I generally wouldn't count anyone out but in the case of Neal, his study methods aren't very effective and his evaluations of his study methods aren't objective. He tweets a lot about how he feels like he can visualize much better now but that means nothing. I've never really seen any hard calculation study from him on Twitter. He only ever shares his most perfect games according to the computer. He relies a lot on the computer to tell him the best line in puzzles without trying to understand why other lines are more human and more informative in terms of chess principles. These are all just the opposite of what I had to do (including almost breaking my family) when I went from 1650 to 1950 uscf. Not to mention everything Kostya brought up about all the additional practical challenges of the chess improvement journey. Neal's a great dude but Jesse's probability estimate is correct. I also don't think this is mean spirited in any way given that it was Neal himself who started inviting bets on his promise to make master.
Much of this is out of date according to his podcast with Dr Scull from 2024-02-08. * He now has a coach who is discouraging use of computers * He is working through Cognitive Chess * He is splitting his time third/third/third between playing/analysing, calculation and openings/endings. He claims to have put on 100 points in the past year.
Chess goals need to be based on the path not the outcome. Focusing on ELO/Titles is the WRONG goal. It discourgaes older/aging players from learning and gaining the benifits of chess. Set your goals to be daily, weekly, monthly, rewards from the path. 100% agree with Kostya on this. With one exception Bruce put himself out there cool to call him out. I am on a simular quest at 47, and want the community feedback.
There is what maybe 40 or 50 people in the USA per birth year that get to the master level or above. Statistically speaking you are not just going to pick it up as adult and get there and surpass all those people who have grinded for ages since they were children. You'd have to be some sort of prodigy and to that extent as a dedicated adult you'd probably need to get up to 2000 OTB within two years to even have a chance at being the "one".
I think Jesse did a great job explaining why people discount the role that natural talent plays in chess improvement. You cannot see what is going on in Magnus Carlsens brain so it just seems mysterious. When you look at Lebron James or Randy Moss you can physically see what makes them different, not so with chess players. What people do not understand is that just because you cannot see it, that does not mean it isn't there. The weightlifting analogy was quite good. My understanding of the role that natural talent plays in chess really changed when I watched Eric Hansen analyze some of his blitz games. The level of analysis that he had done was so far beyond anything that I could have hoped to do in such a fast time control. He was doing a level of analysis that was comparable to what I would do in a 90 minute classical time control (I am a 1900 level player). I firmly believe that most people could never do something like that no matter how much training they do or how early they start.
The only thing I find wrong with the analogy is people at the gym are not distributed around the average person out there, they are already in a different class because they are at the gym. Looking at the top 1/100 in the gym would be closer to looking at the top 1/100 in the tournament hall/rated players: that would not be at around 1800 USCF, but, according to the tables just above 2200 USCF. These would be amazing people. Since these people discussing it are IMs and GMs they don't realize they're already the chess equivalent of someone you'd have to visit many gyms to have seen. 😊 That's sort of why 2200 is a crazy expectation at some level. It's a 1/100 among the gym rats, not a 1/100 among people. A 50+ yo who looks like that is quite an unusual sight indeed!
If he spent all his Twitter time actually training, he’d be master next year. My entire Twitter timeline is his posts, all spread out throughout the day. I don’t think he ever turns Twitter off. The unfortunate thing is he’s gone from an adult improver to a Twitter star and one of those strokes the ego a ton more than the other.
that's not nice to say you have no idea how hard someone is trying you really being mean saying stuff like this while you know nothing about how does neal bruce actually train or how much effort he's putting in
OTOH, the fact he made 1800 starting as late as he did is quite an achievement. It's easy to crap on his chances of making 2200 - which I agree is remote as best - but I don't get why people discount the fact that he's made in the top
Come on. How long does it take to tweet something? He trains, sees something interesting, throws it up on Twitter to share. That’s like 60 seconds tops and he’s giving back to the community. Too harsh bro.
