- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
Originally posted by TippedKingYou say on a website that deletes the account of anyone under 13 🙂
I know in many ways you are just trying to be funny, but I know a couple of the sub 1000 players here because they are students of mine. The youngest one is five years old.
Many of the local masters I know made it pretty much on their own. As has been pointed out, IM’s are much stronger than the average master. I only know one personally, and he had coaching from a local expert when he was rated 1600-1700, but soon got too good. From there on, he made it on his own. I knew one master when he was a 1200 player and he got to 2200+ in 4-5 years by sheer hard work. He once told me, “You have no idea how hard I have to work to stay at 2200.” He quit chess shortly after telling me that, burned out I guess.
Originally posted by IronPawnXLasker said that anyone with great determination and time can become a master. But, grandmasters are born - not made.
Like many here, I'm obsessed with the game. I fill every idle minute of my day with studying tactics, reading strategy books, or playing. My hunger for improving my play will probably never stop. I'm not a competative player, but play more for self improvement.
I haven't, however, had any coaching, professional or otherwise. Everything I have lear would like to hear from any "self-made masters" out there. Do you exist? Is it possible?
If you get all the 7 volumes of the Lev Alburt Comprehensive Chess Series, you can become a master if you don't mind HAVING NO LIFE. Personally, when I was able beat my e-chess Excalibur chess computer on level 72 every time with different openings, I was satisifed for awhile. However, I might continue my Lev Alburt training after I get the rest of the books. Master is achieveable, but you must study an hour a day, every day, no matter what. I spoke with a master that by himself became a master. We were at the Chess Congress in Orlando where I placed fourth in my section. You can look up my USCF ID: 12587475. My standard rating is rather low, because I've only played 9 rated games. My correspondence is respectable - in the 1700s. When I first got a membership on RHP, I was 1300s-1400s. After the Lev Alburt course, I climbed to right around 1600... Then timeouts, and now you see my aweful rating after all the time outs. But, the Lev Alburt course can make you a master. I know people who have done it. De LA Maza also works.
Also, I might mention that one must master all the ideas in the first two volumes of Lev Alburt's Comprehensive Chess Course to break that 1600 barrier. By master, I mean basically maybe even memorize it all. most players will fall in the Class A and B areas after mastering the first two volumes. Trust me. I did it. It was fun, also. But, again, you must study an hour a day no matter what.
Originally posted by Kings Indian FTW5 games, 70 moves... and you're already blowing your own trumpet. I'll just wait and see how high a rating you can achieve.
It is possible (2000 isnt that hard IMHO). I dont see how people on RHP can have ratings like 900... its just stupid.
OTB I hope to be atleast 2200 before I quit.
Originally posted by AlphaAlekhinePhilidor was coached by Legal
I don't believe Morphy or Phildor ever had coaches. At least not to get to master level. They may have gained a second or two to reach GM status, though the rating system wasn't in place for Phildor I think.
"In 1741 Philidor was being instructed by M. de Kermur, Sire de Legal (1702-1792), the leading French chess player. Legal initially gave Philidor rook odds. For the next three years Kermur taught Philidor until Philidor was too strong for his teacher."
http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lab/7378/philidor.htm
I've been watching this post and refraining from giving my opinion. The reason is because every once in awhile someone comes along who is so gifted that even the Grandmasters can't understand their level of the game!
I have seen GM's comments during games from talented players wher the GM says that the player made a bad move, and all his opponent has to do is blah-blah-blah. Well guess what? After the opponent does exactly what a team of GM's suggest he/she is totally crushed!
So that makes me feel good. Why? Because the game still has a depth that is beyond standard theory.
May the World Champion 10 years from now be a human.
Originally posted by chesskid001You beat me to it - yeah, he played a lot with his sister, then at a lot of clubs (getting plenty of coaching, formal and informal I'm sure) in the NYC area, from what I've read. Considering it took him a few years to become exceptional and not just "one of the best for his age," I'm sure there was some teaching to help him when it was clear he had talent.
He never knew his father. It was his sister who introduced him to it though I'm not sure if she ever taught him...
