Your network blocks the Lichess assets!

lichess.org
Donate

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

"A lot of people say things like, “I want to gain 400–500 rating points in a year.”"

  • It is realistic.
    'Having spent 200 hours on the above, the young player, even if he possesses no special talent for chess, is likely to be among those two or three thousand chess players who play on a par with a master. There are, however, a quarter of a million chess players who annually spend no fewer than 200 hours on chess without making any progress. Without going into any further calculations, I can assert with a high degree of certainty that nowadays we achieve only a fraction of what we are capable of achieving.' - Lasker

"an adult improver with a 2100 FIDE rating who said he wanted to become an International Master in two years."

"People start chess with huge ambitions, don’t see fast results, get disappointed, and eventually quit."

  • They do the wrong things.

"Talent alone is not enough to reach the top 1%."

  • 'I have only one talent, a talent for hard work' - Kasparov

"if a player cannot afford to travel abroad"

  • Travel is not that expensive nowadays.

"You cannot become a top-level or world-class player just by putting in endless hours."

  • It is not only the hours, but what you do in these hours.

"spend thousands of hours on chess and still never cross 2000–2100 rating."

  • They spend their hours the wrong way.

"becoming a GM is probably impossible for me too."

  • You can if you want.

"Most coaches can understand very quickly whether a student is truly built for competitive chess at a high level."

  • 'The boy (then a 12 year old boy named Anatoly Karpov) doesn't have a clue about Chess,
    and there's no future at all for him in this profession.' - Botvinnik

"Ratings are one of the most misleading ways to judge progress."

  • It is the only objective measure.

"There are many excellent 2000-rated coaches, but people still prefer to contact IMs or GMs and are willing to pay much more."

  • Rightly so. Knowledge goes by osmosis: from high to low.

"stopped playing because they could not handle losing"

  • Learning from a loss is essential for progress.
    'You may learn much more from a game you lose than from a game you win.
    You will have to lose hundreds of games before becoming a good player.' - Capablanca
    'People who want to improve should take their defeats as lessons, and endeavor to learn what to avoid in the future. ' - Capablanca

"when parents spend lakhs of rupees on chess, but the child does not get the expected results"

  • It is the same with piano lessons, or tennis lessons. Does the child really want it? Dad Polgar left his daughters free choice if they wanted to excel at chess, mathematics, or classical music. They all chose chess. It was their chosing.
"A lot of people say things like, “I want to gain 400–500 rating points in a year.”" * It is realistic. 'Having spent 200 hours on the above, the young player, even if he possesses no special talent for chess, is likely to be among those two or three thousand chess players who play on a par with a master. There are, however, a quarter of a million chess players who annually spend no fewer than 200 hours on chess without making any progress. Without going into any further calculations, I can assert with a high degree of certainty that nowadays we achieve only a fraction of what we are capable of achieving.' - Lasker "an adult improver with a 2100 FIDE rating who said he wanted to become an International Master in two years." * It is realistic. Many got from 2100 to IM in 2 years. Example https://ratings.fide.com/profile/44599790/chart 1955 in september 2021 IM in 2022 "People start chess with huge ambitions, don’t see fast results, get disappointed, and eventually quit." * They do the wrong things. "Talent alone is not enough to reach the top 1%." * 'I have only one talent, a talent for hard work' - Kasparov "if a player cannot afford to travel abroad" * Travel is not that expensive nowadays. "You cannot become a top-level or world-class player just by putting in endless hours." * It is not only the hours, but what you do in these hours. "spend thousands of hours on chess and still never cross 2000–2100 rating." * They spend their hours the wrong way. "becoming a GM is probably impossible for me too." * You can if you want. "Most coaches can understand very quickly whether a student is truly built for competitive chess at a high level." * 'The boy (then a 12 year old boy named Anatoly Karpov) doesn't have a clue about Chess, and there's no future at all for him in this profession.' - Botvinnik "Ratings are one of the most misleading ways to judge progress." * It is the only objective measure. "There are many excellent 2000-rated coaches, but people still prefer to contact IMs or GMs and are willing to pay much more." * Rightly so. Knowledge goes by osmosis: from high to low. "stopped playing because they could not handle losing" * Learning from a loss is essential for progress. 'You may learn much more from a game you lose than from a game you win. You will have to lose hundreds of games before becoming a good player.' - Capablanca 'People who want to improve should take their defeats as lessons, and endeavor to learn what to avoid in the future. ' - Capablanca "when parents spend lakhs of rupees on chess, but the child does not get the expected results" * It is the same with piano lessons, or tennis lessons. Does the child really want it? Dad Polgar left his daughters free choice if they wanted to excel at chess, mathematics, or classical music. They all chose chess. It was their chosing.

