Your network blocks the Lichess assets!

lichess.org
Donate

Slow Growth in Chess: The Truth Most People Don’t Want to Hear

"Admitting one's limits isn't laziness."

  • No, but blaming no progress on no talent instead of no effort.
    People have so many lame excuses for no progress: no talent, no time, no money, no tournaments, no training partner...
    People also have so many lame excuses for a loss: time trouble, stupid blunder, annoying opening, a cold, noise, the light...

"waste a lot of time"

  • What is wasting time? Pursuing a dream is laudable.

"Why did the article trigger you so much?"

  • I think a lot about the topic.
"Admitting one's limits isn't laziness." * No, but blaming no progress on no talent instead of no effort. People have so many lame excuses for no progress: no talent, no time, no money, no tournaments, no training partner... People also have so many lame excuses for a loss: time trouble, stupid blunder, annoying opening, a cold, noise, the light... "waste a lot of time" * What is wasting time? Pursuing a dream is laudable. "Why did the article trigger you so much?" * I think a lot about the topic.

Making excuses is not the same as acknowledging circumstances. Personally I'd rather err on the side of slight delusion than extreme pessimism but the idea that sheer will alone is what leads to accomplishment causes a lot of grief. How many desperate people out there thinking if they just achieve some unreachable goal they'll finally be ok? If you have some .0001% goal statistically you're not gonna achieve it, so only pursue goals where you enjoy the process as all of your life is the process.

Making excuses is not the same as acknowledging circumstances. Personally I'd rather err on the side of slight delusion than extreme pessimism but the idea that sheer will alone is what leads to accomplishment causes a lot of grief. How many desperate people out there thinking if they just achieve some unreachable goal they'll finally be ok? If you have some .0001% goal statistically you're not gonna achieve it, so only pursue goals where you enjoy the process as all of your life is the process.

"unreachable goal"
If a 1500 rated player wants to reach 2000 in 1 year, then that is realistic. If he wants to become IM, then it is not.
If a 2100 rated player wants to become IM in 2 years, then that is realistic. If he wants to become GM, then it is not.
If IM nihildixit wants to become GM in 2 years, then that is realistic. If he wants to become World Champion, then it is not.

However, if you do not want it, then you will not reach it.
If a 1500 rated player wants to stay at 1500, then that is fine.
If a 2100 rated player wants to stay at 2100, then that is fine.
If IM nihildixit wants to stay at 2400, then that is fine.

"unreachable goal" If a 1500 rated player wants to reach 2000 in 1 year, then that is realistic. If he wants to become IM, then it is not. If a 2100 rated player wants to become IM in 2 years, then that is realistic. If he wants to become GM, then it is not. If IM nihildixit wants to become GM in 2 years, then that is realistic. If he wants to become World Champion, then it is not. However, if you do not want it, then you will not reach it. If a 1500 rated player wants to stay at 1500, then that is fine. If a 2100 rated player wants to stay at 2100, then that is fine. If IM nihildixit wants to stay at 2400, then that is fine.

@tpr said ^

If a 2100 rated player wants to become IM in 2 years, then that is realistic. If he wants to become GM, then it is not.

This assertion is based on what?

Even if you're talking about some super talented young kid with rich parents who's homeschooled & can study chess 8+ hours a day such a jump is a long shot, I used to play in New York City & New Jersey (tons of strong kids started off there) and known tons of talented kids, a few have become very, very strong (all with dedicated families, without that it's not going to happen) but most kids in the 2000's don't even make NM, let alone IM. And is that such a tragedy? I'd rather have a well adjusted kid who played chess for fun than be Hans Neiman's dad.

If you're talking about a 40 year old dad with a job, shoot even a 40 year old single guy who's independently wealthy yeah that's just not happening. I've heard of isolated cases (1 in a million) of adult improvers shooting from 2100 to 2400 but as a goal it's wildly unrealistic & you're likely to mess up your life trying to achieve it.

If you got time on your hands & some good online tools could probably do a statistical analysis, I'd guess for someone under 18 a jump from 2100 to 2400 FIDE is like a 1 in 10,000 occurrence, for above 18 maybe 1 in 200,000, above 40 probably zero.

@tpr said ^

If IM nihildixit wants to stay at 2400, then that is fine.

What do you know about maintaining a 2400 rating let alone increasing it? At what rating is one immune to your criticism of laziness?