Originally posted by OrangeKingFischer received help early on from US Master John W. Collins. I don’t know that Collins actually taught him much, but they played a lot of skittles and analyzed together, and Collins gave Fischer a lot of moral support. I think when Fischer was about 13 he suddenly got good and Collins really couldn’t offer much advice.
You beat me to it - yeah, he played a lot with his sister, then at a lot of clubs (getting plenty of coaching, formal and informal I'm sure) in the NYC area, from what I've read. Considering it took him a few years to become exceptional and not just "one of the best for his age," I'm sure there was some teaching to help him when it was clear he had talent.
Originally posted by arrakisI believe you may be missing the fact that the World Chess Champion is really Hydra. I do not think any player in the world can defeat Hydra in a set World Championship match of 10 games in standard time. I challenge Vladimir Kramnik to such a match. He will be crushed and outplayed. I was reading the November Chess Life today I recieved in the mail, and I was reading about how chess may be obsolete by 2010. However, GM Andy Soltis - in the tournament disagrees - disagreed. Anyway, to make a long story short and make my point, I was thinking of Hydra. I saw what the monster did to GM Michael Adams - 7th in the World. I saw the games in Chess Life. Only one player has defeated Hydra, and it was in a Correspondence match. Still, I say that this fact does not matter. Still, no one has descisively defeated Hydra in a World CHess CHampion Match with true time? Hydra is World Champion. I study her games. She's magnificent, and has taught me a lot about particular moves in particular positions. I use to have great respect for Topalov until his antics in the World Chess Championship with Kramnik. As for Kramnik, I believe he is not a better player than Topalov; he does have more class than Topalov though as a professional player. Still, my view of Kramnik in a negative sense is that he will not be an exciting World CHampion like Kasparov. Kramnik will never be the Great Kaspy or Bobby Fischer.
I've been watching this post and refraining from giving my opinion. The reason is because every once in awhile someone comes along who is so gifted that even the Grandmasters can't understand their level of the game!
I have seen GM's comments during games from talented players wher the GM says that the player made a bad move, and all his opponent has to epth that is beyond standard theory.
May the World Champion 10 years from now be a human.
This leaves me with a viscious chess genious who is not even human. This leaves me with Hydra. Long live the brilliant chess mind of Hydra - World CHess Champion. If anyone disagrees, let Kramnik play her in a match and lose. The age of man has World CHess Champion is over.
There is no way a human mind can compete with a modern super computer in something that can be broken down to mathematics.
Doesn't matter much to me though. I have been playing chess for about a week and I already know I don't care how good a computer is because its a machine.
Probably a more fair way to play a computer would be to have one mind per processor. If it has 4 chips, let it play 4 games against 4 people.
In the world of computers, Fritz is a lightweight and this Kramnik guy that is one of the best can't beat it.
Originally posted by MerkIf it was not possible for Kramnik to win the current tournament, then I don't see much sense in it being run. Obviously Kramnik is capable on a given day...
There is no way a human mind can compete with a modern super computer in something that can be broken down to mathematics.
Doesn't matter much to me though. I have been playing chess for about a week and I already know I don't care how good a computer is because its a machine.
Probably a more fair way to play a computer would be to have one mind per p ...[text shortened]... computers, Fritz is a lightweight and this Kramnik guy that is one of the best can't beat it.
You say about programmes being about mathematics, yes? Chess is not solely about maths, but a lot of it is about strategy. The ways to put the maths(tactics) into calculation or take it away. Kramnik seems brilliant tactically so his world unification chess championship win seems well justified, however maybe someone with good strategy may beat computers easier. I don't know, but strategy would be a computers weakness as it's only what they have been programmed with thus far. Maybe Topalov would be a better match-up?
i learned chess 2 years ago and 1st year my rating improved from 1000 to 1400 last year it improved from 1400 to 1900, hopefully i will become a master someday if i keep on working hard. i have no coach and study chess by myself, i study tactics mostly, recently ive been working on endgames a lot, and for openings i have a couple books and this site is useful for memorizing and learning the variations.