I'll let you know in about five years.
i took up playing again about six months ago - i learnt moves and tactics from watching my opponents. [cheers guys]. But now i think its time i learnt the rules, and strengthened my game opening, middle and endings to see if i can actually do well at chess..
I started liking chess when it was first introduced to me, because the possibilities seemed so endless. I was never a good player, but I like the fact that chess affords the opportunity to exercise my brain and to work out something on the board that my opponent didn't think of. I'll never be a dominant player, I know that, but I like it when I learn some concept and can consistently apply it to my games. I like each game when I solve a bit of a dilemma or learn something new.
I'd suggest feel comfortable playing at your level and improve your game at your pace. Most people who play softball or basketball at the Y on weekends don't lament that guys who played in the majors or in college are better than them... they feel the benefits of the enjoyment of play, regardless of their skill level. Play because you love to play... just make sure you are playing at a level to make it worth your while... don't get repeatedly trounced by players out of your league, or bully players way below you. Just have fun playing!
There are definitely players that have a natural gift for the game, however I don't believe that most "good" players fall into that catagory.
Take myself for example. Right now I'm about 1800 uscf, and I can safely say that I have no natural talent. When I started playing chess five years ago I was 21 and I stank! My first tournament result was four losses and one draw, against class E (1000-1200) players! But I managed to stick with it and gradually got better.
Natural talant might make the difference between a Fischer or Kasparov and an average GM, but every player I've ever met, including masters, started at the bottom and got better through years of studying and playing.
Most people who play softball or basketball at the Y on weekends don't lament that guys who played in the majors or in college are better than them... they feel the benefits of the enjoyment of play, regardless of their skill level.
A difference is that the average weekend athlete will never have the opportunity to play against a real pro.
In chess, you can play a simulated computer opponent ($20 Fritz program) that IS grandmaster quality, and you realize how much you suck compared to the top players.
i was not a good player when i started my friend...i played with good players to learn from them but they are not available all the time...try this..play with computers and play black...note how the computer attacks you..play white use the attack moves of the computer...note how he defends and vice versa again...try to finally beat a computer...it takes time but its more easier...
Chesscombat
This is not entirely true. I still believe that Fischer WAS a natural, but he still wanted to improve better than anyone else... I continue to see my chess improve, and I know I will get better. Right now, all I do, is play chess here; I play with my cousin, who is a very good player; I play with the computer a lot of the time, and I see my chess improve. That's all I do to work on my chess skill. I'm not a fanatic or anything. I see chess as a casual hobby. But I enjoy it whether I win or lose.
"nobody is naturally good at chess"
What about Morphy? Somehow, I can't see him having devoted too much time to studying chess.
Nobody is born wise - True, but...
If chess were invented today, and everybody on the planet entered a tournament, it is a pretty safe assumption that we wouldn't have all draws. Someone would win. That person could be considered to be a natural. One year from now, the winner would be based more on study. The first year's winner would have to study less than, me for example, because they have more natural ability. They wouldhave to study to stay ahead of the rest of us though. Preparation compensates for what you don't naturally have. Just like in school, some people study hard and get As, some people drink hard and get As. Some people study hard and fail.
Weather or not you enjoy chess is just a matter of attitude. If you can look at your losses as a learning experience, then you will enjoy. If you have the best, then you will hate loosing.
I think you do have to win occasionally to keep your interest though. My blog called "My chess history" talks about this a little. I was 27 before I won my first game, but I kept coming back. My last two hobbies were both matters of personal improvement. I was musically challenged, and I never won a game of chess. Now playing my bass & playing chess are 2 of my favorite things. Part of it may be because those were two of the most difficult things for me, so success in them gives me the most satisfaction.
The most natural player ever seems to have been Reshevsky. He was something like 2000 rated when he was 7 yrs. Up until the point where he achieved 2300 strength , he was years ahead of Fischer and Kasparov in terms of age. I believe he must have had something amazing to do with pattern recognition in his mental make up.
Just to make a point, Reshevsky was reportedly not super intelligent by any means. He was also noted for making horrendous oversights; e.g.
I never considered myself a natural when it came to chess, and for the longest time I could never win a game. When I picked up chess again recently with Chessmaster 10th Edition, I started to practice, and also took the courses that came with the game. I went from not being able to win a game ever, to now being able to win against human players rated 1400-1500 in a relatively short time! And I'm steadily improving more and more! Learning from each game I play...
There are 2 approaches to learning; one states that you're either naturally good at some things and not in others, and so you take on a passimistic attitude when you see you're not naturally good at something, which then translates into you not trying your best. The other approach is knowing that we all have our natural strengths and weakneses, but if we *work* on them we could improve and get good at almost anything we undertake.
Think about it... and also you should pick up Josh Waitzkin's book "The Art of Larning". Those concepts and more are explained there in great detail, and it's an awesome book :)
Good luck!
I not a very good player, but I enjoy it all the same. When I play good players, I lose more than I win, but it's fun anyway. I can beat my grandfather about half the time, and he's about 1300 USCF. I was thinking about this. I know a lot of people that are very good at chess; I was wondering whether they started liking chess once they leaned they where good at it, or they liked it, and where not good, until they practiced. I like chess, but I stink at it. And then the people that really like it and are good, are just naturals! I envy the people that love chess, and are good at it. And then there are the people that are good, but they don't like to play. I'm one of the people who really loves chess, but I'm a rotten player. Is it that people that like chess and aren’t good, just fall away because of discouragement? It seems that all the people that play chess that I know, are just naturally good. Can you guys help me solve this mystery?