Originally posted by Mad RookFYI: Malcolm Pein is an IM who writes about chess in "The Daily Telegraph" although they appear to be giving him less space nowadays. He owns and runs the London Chess Centre (I've bought to0 many books from them!)on Euston Road in Londonand publishes an excellent monthly magazine: Chess. www.chess.co.uk
It's a chess store in Florida that also sells over the internet. It's run by Malcolm Pein, who is an Englishman with a good chess reputation, as far as I can tell. (Maybe some of the English RHPers can give their opinions.) I think he's somehow connected to a chess store in London, also.
Edit - Also read my post in the link I provided earlier for more info if you haven't already done so.
I've been to a couple of free events at the London Chess Centre and met Malcolm there and also met him at some kids tournaments (he has a young son) and he's seems really decent.
An old myth?
Adult brains are not as capable of learning as childrens'. I don't think scientific evidence should be confused as myths.
A child can easily reach 2000 rating just a couple of years of play. One person at my chess club is 14 years old and started studying chess last december, he's now almost 1900 in rating.
Originally posted by likeforestTry http://www.labatechess.com
R.I.P Purdy, you did much for the chess world. I pour over your games and annotations with the highest respect for you and your carrer. Speaking of Pudy, does anyone know where to find a reasonably priced copy of The search for chess perfection?
Originally posted by MoneyMaker7Strangely enough I've found that adults who learn chess from scratch make much more rapid progress than young children. Even if a child starts playing at the age of five it usually takes at least five years before they get to the standard where they can give the average club player a run for his money.
An old myth?
Adult brains are not as capable of learning as childrens'. I don't think scientific evidence should be confused as myths.
A child can easily reach 2000 rating just a couple of years of play. One person at my chess club is 14 years old and started studying chess last december, he's now almost 1900 in rating.
I think that children have a reputation for learning quickly because they have more time (or are forced to play more!). Most adults have to work and do chores most of the time and can spend relatively little time learning new skills. Also any free time we do have is probably in the evening, which I don't think is the best time to learn.
When I have had to learn new computer skills or understand a mathematical algorithm for work it takes me much less time than it used to when I was around 20 and doing my degree.
Originally posted by Fat LadyI agree, with a small exclusion: small children do learn certain type of things faster because the plasticity of their brain is greater. and if they really get interested in something they usually have more energy to spare. however, they don't know how to study, and they have almost no dicipline whatsoever. a determined adult will learn pretty much anything faster than a child, regardless of their relatively weaker neural learning ability.
Strangely enough I've found that adults who learn chess from scratch make much more rapid progress than young children. Even if a child starts playing at the age of five it usually takes at least five years before they get to the standard where they can give the average club player a run for his money.
I think that children have a reputation for learning for work it takes me much less time than it used to when I was around 20 and doing my degree.
at 32 I might not be able to learn pronunciation of a foreign language as well as a small child, but I'll learn the essential grammar in weeks, memorize a small dictionary in half a year and write very well in a year. the kid will take 5-10 years for that, basically until he grows up. but I'll never reach the same level in pronunciation because my brain won't learn the subleties of it.
Fat Lady, you're very right.
If a 7 year old and a 30 year old both started studying chess with the same teacher for the same amount of time, after a year, the adult would kill the kid.
But extend the period to 3-5 years, the kid would leave the adult in his dust forever.
So as an adult you can expect some short term results as a beginner but after that you'll reach an immoveable platteau.
Chessisvanity, you are nothing but a noobish 1200 player who messes his way in with other players. You won't ever make it to any success unless you update your Fritz. So unless you start bringing some results in, it's hard to believe in your side of the argument.
Originally posted by MoneyMaker7I'm comfortably in the 1800's after 2 years, and I learned how the pieces move at 30 years old. I've seen no signs of plateauing so far, how could I when chess at 1800 is still fumbling in the dark. easy to improve when you're constantly doing crass mistakes. my 1862 puts me in the 98th percentile here currently, and I'm not even putting in the hours I used to. I very much doubt the kids are all in the 2% above me, no matter how long they've played.
But extend the period to 3-5 years, the kid would leave the adult in his dust forever.
Im glad my lame post could pump some life into this forum. So lets set this straight once and for all! If you are planning on achieving the status of GM, im sorry to say that you have probably started to late (unless of course, dear reader, you are pre-pubecent(sp?). If your goal is expert or above (maybe even IM) then rest assured this is an attainable goal. Lasker once stated that any adult of average intellagence(sp? sorry drinking too much tonight) with proper tutalage(sp? must stop dring PBR) can easily reach expert level. My message to you: dont let these lame asses tell you improvement is not possible! They only say that because they are dissatified(sorry) with there own results. F@#$ you losers, im here to improve!
Originally posted by chessisvanityI not sure that "GM chess is boring" if one's understanding of chess is sufficently good to be able to appreciate it.
like the man said...."i'm here to improve".....GM chess is boring....Expert chess is fun....I choose Expert.....which i will be one day. Enough said.
Originally posted by gaychessplayerI think he meant that GM chess is boring because at that level it becomes more of a job and way of life rather than just a game. I started playing a year ago in July at 45 and just have fun at it. I also see no reason that anyone my age can't make it to 2000 with enough work. That's in the high percentile of players and will compete in most decent clubs.
I not sure that "GM chess is boring" if one's understanding of chess is sufficently good to be able to appreciate it.