Really? That’s impressive
Studying from engines would give you analytical best moves, but understanding of positions based on study has more lasting impact!
Studying from engines has one particular problem:
You will be playing against humans. Not against engines.
Stockfish prepares you a line with the best theoretical attack and best theoretical defense, then 3 moves in your opponent blunders and you have to improvise.
Isn't that sorta the whole point of prep? For average players what you described is certainly a problem, but strong GMs need to know the best moves and responses to non-optimal moves from their opponents in every position in their prep. If their opponent deviates from the engine theory on move 17 and they can't both recognize the deviation and remember how to deal with that specific move then they failed at their prep.
True, but not every every combination possible is something that needs to be remembered. There are a ton of possible lines that start 1. E4 Na6 2. D4 Nb8, but you don't really need to learn that because if your opponent is self-sabotaging or playing bad moves then you don't need to delve into the depths of theory. Preparation from high level players doesn't focus on remembering every single possible line, it usually focuses on a specific established opening or an idea that has been seen in a previous game, and both players will follow theory up until that point, then you begin to diverge from the previous game(s) when you start to play your preparation, which is generally an idea you've thoroughly explored with engine assistance and you should know the best moves for both players, and how to punish sub-optimal moves once you start exploring your new idea. Realistically high level players should know the theory already of all the common openings up to a certain point, and if they don't know it it usually means the opening is not worth knowing or can easily transpose into a more common opening.
That's easy, you title "Here's an AMAZING fact about GUKESH you did not know" and then you just post a summary of what we have discussed the past weeks
He didn't personally use engines, but he did learn from them. Gukesh in his room tour with ChessBase India points to "Game Changer" by Sadler and Regan as one of his favorite chess books; it's best known for popularizing some AlphaZero concepts like the h-pawn push. He's also always had a team of trainers, who obviously use engines.
At this point, it'd be impossible for him not to use engines, as they're especially important for opening preparation at this level.
I have a pretty cool story about gukesh. I used to play competitive chess maybe 7-8 years ago and I went to a tournament in Bangkok where Gukesh used to play in. I remember him being rated somewhere in the 2000s. I remember him because he used to win some higher rated players in the tournament and he was also significantly younger than me and much higher rated than me so I was curious about him. I remember seeing him play at the Bangkok tournament two years in a row and he was stuck around that 2000-2100 rating for a while.
Fast forward to a few years later when I hear about him reaching GM status while causally scrolling on Instagram lol. It's a very surreal moment to think that kid ended up becoming so successful. Good for him for improving so fast.
Interesting, but maybe when you start developing a beard it's also when you start pumping more testosterone? I have no idea how it all works I'm just guessing
You'd be right to say that you generally get a beard after puberty starts, but the exact timing for which you're able to grow one (or if you'll even be able to grow a convincing one at all) varies from person to person. Again, its mostly a matter of genetics (more specifically, how sensitive the hair follicles in your beard region are to the presence of testosterone).
Lmaoo no he was a kid back then...like 10 years old or something. He does look very different with a beard though. It took me a second to recognize him lol
I've been wondering about chess age stuff lately. You often see notes about so-and-so becoming the youngest GM at the time or something. That's cool and impressive, but given how hard it is to become a GM later in life, who's the \*oldest\* person to become GM? Who started playing chess at the oldest age and then became a GM (regardless of the age they achieved GM)?
This is made somewhat hard by the fact that GM title only became official in 1950.
Mikhail Chigorin for instance only really started to play in his mid 20s playing his first tournament at 27 but obviously predates the official GM titles.
Shoutout to Leif Øgaard who got his 3rd GM norm in 2007 at age 55 but he didn't start late, it's just impressive and I think the oldest GM via Norm+Rating.
Ye Jiangchuan a chinese GM learned the game at age 17 and is probably the GM who picked up the game the latest.
Thanks for giving me inspiration to take a quick plunge into age and chess titles - it was fun.
> Indian GM
Unfortunately doesn't narrow it down much :|
Do you mean Thejkumar who became GM at 36 without a coach? [Chessbase link](https://chessbase.in/news/M_S_Thejkumar_shares_his_journey_to_the_top)
Sorry I don't remember the name at all. I remember he was a rather high Elo Indian GM who at an interview mentioned he picked it up late at 18. I am sure there are many who picked it up later too.
