How strong of a chess player is Howard Lederer?

[Do it Right]

1951 is not an expert, it's a class player.

Players have gone from nothing to actual expert rating in less than 1 year.

Chess, like poker, has many people playing but very few people playing it seriously. So he is certainly well above the mean - much like an online tagfish who barely beats $50NL would probably be in the top 5% of poker players worldwide. But it's certainly no noteworthy accomplishment in either case unless you want to compare yourself to people who have never put forth serious effort to improve themselves.

[Montrealcorp]

i think we can confidently say, the only reason we know the rating of lederer its because he was playing poker on tv...

i dunno why some people get interest in this cause 2000 rating in chess has nothing special on its own.

lederer could said i use to be a cook in some hotel restaurant and it would of been the same value for an anecdote.

harrington is another matter tho, 2300 + in chess starts to have merits on its own.

allenC (cunningham) in 1 year almost accomplish what lederer did in his ealier years.
imo this anecdote is a lot more interesting about Allen than about lederer

[kevmode]

Originally Posted by Montrealcorp

i think we can confidently say, the only reason we know the rating of lederer its because he was playing poker on tv...

i dunno why some people get interest in this cause 2000 rating in chess has nothing special on its own.

lederer could said i use to be a cook in some hotel restaurant and it would of been the same value for an anecdote.

harrington is another matter tho, 2300 + in chess starts to have merits on its own.

allenC (cunningham) in 1 year almost accomplish what lederer did in his ealier years.
imo this anecdote is a lot more interesting about Allen than about lederer

Getting to a 2000 ranking is special I use to play a lot of chess when I was young so I know. Not sure if serious or just trolling with all the comments you made about Howard in your post. Allen is a smart guy so him putting in a lot of hours may be possible to get to an expert but a normal person won't ever be able to achieve an expert rating it is to difficult. Your comparison between cooking and chess is a weak. To say getting to be an expert is nothing special is honestly laughable and a lot harder then beating 50nl online that is for dam sure.

[ohsnapzbrah]

I played poker for 2 years and reached 50nl in one year (and then just stagnated and stopped playing seriously).
I've played chess for 16 years (11 years in rated competition) and have only reached a peak of 1700. 2000 rating is incredibly difficult to achieve. It takes patience and work ethic.

And the comment about AllenC doing it in one year, AllenC also has the advantages of computers and mega databases and able to play a chess game in an instant. Howard did it in the old days before computers and opening theory was stacked up and books were the only means of chess knowledge. Both are incredibly great feats, to be sure.

[networth]

Was reading this thread and the "least favorite opening to play against" thread - mine is the Pirc - and this game came to mind. So not exactly appropriate to the thread but will post this Harrington game from the 70's.

White: John Curdo
Black: Dan Harrington

e4 d6
d4 Nf6
Nc3 g6
Bg5 Bg7
f4 h6
Bh4 c5
e5 Nh5
dc Qa5
Bxe7 de
b4 resigns

Harrington was rated over 2200 and may have been defending MA champion at the time.

[Do it Right]

Originally Posted by ohsnapzbrah

I played poker for 2 years and reached 50nl in one year (and then just stagnated and stopped playing seriously).
I've played chess for 16 years (11 years in rated competition) and have only reached a peak of 1700. 2000 rating is incredibly difficult to achieve. It takes patience and work ethic.

Many people will also play poker their entire lives and still not be able to beat $50NL. You have to look outside yourself and try to compare the relative effort required for both. Poker requires much more psychological training than education and vice versa for chess. If you have a greater disposition towards one or the other, it would be much easier. Time is important for poker here since the games have gotten radically tougher in recent times. I am referring to $50NL of at the latest a year or so ago.

Although I think the complexity of chess paired with an enormous amount of training material geared towards what people think they need rather than what they actually do need could make improving there vastly more challenging without proper mentorship. Whereas even though the average quality of training material for poker seems quite low, the relative simplicity of the game means it can still promise dividends if you do digest enough of it - again with the huge catch that your psychological game is up to tier.

[Montrealcorp]

Originally Posted by Do it Right

Many people will also play poker their entire lives and still not be able to beat $50NL. You have to look outside yourself and try to compare the relative effort required for both. Poker requires much more psychological training than education and vice versa for chess. If you have a greater disposition towards one or the other, it would be much easier. Time is important for poker here since the games have gotten radically tougher in recent times. I am referring to $50NL of at the latest a year or so ago.

