[ 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: Friday, 20 June 2008, at 10:57 p.m.

In Response To: Which is more aggravating & why? (Daniel Murphy)

Backgammon is different in that you will see world class players who are well over 40 and it's not uncommon. Guys like Stick and Munitz are considered up-and-coming young players with many years ahead of them, whereas they would be well past their prime in chess.

The only world class players on that list who learned chess in their teenage years are Tarrasch, Pillsbury, Chigorin, de la Bourdannais and Blackburne, and they played ~100-400 years ago, before chess clocks had been invented. It was a different game back then.

I don't know, I learned the rules of chess at an early age (don't remember when) like most people in America do, but I was never that taken with the game. Then I started playing it "for real" when I was 15. That is already considered somewhat old in the chess world, but still young enough to have a real shot at rapid improvement. By the time I was 18, I was winning games from experts and masters. But by the time I was 22, I knew that I wasn't willing to put in the effort required to become a master/GM/world class player. Even if I got there it wouldn't be worth the energy.

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.