I've just joined the ChessDojo, trying to reach new heights at the age of 57. My peak FIDE was 1956, it's now 1882, with a goal of 2000. For my home national rating, my first was 1655 and I reached a peak of 2036. I lost 60 points due to a mistake during the pandemic and I know at 1935. I agree with most of the comments about a fixed training programme and certainly about the one game a day tournaments as a preference. Very difficult as most tournaments are 5 games in a weekend.
2000 Elo Fide is tough because you have sandbagging from up-and-coming juniors. In fact, over the years there is Elo rating deflation. Good luck. Speaking as a 2000-2100 blitz player on LiChess.
@@raylopez992000 is what they are tuning around in March, so he does have a window where he can push above it since it is a FIDE rating. Heck, it is likely some of his ratings loss could be due to post-pandemic deflation and not "mistakes." The stars can align! Good luck!
If you're 1800 as your natural baseline, achieved on your wits alone, then you may be able to earn a big ratings rise as an adult simply because you have untapped potential. Maybe you've only ever played casually, never learning more than core chess principles, and so a period of intense study of openings, tactics and engames could lift you up. It's doubtful you can unlock ALL your latent talent though. Perhaps if you'd studied as kid maybe you'd have made 2200, but as an adult will fall short at 2000. If you're 1800 having done all the studying already, probably you've peaked.
Thats what I thought. Neal memorized all basic tactics in the history of chess and worked through thousands of strategic exercises. There are only three possible conclusions: 1. He peaked. 2. Wrong study method. 3. He should have studied openings ;-)
Has anyone ever been able to become a GM/IM/FM starting from scratch after the age of 20 or 25? I would really like to have some data on this. There are all these records for youngsters, but isn't it even more remarkable for adults? Like, who was the oldest person to ever start playing chess and still become a GM/IM/FM?
Great discussion. My favorite part of the podcast was how Neal Bruce wasn't there to take over other people's podcasts. That being said, mad respect for the grind I wish him the best of luck!
Thank you for identifying the obstacles older players face. While you belabor the problems and offer scant solutions beyond expectation management, at least it has got me thinking about solutions.
My biggest obstacle right now is getting rated classical games in. I have time for chess, but not for 5 round, 3 day weekend tournaments. My only hope are the one game a week monthly tournaments. But as Kostya indicated…even that’s not enough games.
@@Chessdrummer83 true. But it’s not just a practice amount problem. Over the last 5 years or so, I feel like I’ve improved a lot, but it will still take a long time for my USCF rating to reflect that. There’s a monthly tournament I played last year but the competition was too weak. I went 3.5/4 but still only gained like 4 points. Luckily the STL club started their monthly tournament up again
Very interesting topic, and reasonable points I tend to agree with. However I read in twitter that Neal was not happy with the episode. I guess it feels bad to be the center of a public conversation you are not a part of. In hindsight is easy for me to say but maybe you should have talked to him beforehand.
Did Neal, planning his training years in advance, ever explain how he as a then 1700 already knew what kind of training he will need as a 1900, a 2000 and a 2100? Isn't chesstraining more about looking what works now that makes you better a little bit. And then seeing what needs tonbe done next to again get a little bit better?
Hanging Pawns wants to make GM. Personally, if I was super-dedicated, and started from scratch, I’d focus first on 1800; then 2000; then maybe work my way up to a (highly unlikely) dream of CM or FM. But it’s good to have a more proximate goal, and less distal. 2000 is a key target. All talk of anything beyond that, before reaching that, is not very SMART goal-setting, imho. I played as a kid; was maybe 1700+ at my best. (Based on regularly beating such players in club leagues, even though I rarely played in tournaments.) Now, after 20 years of not playing, in my 40s, I’m looking to get to 1800 in strength, and my ultimate goal is 2000. If I got there, I’d be happy. If I got there, I might think of more. But getting there is my first, and maybe ultimate, goal. And most importantly, I want to just enjoy chess as a game and process. Interesting discussion. Reality is tough. :-)
Reality is tough indeed! I'm a big fan of SMART goals, too, and I think pursuing those goals while allowing yourself to dream of what might be beyond can be a good motivator.