@tpr said ^

"an adult improver with a 2100 FIDE rating who said he wanted to become an International Master in two years."

It seems you missed the point about how we hear about successes a lot but we never hear about people who invested just as much but didn't get the same outcome. Yeah, Erdogmus succeeded, but he's truly exceptional. "Realistic" doesn't mean "there was at least person in the world who did it, maybe with a different context though" but rather "you actually have a good chance given your context". Usually people have less money and less talent than Erdogmus or Kasparov. And yeah, of course Kasparov had a huge talent for chess, it's not like he was who he was just because he was the only one who could work hard.

As for your take that hours should be spent in the right way... well, yeah, that's true. If only there was an easy way of knowing which way is right... It's easy to dismiss someone's failure with an argument that they spent their resources in the wrong way. But maybe sometimes there's just less resources, and less talent to work with.

@tpr said [^](/forum/redirect/post/R9rgoBG9) > "an adult improver with a 2100 FIDE rating who said he wanted to become an International Master in two years." > * It is realistic. Many got from 2100 to IM in 2 years. Example > https://ratings.fide.com/profile/44599790/chart > 1955 in september 2021 > IM in 2022 It seems you missed the point about how we hear about successes a lot but we never hear about people who invested just as much but didn't get the same outcome. Yeah, Erdogmus succeeded, but he's truly exceptional. "Realistic" doesn't mean "there was at least person in the world who did it, maybe with a different context though" but rather "you actually have a good chance given your context". Usually people have less money and less talent than Erdogmus or Kasparov. And yeah, of course Kasparov had a huge talent for chess, it's not like he was who he was just because he was the only one who could work hard. As for your take that hours should be spent in the right way... well, yeah, that's true. If only there was an easy way of knowing which way is right... It's easy to dismiss someone's failure with an argument that they spent their resources in the wrong way. But maybe sometimes there's just less resources, and less talent to work with.

"Erdogmus succeeded"

  • There are dozens who got from 2100 to IM in 2 years.

"less talent"

  • Talent does not exist, it is all hard and smart work. Dad Polgar said so and kind of proved it with his 3 daughters.

"If only there was an easy way of knowing which way is right"

  • If hours are spent and no progress, then it is the wrong way.

"less resources"

  • The only resource is time and that is equal: 24 hours per day.
"Erdogmus succeeded" * There are dozens who got from 2100 to IM in 2 years. "less talent" * Talent does not exist, it is all hard and smart work. Dad Polgar said so and kind of proved it with his 3 daughters. "If only there was an easy way of knowing which way is right" * If hours are spent and no progress, then it is the wrong way. "less resources" * The only resource is time and that is equal: 24 hours per day.

@tpr said ^

"less resources"

  • The only resource is time and that is equal: 24 hours per day.

Pure ignorance.

I'm assuming you're too young to have ever had to work or take care of others.

I can only agree that time is the greatest resource but it's certainly not equal, most people have to sell theirs for basic survival. If you're lucky you have a job you luck (or 2nd best, a boring job that requires minimal attention during which you can study or train for something better).