@tpr said [^](/forum/redirect/post/hf6KLERX) > If a 2100 rated player wants to become IM in 2 years, then that is realistic. If he wants to become GM, then it is not. This assertion is based on what? Even if you're talking about some super talented young kid with rich parents who's homeschooled & can study chess 8+ hours a day such a jump is a long shot, I used to play in New York City & New Jersey (tons of strong kids started off there) and known tons of talented kids, a few have become very, very strong (all with dedicated families, without that it's not going to happen) but most kids in the 2000's don't even make NM, let alone IM. And is that such a tragedy? I'd rather have a well adjusted kid who played chess for fun than be Hans Neiman's dad. If you're talking about a 40 year old dad with a job, shoot even a 40 year old single guy who's independently wealthy yeah that's just not happening. I've heard of isolated cases (1 in a million) of adult improvers shooting from 2100 to 2400 but as a goal it's wildly unrealistic & you're likely to mess up your life trying to achieve it. If you got time on your hands & some good online tools could probably do a statistical analysis, I'd guess for someone under 18 a jump from 2100 to 2400 FIDE is like a 1 in 10,000 occurrence, for above 18 maybe 1 in 200,000, above 40 probably zero. @tpr said [^](/forum/redirect/post/hf6KLERX) >If IM nihildixit wants to stay at 2400, then that is fine. What do you know about maintaining a 2400 rating let alone increasing it? At what rating is one immune to your criticism of laziness?

"This assertion is based on what?"

  • FIDE rating list. It shows the exact dates of being 2100 rated and obtaining IM.

"super talented"

  • Talent does not exist, it is all hard and smart work. See the above Kasparov quote. See Lazlo Polgar.
    See how Botvinnik misjudged the presumed lack of talent of Karpov.

"young kid with rich parents who's homeschooled & can study chess 8+ hours a day"

  • That is not even necessary. Many IM and even GM have university degrees.
    In the past even world champions: Lasker, Alékhine, Euwe, Botvinnik, but that is no longer possible now.
    I know a kid who made GM. His parents are not rich. He attended regular schools, but was allowed to play chess tournaments.

"a few have become very, very strong"

  • That is the point of the Lasker quote.

"is that such a tragedy?"

  • No. If they want, they can, but if they do not want, then they will not.

"I'd rather have a well adjusted kid who played chess for fun"

  • That is perfect.
    'The ability to play chess is the sign of a gentleman. The ability to play chess well is the sign of a wasted life.' - Morphy

"wildly unrealistic"

"What do you know about maintaining a 2400 rating"

  • It is the same as with any level. The higher you get, the harder it becomes.

"criticism of laziness"

  • It is no criticism.
    If Kasparov said I am no longer motivated to play at top level, then that was his choice.
    If Carlsen said I do no longer want to go through all the trouble of preparing and playing a World Championship Match, then that was his decision.
    If Kramnik said I have worked 7 days a week for so long and now I will work 6 days per week only, that is his decision.
"This assertion is based on what?" * FIDE rating list. It shows the exact dates of being 2100 rated and obtaining IM. "super talented" * Talent does not exist, it is all hard and smart work. See the above Kasparov quote. See Lazlo Polgar. See how Botvinnik misjudged the presumed lack of talent of Karpov. "young kid with rich parents who's homeschooled & can study chess 8+ hours a day" * That is not even necessary. Many IM and even GM have university degrees. In the past even world champions: Lasker, Alékhine, Euwe, Botvinnik, but that is no longer possible now. I know a kid who made GM. His parents are not rich. He attended regular schools, but was allowed to play chess tournaments. "a few have become very, very strong" * That is the point of the Lasker quote. "is that such a tragedy?" * No. If they want, they can, but if they do not want, then they will not. "I'd rather have a well adjusted kid who played chess for fun" * That is perfect. 'The ability to play chess is the sign of a gentleman. The ability to play chess well is the sign of a wasted life.' - Morphy "wildly unrealistic" * IM Reprintsev obtained a direct GM title at age 66 by winning the 65+ Senior World Championship. https://lichess.org/@/tpr/blog/reprintsev-wins-direct-gm-title-at-age-66/B7Yb7oaW "What do you know about maintaining a 2400 rating" * It is the same as with any level. The higher you get, the harder it becomes. "criticism of laziness" * It is no criticism. If Kasparov said I am no longer motivated to play at top level, then that was his choice. If Carlsen said I do no longer want to go through all the trouble of preparing and playing a World Championship Match, then that was his decision. If Kramnik said I have worked 7 days a week for so long and now I will work 6 days per week only, that is his decision.