Getting to 2700 at least

[Do it Right]

Originally Posted by bwtaylor

Giri is 18 years old! It's one thing to surge like that when you are a teenager, a bit more rare in your early 20s. Your recent gains into the 2400 band are quite impressive. That kind of improvement in the late 20s is very rare.

I could only find a couple people who broke through 2700 after 25 years of age. Luke McShane just broke 2700 and he is 28. He reached 2600 in 2003. Laurrent Fressinet reached 2700 in 2010 when he was 29. He reached 2600 in 2001 when he was also around 20.

It'd be a much less bleak question if you had asked your chances of making grandmaster. That seems like a reasonable lifetime goal for you, given where you are.

You always have to keep in mind in doing research like that that you're dealing with an incredibly biased sample. I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of 14 year old 2400s are actively working their asses off trying to improve. I think it's equally safe to say that most 24 year old 2400s have likely already 'retired' from the active work involved in improvement - even if they still do play. So even if an equal percent of each managed to continue improving, it would look like vastly more of the 14 year olds were improving than the 24 year olds.

[The Yugoslavian]

I voted yes mainly in an attempt to give OP hope. I doubt any other mid 20 year olds are even trying to do this at that rating....as has been mentioned, they've given up or are doing other things.

I say F it and just go for it. I assume you really really really like chess so if you stop or back off now, you'll never know if you could've made it, .

[NajdorfDefense]

Originally Posted by NajdorfDefense

This + age, but in Finland I doubt there's much else to do but eat ice so...maybe?

I'm sure you can always improve at tactics. A 2700-level should never miss a tactical win, ever, barring time-control.

Obvs endgames as I'm sure you know.

Kramnik played the move 34...Qe3 calmly, stood up, picked up his cup and was about to leave the stage to go to his rest room. "

Just a different kind of time pressure, like I said!

very funny pics tho

[BotOnTilt]

Originally Posted by The Yugoslavian

I voted yes mainly in an attempt to give OP hope.

+1

[BotOnTilt]

Originally Posted by QuantumCage

I think to earn at least an ok living in chess, 2700 is a must.

Out of curiosity, what kind of living do grand masters expect to get? I mean I checked some of the coaches on Chess.com and you can get coaching for $60/hour from a GM... (I suppose you don't need to be good at math to become a GM since for some reason its cheaper to buy 5 hour blocks than 10 hour blocks )
http://www.chess.com/coach/victor-mikhalevski

Just feels so ironic that a GM charges similar rates as someone coaching micro stakes poker players...

[Punker]

Those people saying it's a question of dedication or whatever are flat out wrong. 2700+ is just as equally a talent question - you're going to have to have immense talent and immense dedication in equal measures. Based on your rating chart, it doesn't look like chess has been a major part of your life, so I think you may have trouble with the dedication part once it comes down to it. Talent seems good, but I don't think anyone here can assess 2700 talent.

Opportunity and support are a major question as well; if you have the opportunity to play strong grandmasters frequently, and support to travel to events, it helps your chances.

In the end though, only 45 people in the world are rated 2700. The odds are pretty long against you being #46, sorry.

[Do it Right]

Talent. That's a funny one. If you ask most 2500 GMs why they aren't rated higher, most will confess that they're simply too damn lazy to push harder, or more artfully - they didn't want to dedicate their life to chess. Yet when you ask most (or at least many) 1500s why they aren't rated higher it's because they aren't talented enough. Amusing to think about.

[Do it Right]

The even more amusing part is considering what the 'talent crowd' would have said if OP in 2010, who would have been a 2100 who had been 2000-2100 pretty much forever, came and posted what people thought about his chances of making 2400 in a couple of years would be if he tried really hard. It'd undoubtedly be a mix of him being way too old to him obviously lacking talent since he wasn't 2400 already.

I just don't really understand the talent crowd. It's like they've given up, blame their failures on lack of work ethic 'talent' and are determined to drag down the rest of the world with them.

[The Yugoslavian]

Do it Right - that isn't just unique to chess, that's true for anything that requires a lot of long hours of focus and discipline to get good at. So it applies to pretty much everything in life: losing weight, poker, getting an A+ instead of an A, etc.

I mean, almost everyone lacks the drive/ambition/discipline to really achieve "master" level in anything unless they just happen to love doing it more than anything else or really are ridiculously talented. But to not feel like massive failures we all rationalize why we aren't better as out of our control.

But yeah, this pisses me off too. And also explains why I'm not master level at anything, lol. At least I realize I am just being a (somewhat) lazy bastard.

[Punker]

Originally Posted by Do it Right

Talent. That's a funny one. If you ask most 2500 GMs why they aren't rated higher, most will confess that they're simply too damn lazy to push harder, or more artfully - they didn't want to dedicate their life to chess.

That's a way that people hold on to hope - "I could have been super-elite, but I am not because I don't work hard enough". This guy is basically saying "I have played single A baseball, do you think I could be a major league all star in 3 years? Someone else did it."

[tchaz]

Originally Posted by Punker

That's a way that people hold on to hope - "I could have been super-elite, but I am not because I don't work hard enough". This guy is basically saying "I have played single A baseball, do you think I could be a major league all star in 3 years? Someone else did it."

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/46...dream-1147109/

[KyleJRM82]

Originally Posted by tchaz

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/46...dream-1147109/

I have trouble explaining to people why I hang out on a poker forum but don't play poker. Threads like that are why.

[ganstaman]

Originally Posted by KyleJRM82

I have trouble explaining to people why I hang out on a poker forum but don't play poker. Threads like that are why.

You don't play poker? How did you get here?

[KyleJRM82]

Originally Posted by ganstaman

You don't play poker? How did you get here?

I dabbled a long time ago and realized quickly I was in that 60-80th percentile of poker players who would never make money because of the rake and not having the right skill set. I knew what 2+2 was and had an account, but never posted.

I think I found this sub-forum when someone on a chess forum linked the Durrr chess prop bet thread. This is pretty much the only forum on 2+2 I post in, but I go look at the rest for awesomeness from time to time.

[Do it Right]

Originally Posted by Punker

That's a way that people hold on to hope - "I could have been super-elite, but I am not because I don't work hard enough". This guy is basically saying "I have played single A baseball, do you think I could be a major league all star in 3 years? Someone else did it."

The nature of success in anything is that very few people, perhaps none, have done it. Very few people are truly successful at anything in terms of the world. There are two types of people in this world. Those that use that as motivation to drive them forward, a mighty challenge to overcome. And those that use it as an excuse to give up. There's no way of telling how many of the former will ultimately succeed but it's very easy to tell how many of the latter will - zero.