@tpr said [^](/forum/redirect/post/DAYWqtGI) > > "less resources" > * The only resource is time and that is equal: 24 hours per day. Pure ignorance. I'm assuming you're too young to have ever had to work or take care of others. I can only agree that time is the greatest resource but it's certainly not equal, most people have to sell theirs for basic survival. If you're lucky you have a job you luck (or 2nd best, a boring job that requires minimal attention during which you can study or train for something better).

Re : original essay, they are good points, I spent most of my 20s & 30s living in a bit of a la-la land of unrealistic dreams (not so much related to chess but I did project this onto chess as well). Living mentally in a perpetual hype/bust cycle is really bad for one's mental health.

Re : original essay, they are good points, I spent most of my 20s & 30s living in a bit of a la-la land of unrealistic dreams (not so much related to chess but I did project this onto chess as well). Living mentally in a perpetual hype/bust cycle is really bad for one's mental health.

"I'm assuming you're too young"

  • You are assuming wrongly.

"time is the greatest resource"

  • It is the essential resource.

"most people have to sell theirs for basic survival"

  • Everybody has duties: school, work, family, but ultimately it is your own choice how you spend your time, i.e. how you set your priorities. Kramnik for example has a family, but he never watched television so as to save time for chess.
"I'm assuming you're too young" * You are assuming wrongly. "time is the greatest resource" * It is the essential resource. "most people have to sell theirs for basic survival" * Everybody has duties: school, work, family, but ultimately it is your own choice how you spend your time, i.e. how you set your priorities. Kramnik for example has a family, but he never watched television so as to save time for chess.

@tpr said ^

"I'm assuming you're too young"

  • You are assuming wrongly.

All I got to go on by is your attitude and it appears to be of someone with little experience.

"most people have to sell theirs for basic survival"

  • Everybody has duties: school, work, family, but ultimately it is your own choice how you spend your time, i.e. how you set your priorities. Kramnik for example has a family, but he never watched television so as to save time for chess.

That's a smart choice but extrapolating to assume 'If I don't watch TV maybe I can be a world champ' is wishful thinking.

Like having a morning routine is good, thinking someone became a CEO because of their morning routine is fantasy.

@tpr said [^](/forum/redirect/post/43GwqWbB) > "I'm assuming you're too young" > * You are assuming wrongly. > All I got to go on by is your attitude and it appears to be of someone with little experience. > "most people have to sell theirs for basic survival" > * Everybody has duties: school, work, family, but ultimately it is your own choice how you spend your time, i.e. how you set your priorities. Kramnik for example has a family, but he never watched television so as to save time for chess. That's a smart choice but extrapolating to assume 'If I don't watch TV maybe I can be a world champ' is wishful thinking. Like having a morning routine is good, thinking someone became a CEO because of their morning routine is fantasy.

"All I got to go on by is your attitude and it appears to be of someone with little experience."

  • Pure ignorance on your part.

"That's a smart choice"

  • If it is smart is another question. Point is everybody is free to allocate his/her 24 h/day as (s)he sees fit.
    Even our teenage grandmasters learned to read, write, and calculate.
    The main point is that people prefer to admit stupidity rather than laziness.
"All I got to go on by is your attitude and it appears to be of someone with little experience." * Pure ignorance on your part. "That's a smart choice" * If it is smart is another question. Point is everybody is free to allocate his/her 24 h/day as (s)he sees fit. Even our teenage grandmasters learned to read, write, and calculate. The main point is that people prefer to admit stupidity rather than laziness.

@tpr said ^

The main point is that people prefer to admit stupidity rather than laziness.

Admitting one's limits isn't laziness. Recognizing advantage & disadvantage isn't laziness.

If you can't take an honest look @ yourself you can waste a lot of time chasing some pipe-dream.

Why did the article trigger you so much?

@tpr said [^](/forum/redirect/post/M0cJ93Hz) > The main point is that people prefer to admit stupidity rather than laziness. Admitting one's limits isn't laziness. Recognizing advantage & disadvantage isn't laziness. If you can't take an honest look @ yourself you can waste a lot of time chasing some pipe-dream. Why did the article trigger you so much?