[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums

Which is more aggravating & why?

Posted By: Matt Cohn-Geier
Date: Wednesday, 18 June 2008, at 11:04 p.m.

In Response To: Which is more aggravating & why? (bob koca)

Maybe I can make the analogue a bit more clear.

I think we can agree that if you are 40 and 5'4" and haven't played basketball, you are finished as an NBA player. It is not merely the fact that NBA players aren't able to play over 40. Michael Jordan was still a decent player at 40. Likewise, Kasparov was still a world class player at 40. But he is the chess equivalent of a Michael Jordan. Most chess players won't still be competing on the same level that they once were at age 40.

Similarly, if you are 5'4", you may still be able to play in the NBA. If you're 17 and 5'4", who knows, you may experience another growth spurt. This also happens in chess, where 17-year-old players can rapidly improve their game to the point of going from nobody (an average master) to a strong GM. Fischer did it when he was 14, Tal did it at 20.

But if you have the combination: in my case, being already 24 and not yet a master, it is a virtual certainty that I will not become world class. If I was a GM at this point I could expend my days studying chess and one day maybe compete with guys like Carlsen and Anand and Kramnik. If I was 8 years old, then I probably wouldn't spend as much of my days studying chess, but I would have enough years ahead of me that I would have a reasonable chance of being world class regardless of my rating. And in case someone is wondering, yes, I have met and played 8-year-olds who are better chess players than I am.

I guess the moral here is to get your kids started early?

I don't know, being a world class player, or at least having that potential, appeals to you at first, but then it eventually drops away, and you just try to play the best game you can. You don't worry about spending the rest of your life studying chess. Maybe it's around the time that you start losing to 8-year-olds. I don't know; I don't have any regrets.

But as to the question: which is more frustrating, chess or backgammon? Chess, without a doubt.

Messages In This Thread

 

Post Response
Your Name:
Your E-Mail Address:
Subject:
Message:

If necessary, enter your password below:

Password:
 

 

[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.