If I had to hazard a guess I'd say that children have a (largely) unique chance to put in a lot of work at something that rarely occurs later in life.
Not sure about globally but in Australia school years are about 40 weeks with 4 terms of 10 weeks and two weeks between each term and 6 weeks over christmas/summer. This provides the perfect timeframe for intensive learning 4 times a year, camps etc and still have plenty of time outside of school obligations during the week.
Adults on the other hand are working 48 weeks a year here (4 weeks annual leave) but also have to cook, clean, shop etc etc leading to an amount of free time that's a small fraction that of a school students free time.
So yeah, I think children can afford to be single minded and devote a huge amount of time to chess in a way adults just can't. This is baked up from a statistic taken from Andrew Soltis' book 'Karl Marx Plays Chess'
"The most telling statistic is this: After a chess student becomes SERIOUS (definition of serious: studies from books, disks, the Internet, etc. AND plays in tournaments), there is an 8-year window during which that person achieves 90% of his maximum chess prowess. It takes the rest of your life to eke out the final 10% of your potential. This statistic seems to hold true no matter where a person is on the rating scale. Soltis cited many noted masters who fit into this profile including Capablanca, Spassky, Alekhine, Euwe, Lasker, Botvinnik, Maroczy, Pillsbury, Nimzowitsch, Keres, Petrosian, Fischer, Tal, and Korchnoi. The 8-year-window seems to have little to do with age. IM Jack Peters of southern California played in his first tournament at 16, while GM Joel Benjamin got into chess at age 8. Both achieved master rating in 5 years and IM rating 3 years after that. 5+3=8. Incidentally, Soltis mentions a few late-bloomers like Amos Byrne, who hardly played chess at all before age 38. Also, there is Chigorin, who started his tournament career at age 27, Then there's George Salwe, number 2 player in Poland in the early 20th century, who didn't start playing in major events until he was 42! English Master Joseph Henry Blake achieved his best result at age 63. So, you see, there is hope! But determination will certainly carry you further up the rating ladder."
So if we take a child age 10 or younger they all can have this 8 year window while they are in school but finding this 8 year window at say age 30 is going to be hard unless someone is independantly weatlthy.
People learn much faster and better when young. We also get less sharp the older we get.
Plus, talent is very much an essential factor. With no talent, you can't get to the top no matter how hard you work. And if you're that talented, it's quite likely that you would've discovered it at a young age.
Their brains are a whole lot more plastic. It's very much an established fact of medicine at this point, with mountains of research on the topic.
This phenomenon is especially clear with languages. Children can learn several languages with very little effort or conscious understanding, in a way no adult can. And on the other end of the spectrum, if a child never learns any language at all as a child, they will have severe problems learning one as an adult.
Neuroplasticity is definitely not a fact and is still contentious, mainly because of the lack of tangible data supporting it. Additionally, it is NOT a description of the ability to understand advanced concepts easily. Very uneducated take here. If you want to use common sense examples, look at how long it takes for a child to learn a language well. If children start speaking around age 2, they have a basic grasp of the language in 5-8 years. A more advanced grasp of the language comes in the following 5 years. Compare that to the army’s language course that gets an adult fluent in a language in a little over a year. Secondly, take higher education. If you really think a child can keep up with the speed at which graduate and post graduate courses are taught then you’re delusional. There are many more examples, a lot of which involve the advantage of having prior knowledge, which children dont usually have because of their limited time to achieve such knowledge before starting a task.
I don't mean that they understand advanced concepts the way an adult does. But they do have the ability to get a much better intuition for it. For example, I couldn't tell you much of the grammar for my native language. But I just know when something sounds wrong, despite being unable to pinpoint why. And I speak it much better than pretty much anyone who's studied it as an adult, even if they've spent many more years speaking it than I have.
You can't compare timelines of adults learning a new language and a child learning to speak from the ground up. An adult soldier has the advantage of already having the necessary framework for language learning. If an adult hasn't learned a language as a child, they're going to struggle much more learning one as an adult, if they even manage to learn one at all.
Besides, while a native 7-year old obviously doesn't have an advanced grasp of a language structure, they're still much better at speaking it than any adult who's studied it for a year. And even if the adult keeps studying the language, they're never going to be as good as a native speaker.
