and actually stick to it you can make it.
Now, the part that isn't so much guaranteed is jumping from IM to GM. I believe you have to forsake a good bit of your "normal" life to make this jump, as it requires an even more intensive study regime. However, with that said, I think anyone willing to make the sacrifice to their normal life can make the jump.
So, try your hardest to become an IM first. If you manage to make it, then you need to seriously question how much being a GM means to you. If it's worth making the sacrifice to your life, then go for it. If not, then be happy with IM (after all, that IS a huge accomplishment), and hope that your current regime will be enough to take you there!
Post a Comment
<< Home