Although I think the complexity of chess paired with an enormous amount of training material geared towards what people think they need rather than what they actually do need could make improving there vastly more challenging without proper mentorship. Whereas even though the average quality of training material for poker seems quite low, the relative simplicity of the game means it can still promise dividends if you do digest enough of it - again with the huge catch that your psychological game is up to tier.

thast basically it.

ohs and kev, im not here to offend u , by no means i am not.

but if , after 10 years, u didnt achieve 2000 rating ( and i hope we are not talking 2000 US rating but FIDE rating i hope ?), u didnt reallly put a lot of effort in chess , u put a lot effort not in efficient way ( like studying 500 hours of opening and 2 for ending wich is common below 2000 rating ) or this game isnt for u.....

2000 is achieveable wihtout too much difficulty if u take the time and effort for it.

for me, when a vast majority of the population can achieve something , imo it aint even worth mentionning pass being an anecdote.

2000 in chess ( and im in generous, i would rather say 2100 or 2200 ...) its like saying , hey i have college degree or w.e).
2000 is like a high school degree imo...

in chess club , i see players playing over 20 years and still cant play higher than 1600.... because they never took the game serioussly doesnt mean its an awesome achievement for other to reach 2000 wich is restricted to a minority.

even lasker in one of his book said after 200 hours teaching, he could make anyone a 2000 player.

http://www.avlerchess.com/chess-anal...ter_92812.html

"Let us assume that a master who follows a good method, say, the
method of this book, strives to educate a young man ignorant of Chess
to the level of one who, if conceded any odds, would surely come out
the winner. How much time would the teacher need for this achievement?
I think that I am correct in making the following calculation:

[200 hours total]:

Rules of Play and Exercises: 5 hrs.
Elementary Endings: 5 hrs.
Some Openings: 10 hrs.
Combination: 20 hrs.
Position Play: 40 hrs.
Play and Analysis: 120 hrs.

"Even if the young man has no talent at all, by following the above
course he would advance to the class specified

[KyleJRM82]

Being willing to put in that much effort *is* the achievement.

[TexAg06]

Originally Posted by Montrealcorp

even lasker in one of his book said after 200 hours teaching, he could make anyone a 2000 player.

http://www.avlerchess.com/chess-anal...ter_92812.html

I've seen this Lasker claim before, and the more I play, the more ridiculous to me it seems. I'm not disputing Lasker's skill at all, but this idea of his is absurd. This quote makes me think he is one of those people that has achieved a high level of proficiency in something, but has forgotten how difficult it was to get there.

I don't doubt that he could convey the majority of his chess knowledge to someone in 200 hours, because he'd be able to summarize his lessons learned and cut out the useless crap that didn't help him improve. But telling someone what to do, and them being able to play like it are two vastly different things. And I think what he forgets is that part of learning the game is spending excess time to learn things the hard way. Becoming good at chess isn't about getting the right answer as quickly as possible, it's about the process of getting to that answer. You'll learn MUCH more about a position looking at it and playing with it for 3 hours by yourself, as opposed to a GM telling you the answer in 5 minutes. I don't think Lasker appreciates that.

His 200 hour statement is crazy.

[Montrealcorp]

arent putting all effort in anything that we do each day than ....
im pretty sure raising kids ( just taking into account the long term investment) is more difficult than attaining 2000 in chess...

so i agree with u , its an effort that almost anyone can achieve because it only takes time and effort, attainable by almost all wich make 1900 or 2000 in chess pretty irrelevent imo

[Montrealcorp]

Originally Posted by TexAg06

I've seen this Lasker claim before, and the more I play, the more ridiculous to me it seems. I'm not disputing Lasker's skill at all, but this idea of his is absurd. This quote makes me think he is one of those people that has achieved a high level of proficiency in something, but has forgotten how difficult it was to get there.

I don't doubt that he could convey the majority of his chess knowledge to someone in 200 hours, because he'd be able to summarize his lessons learned and cut out the useless crap that didn't help him improve. But telling someone what to do, and them being able to play like it are two vastly different things. And I think what he forgets is that part of learning the game is spending excess time to learn things the hard way. Becoming good at chess isn't about getting the right answer as quickly as possible, it's about the process of getting to that answer. You'll learn MUCH more about a position looking at it and playing with it for 3 hours by yourself, as opposed to a GM telling you the answer in 5 minutes. I don't think Lasker appreciates that.
His 200 hour statement is crazy.

if u check his approximatisation of study u will see the vast of the study is exactly on what u refered.

120 hours from 200 hours is base solely on "Play and Analysis: 120 hrs. "

so i think he knew what u were talking about

but if it make u feel better, lets 500 hours than ?

now calculate the ammount of time it take to complete an high school degree and u see 500 hours isnt much.

but TEX i wonder what is your general opinion .

lederer his 1950 in chess, is it that big of a news ?

or u only take it has a benine anecdote like antonius is suppose to be a class A player of tennis and some poker guy have an handicap of 4 in golf ,etc.

but like i said already, Harrington is another matter ..