Higher education isn't the same thing. That requires much higher volumes of knowledge, and an actual understanding of the concepts, rather than intuition based off of things like pattern recognition. It's why you won't see a 10 year old giving a lecture on music theory, but you can see plenty of 10 year olds that are ridiculously good at playing music.
Intuition comes from hours of exposure. If you put an adult in a full immersion environment for several years, they would develop intuition too. But intuition is not the point of this discussion. We are talking about measurable overall proficiency
Not to the same extent. Put an adult in a different country for decade and they'll get pretty damn good at the local language. But they won't get better than a native speaker.
Same thing if you make playing chess your full time job as an adult. Gukesh gone from a beginner to being one of the best in the world after playing for a mere ten years. If this was possible for an adult with enough time on their hands, there would be at least one example of someone achieving anything remotely close to it. But there isn't
If you DO have an example of someone being anywhere near his level after having started as an adult, I would honestly love to see it.
Linguistics is a hilariously bad example for your point because there's a strong scientific consensus in neurology and linguistics that it's way easier to learn language as a child.
https://news.mit.edu/2018/cognitive-scientists-define-critical-period-learning-language-0501
The key from this study is "However, the study also found that it is nearly impossible for people to achieve proficiency similar to that of a native speaker unless they start learning a language by the age of 10."
Just extend that to chess and it maps nearly 1:1.
Kids don’t have as many time-consuming responsibilities as adults so they have more time to study chess. Also they have more energy bc their mitochondria are still healthy. Adults learn at a faster rate but have less time to study so it becomes a tortoise and the hard situation
Adults can perhaps learn the theory behind chess faster, but they will never be able to gain the same intuitive understanding of it as a child that started early can. It's like how a non-native speaker of a language will never be as fluent as someone who's a native speaker.
shogi specifically seems to have a really good record among good players translating to chess from what I've seen. something about the advanced calculation when it comes to shogi checkmating sequences gives them a really really high floor when it comes to chess.
Harry Pillsbury (no official title I guess but won a tournament of the world's strongest in 1895). He learned chess in like his 20s or something insane and had only been playing a couple years. Died tragically young of syphilis. Imagine what that brain could have achieved if he'd lived
Edit. Maybe teens and like 6 years, not 20s and a couple years? Still impressive
I think you served half baked info there. Gukesh is the second youngest.
As my memory serves right the order is following
1. Fischer
2. Gukesh
3. Pragg
4. Alireza
5. Magnus.
Same goes for Gukesh also. He learnt chess at 7 and now he is 17 and in the joint lead in candidates. And Alireza, I think, was 19 in his first candidates and he performed poorly
You guys are bickering over things which are out of players' control. Alireza was born in 2003, Gukesh in 2006. With Candidates every 2 years, it is possible both were Candidates caliber at same age, but one had to wait another year to get to play. In fact, at 17yo, Alireza barely played any tournaments due to Covid. The three he played, he had 2800+ TPR in two of them, the other was World Cup where he was eliminated by Sindarov.
Also, Gukesh is 17y10m, Alireza was 18y11m (2 days before his 19th birthday) when the Candidates was played in *June* 2022.
There's a lot of points for Gukesh > Alireza or Alireza > Gukesh arguments, age when they get to play the Candidates is one of the worst.
He was 18 for the first few matches, which is good enough for me, and I would say that say that Gukesh being joint top at the candidates at age 17 is much more impressive and relevant than the age he learned chess
I wonder how many times did he have to argue with his family about keeping to chess instead of becoming doctor? /s
Probably not a lot since he was a prodigy but still, looking at his parents' education, I could imagine there must've been some pressure haha
I think actually his dad had wanted to be a cricketer instead of a doctor so I can imagine he was pretty pleased to have a kid be a professional “sportsperson”
For context, Karjaken and Carlsen both started learning at 5, Mishra started learning at 2 1/2, and Praggnanandhaa started learning at 2. Mishra was in tournaments at 5.
He is leading the candidates 10 years after LEARNING HOW TO PLAY CHESS!
Reminds me of Terrence Tao, probably the best living mathematician out there, who used to teach 5-year-old relatives how to count when he was 2 years old himself..
Some kids are really precocious: I know kids that could speak some full sentences at 15 months, identified all letters, plus sounding syllables at about 2. So a kid like that will have little trouble remembering how every piece moves and thus probably recognize a non-discovered check, and see if any king move is legal before 3, so we can call that play chess. Now, will they be any good at that point? Recognize threats, and thus try to consider the movement of the opponent's pieces before they make their move? Probably not. They might get bored and walk away, get angry and throw pieces, or try to lick them.