Ok good vid, but I think it's very sloppy not to mention that literally it's not his goal to reach master, he just thinks it's possible - and he is very much against a rating based goal, for the reasons you described and more. Guess how I learned about this? He literally talked about this at length - in the interview "Dojo Talks Habits feat. Neal Bruce".
You could have thrownlot of cheap puns here. You could have simply said: No Polgar mates, no endgame sparring, no annotated game analysis in eight years. He even sliced the wrong books. Or in short: to progress, Neal Bruce needs to sign up the Dojo training program 😀
Off topic, but would you guys consider making a Kings Indian repertoire video similar to the Najdorf one David made? I found that format and video very instructive, using it in tournament play now!
David’s position seems to be that if everyone trained correctly and met certain other conditions, a hefty percentage of them would make master. I’m sorry, but this makes no sense. Ratings are literally zero-sum measurements of performance in head-to-head games. Masters occupy (and will always occupy) a tiny slice of the ratings curve. Train as hard as you want, you can’t engineer a Lake Wobegon effect. As for Neal Bruce in particular, he was 1750 USCF in 2011. He’s 1800 now. Why exactly would one think that he would break the mold and suddenly gain 400 more points? Because he makes a lot of flash cards?
Yeah, David is wrong. As someone who's played competitive chess for 35 years, i can say that once adults(25+) hit a plateau for a period of time, they're done. I don't care how they study or how much time is put in, their improvement will be slim to none.
@@Fluxion11 I’m 56 years old myself. My peak was 2165 USCF. I’m 2096 now. Very unlikely I’ll make master. Too many underrated kids. And my mental stamina sucks.
Hey David, to clarify, my position is that if an individual 1800 trained correctly and extensively, they would have a solid chance of making master because there are so few other people who are training both correctly and extensively. As you say if everyone suddenly trained in the same way, their ratings would not go up, because everyone’s strength would be going up at the same rate. I am trying to say that for most people, talent would not put a ceiling on their potential below 2200, because proper training, and lots of it, would be enough to enable them to surpass the 99% of non-masters.
@@Fluxion11 Surely that must depend on what they had done prior to the plateau and how high their plateau was. For example, I’ve met tons of adults who were at a plateau around 1000, and with a single lesson followed by a month or two of training and play, they reached 1200. I don’t see any logic to why being at a plateau is guaranteed to be your ceiling, or why new practice and training (or coaching or removal of a psychological foible) they had never done before could never lead to any improvement. Ray Robson was able to get a handle on his time trouble problem as an adult, and rise from a plateau of 2670 to 2700 (which I think is actually WAY harder/farther than 1000-1200).
I would put up 100 BTC to 1 he doesnt make NM. If he does, there will be nothing left of the rain forest after all the trees cut down to make a billion flash cards of mate in ones to study on the metro
it might be interesting to debate while referring to a multi-variate regression model. you guys seem to agree on the relevant factors, but disagree as to the value of the coefficients of those factors, and the reliability of the coefficients.
I disagree with Kraai saying older people’s inability to focus will be their downfall in key moments. If you have competed in your life against other people you know what it takes to win. There may come a time in the game where you get fussy. Hungry or tired or what have you. But that is when you dig down deep. You look over at your opponent and say to yourself he doesn’t want this win more than me.
I have my doubts about the metaphors just spoken and automatically believed. Stamina and memory issues notwithstanding, if someone puts an extraordinary effort to achieve chess knowledge and proficiency, this person can get very very good. It's like learning a new language, age imposes a significant handicap and a lot of it is life circumstances and time, but it's possible. A lot harder and the ceiling won't be the same, but it can be done.