[TexAg06]

Originally Posted by Montrealcorp

if u check his approximatisation of study u will see the vast of the study is exactly on what u refered.

120 hours from 200 hours is base solely on "Play and Analysis: 120 hrs. "

so i think he knew what u were talking about

but if it make u feel better, lets 500 hours than ?

now calculate the ammount of time it take to complete an high school degree and u see 500 hours isnt much.

but TEX i wonder what is your general opinion .

lederer his 1950 in chess, is it that big of a news ?

or u only take it has a benine anecdote like antonius is suppose to be a class A player of tennis and some poker guy have an handicap of 4 in golf ,etc.

but like i said already, Harrington is another matter ..

I think the number is much higher than 500 hours too Out of curiousity, I put together a spreadsheet a while back of some of the USA's top juniors and how long it took them to make master. At the time I did it, I was rated about 1700, so I looked at specifically at how long it took them to go from 1700 to 2200 (USCF ratings). The list contains about 40 names, such as Nakamura, Sam Shankland, Conrad Holt, Darwin Yang, Parker Zhao, etc. Basically most of the USA's top young talent over the past few years. What I found is that the average time to go from 1700 to 2200 is right at about 2.5 to 2.6 years. The fastest was actually Warren Harper, who did it in about 1.15 years. Nakamura and Conrad Holt were pretty close to that at 1.2 to 1.3 years. And of course, some took longer than 2.5 years. My point is that if these bright young kids, who are playing in hundreds of tournaments (not games, tournaments), getting GM lessons, and studying considerably, are taking 2.5 years on average (and probably thousands of hours) to go from 1700 to 2200, I can't imagine any way someone taking them from 0 to 2200 in just 200 hours of study/play. I don't see any way it's possible. I think the number is probably closer to 2000-3000 hours of study, instead of 200. Maybe Lasker made a typo and forgot a zero

As far as Lederer making 1950, I think it depends on perspective. In the grand scheme, a 1950 player is better than 99.9% of chess players on the planet. He could easily and routinely crush virtually every coffee house player he'll ever encounter. Even within the USCF for example, being rated 1950 puts you in the top 6% of all players. But compared to the all time greats and professionals, 1950 is nothing to brag about. In my opinion, in terms of effort involved, I think 1950 is a solid accomplishment. It still takes a ton of time invested to study the game, play, and work on improvement to reach that threshold. Sure it's nothing compared to making GM, but I also don't think it's something to scoff at. It takes a lot of work to get there.

[KyleJRM82]

Originally Posted by Montrealcorp

arent putting all effort in anything that we do each day than ....
im pretty sure raising kids ( just taking into account the long term investment) is more difficult than attaining 2000 in chess...

so i agree with u , its an effort that almost anyone can achieve because it only takes time and effort, attainable by almost all wich make 1900 or 2000 in chess pretty irrelevent imo

Raising kids *is* impressive. At least doing it reasonably well.

Sorry, but this point of view strikes me as absurd. Yes, most people could accomplish most things if they put in the time. But that's very much the point: Most people don't put in the time.

Most people don't put in the time to get to 2000 in chess, so that's what makes getting to 2000 special. Most people could learn a language if they put their mind to it, but I'm still impressed with the bilingual people I know.

[Montrealcorp]

Tex , i made a clear distinction between 2000 and 2200 , harrington and lederer shouldnt be considered equay skilled in chess !!!

Dont mix 2000 with the 2200 , their a pretty big gap there and more u go up ,higher the gap of 200 pts ratings means something !

Harrington attaining 2300 in chess is more than an anecdote for me ....

1900 ( if its not even fide its even worst...) , is exactly what it is , strong coffee shop players and thats about it .

Why being skilled has the " strongest players in anything from a coffe shop " deserve any special news others than being a trivial anecdote is incomprehensible for me ...

[Montrealcorp]

Originally Posted by KyleJRM82

Raising kids *is* impressive. At least doing it reasonably well.

Sorry, but this point of view strikes me as absurd. Yes, most people could accomplish most things if they put in the time. But that's very much the point: Most people don't put in the time.

Most people don't put in the time to get to 2000 in chess, so that's what makes getting to 2000 special. Most people could learn a language if they put their mind to it, but I'm still impressed with the bilingual people I know.

Well , putting time and effort to get a mastered degree is imo a bit tougher than reaching 2000 in chess .

So imo , someone telling me his 1900 in chess its like someone coming to me and sais he finish high school , im not diminishing his acomplishment by no means , its just anecdotale for me in both situation and i eouldnt pass 1 day talking about this or being very impressed by it .

Its just trivial imo