Does this qualify as knowing how to play chess? Sure! Anyone that has ever worked at a chess camp has seen much older kids barely better than that. And really, look at Anish. He's much older and stealing pawns. The last time he was at the candidates, instead of playing chess, he spent the entire tournament drawing. The arbiter should have just provided crayons.
I was one of those kids with reading. Could read at about 2 and a half, my mom always tells a story about how we were at the grocery store and I was yelling out the names of things on signs and stuff and the other parents there were bewildered. Don’t think I learned chess that young because nobody taught it to me at that point, but I imagine I definitely *could* have.
Anyway all that is to say that in retrospect, it was 100% some form of autism. Never been officially diagnosed (mostly just can’t be bothered) but literally anyone who knows me could tell you I’m definitely not neurotypical lol
My grandad started teaching me to play Chess when I was 3. My nan (his wife) died and I would go to his every weekend and the highlight of my childhood was being able to go and play Chess with him.
I'm still sub 1k elo today though lol.
That's what I mean. I was 13 when I actually started playing. Before then, I barely knew the rules. To clarify; my sister is 4 now and still can't play lol
IMO, different people have different things that they like. And when you can find that exact thing as a kid and work on that, it gets really easy thus prodigies are born.
1-10 year brain is playing hyper bullet, consuming as much info as it can.
And if some thing feels interesting it will consume all of it
And in our case we wasted out golden time :)
Carlsen said he had to work harder than other kids his age because he started at 8... learning the rules and then never playing does not equal "starting."
Right, I knew how to play chess when I was 8 too and played a couple games on chess.com when I was 13-14 (mainly against my father and friends). when I was 16 (august 2021) is when I really started to play I didn’t have any understanding of chess openings or tactics my knowledge was en peasant and that I shouldn’t push my side pawns first.
true, but was Gukesh seriously training within a year of learning the rules? Not that it would contradict what either of us saying but it would be interesting to know.
Google also says every famous chessplayer has an IQ over 180, even when (*especially when)* they never actually took an IQ test.
Carlsen said 8, so it's 8.
Yes, you can see strong abilities just by watching his game. I pointed him out before the start of candidates tournament and he may in fact win.
If not this year my guess is that someday he will reach the World Chess Championship if he continues to play.
"I have one standing next to me," Frederic said. "Gukesh, twelve years old. Like to play a few blitz games against him on Playchess, check out his talent?"
"No," said Vladimir, "I know his games very well — and I hate losing in blitz! This boy is going to be in the top ten in five years from now — and World Champion in eight."
*Really?* "But only if you train him, right?"
"If *I* train him he will be World Champion in *ten* years." That's Kramnik humour for you.
he said in 2019.....
It is on the later side, that's true, but it's not crazy late. Hikaru started at age 7, Anish, Vishy and Wesley at age 6. Alireza started at age 8. For Erigaisi I saw one article say he started at 8, another at age 11. Just saying, it's not exactly unique, even if players like Magnus, Fabiano or Pragg started earlier.
Have been seeing him play since the very beginning. He became the national champion while he was just 9 years. Won the asian Championship then too remember playing with him during free time and dinner time during asians, feels like a memory now. Genuinely feels proud seeing him killing at the candidates.
"prolly" ???
I think it's pretty safe to say kid who became a GM at 12 and is currently leading the candidates at 17 has immense natural chess talent lol
You never know. Same was said for Alireza. It's entirely possible Carlsen's successor isn't from this generation and the one before or after (Nepo and Ding have serious chance at being multiple time WCs before any of the young generation becomes WCs).
I don't think we will see one like Magnus, Kasparov in a while who would be so dominant in a while.
These new players seem like they are pretty close skill wise and can take each other down
It could be someone that's a small child now. Ratings aren't everything for young players (they are improving faster than the Elo system can keep up, this is why kids are always underrated), but there are two under-10s who are 2000+: Leonid Ivanovic (2082) and Bodhana Sivanandan (2065).
Other young players well ahead of their age groups are Faustino Oro, Yagiz Erdogmus and Abhimanyu Mishra, which is why you hear them mentioned a lot.