I would say that if you decide later in life that you want to make improving your hobby a central focus in your life, that’s probably a bad sign. I find myself more concerned about improving in chess when stuff in my real life isn’t going well.
A low-level master title (National Master, Candidate Master)? Sure, why not? I could see it happen. On the other hand, the highest master title (i.e. Grandmaster) seems very unlikely.
I’m 22, and at this point I’ve taken to saying “can I make 2000? Yes. WILL I make 2000? At this rate, I’d be surprised if I did”. Also “I’m technically a titled player (FIDE Arena Candidate Master)”
Is there any evidence of someone starting chess as an adult and eventually becoming a NM? Plenty of players become titled as adults but they learned the game as a child. Where is the GM, IM, or FM that learned the game at, say, 24 or 34?
2200 USCF is nothing for anyone under 40. Otherwise, that's like saying that attaining a Phd is out of reach for 40+ individuals which we know to be blatantly false. The only difference is that a Phd can lead to earning a high income unlike chess. Hardly anyone earns a chess title past 40 years old because its extremely time consuming and not a profitable venture.
Finding a balance between working to improve, and analyzing what's possible can be difficult. IMHO - I would err on the side of a bit more study and prep and less analysis.
Yes. Some computer scientists have a problem solving test that rates the number of correct answers with your expected class. I took it years ago and got to "Class A" (1800-2000 USCF) and now I'm low expert on a good day. I'm sorry I don't have a link since it was in a paper book. But it can be done.
You could've just discussed 'older players' in general, but you just had to go for the clicks and call Neal Bruce out specifically. It's pathetic and I get why he doesn't like you guys anymore.
@ 31:22 I think Jesse is dead on. I can bench press over 300lbs, which is enormous compared to the average man and even the average lifter, but when looking at power lifters it's not particularly impressive. There was a guy in my high school, for example, bench pressing 405lbs and the strongest men in the world are bench pressing over 700lbs
I stopped playing for the time being lol. If you really want to improve it is a lot of dedication. Had to focus more on my health. Down 35 pounds for the year.
Opening preparation is the biggest culprit. If you can prepare opening properly, sooner than latter you can reach 2200 FIDE. Below 2300 your opening preparation should be near zero. Just take few minutes to check the opening after you played the game, winning or losing. Natural talent is everything in chess. You’re killing yours by opening preparation.
Zero chance is my opinion ... 1900 Fide is maximum in this case ... Talent is essential ... only if person is able to reach 1600 in a year then there is a small possibility to reach 2100 fide I do beleive if starting from scratch at age 40
I just heard Neal on a podcast say he was hurt by this discussion. I can’t believe you ding dongs didn’t ask him if you could use him as an example before doing this. Really not doing a great job refuting the “chess players are socially inept” stereotype, gentlemen.
I agree with this post. I absolutely love this channel, but it came off sounding like an episode of mean girls. Neal’s quest, as quixotic as it may be, is extremely praiseworthy. And if by some crazy chance he pulls it off, chess will gain popularity. Should’ve checked with him first before dunking on him.
Well we meant no harm, and even Neal Bruce was cool with it twitter.com/NealBruceBC/status/1756366261317963985?t=EiboWSCSTPohRmf2vGtPqQ&s=19 Sorry if it offended you! That was definitely not our intention
@@ChessDojo Im not offended, but I know what I heard, so yeah I see the message, stop saying that you think you offended me some way. It's like an x-wife's stonewalling technique in conflict management resolution. Don't worry, you're okay, I'm okay, and I think it's more severe an insult that you're willing or able to acknowledge.
He actually wasn't "cool" with it, from what I heard he knew nothing about it until after the fact. He's nice enough to be "cool" with it. But, yah he wasn't "cool" with it.
People also confuse chess ability with intelligence. While I think every master is pretty intelligent, not many of them are geniuses, while there are extremely intelligent people who have very little chess talent