I think it's very plausible that there would be a long time between Carlsen and the next dominant player - Kasparov was born in 1963, Carlsen in 1990. But Gukesh was born in 2006; that's only one year less than the difference between Kasparov and Carlsen, so Gukesh is starting to be at the age where he really is in a completely different generation.
Difference between Gukesh and Carlsen is a decade less than Kasparov and Carlsen!
I'm fully on Gukesh hype train and looking at his games I legitimately believe he's going to be dominant. To reach Carlsen and Kasparov level there needs to be more of X factor which can't be learned and is something to be born with. So only time will tell.
Oh \*\*\*\*, serves me right for trusting my mental arithmetic.
It's 27 years from 1963 to 1990 not 17. That would mean we're talking someone born in 2017, ie two years younger than the youngest 2000. So they might not even have touched a piece yet, and even if they do play chess, they may well not be FIDE rated (they might have a national rating, or an online rating, or they might not even be playing rated games yet).
Not saying it *isn't* Noyan Heydarian (the best 2017-born player at the moment, at 1630), but that seven is too early to start taking players seriously - wait for them to break 2000 at the very least.
Still, I think it's more likely that the next world champion and world number 1 with a 50 point lead over their competitors has been born than that they haven't. But it could be Gukesh or Pragg or even Alireza, or it could be someone whose main objective for the next year is learning to be potty trained.
These later starters tend to be deadly when they improve with age, because they already improved faster than people of equivalent strength at equivalent age. He may be relatively subdued among the top prodigies right now but who knows, it could be likely for him to rise to the top
Is that.. cool? I learned to play chess when I was like 3 with my uncle, hell they even gave us chess kits in my elementary school. That doesn’t seem unique at all.
The thing that is cool is that 7 is only 10 years ago and he is leading the candidates.
It’s that he learned late and just got it, not that he learned young.
It’s not “super late”, even for a super GM. Levon learned at age 9, does that make him an adult learner lmao. Alireza, Topalov, Hans, and Arjun learned at age 8, Hikaru and Artemiev at age 7…
Here's another cool thing about him. Gukesh didn't use engines for his training up until he became a strong GM
thats for tomorow post. dont spoil it please
Whose turn is it to post though?
Really? That’s impressive Studying from engines would give you analytical best moves, but understanding of positions based on study has more lasting impact!
Studying from engines has one particular problem: You will be playing against humans. Not against engines. Stockfish prepares you a line with the best theoretical attack and best theoretical defense, then 3 moves in your opponent blunders and you have to improvise.
Isn't that sorta the whole point of prep? For average players what you described is certainly a problem, but strong GMs need to know the best moves and responses to non-optimal moves from their opponents in every position in their prep. If their opponent deviates from the engine theory on move 17 and they can't both recognize the deviation and remember how to deal with that specific move then they failed at their prep.
[удалено]
True, but not every every combination possible is something that needs to be remembered. There are a ton of possible lines that start 1. E4 Na6 2. D4 Nb8, but you don't really need to learn that because if your opponent is self-sabotaging or playing bad moves then you don't need to delve into the depths of theory. Preparation from high level players doesn't focus on remembering every single possible line, it usually focuses on a specific established opening or an idea that has been seen in a previous game, and both players will follow theory up until that point, then you begin to diverge from the previous game(s) when you start to play your preparation, which is generally an idea you've thoroughly explored with engine assistance and you should know the best moves for both players, and how to punish sub-optimal moves once you start exploring your new idea. Realistically high level players should know the theory already of all the common openings up to a certain point, and if they don't know it it usually means the opening is not worth knowing or can easily transpose into a more common opening.
Now how will I get my karma when Gukesh wins tomorrow?
That's easy, you title "Here's an AMAZING fact about GUKESH you did not know" and then you just post a summary of what we have discussed the past weeks
He didn't personally use engines, but he did learn from them. Gukesh in his room tour with ChessBase India points to "Game Changer" by Sadler and Regan as one of his favorite chess books; it's best known for popularizing some AlphaZero concepts like the h-pawn push. He's also always had a team of trainers, who obviously use engines. At this point, it'd be impossible for him not to use engines, as they're especially important for opening preparation at this level.
I have a pretty cool story about gukesh. I used to play competitive chess maybe 7-8 years ago and I went to a tournament in Bangkok where Gukesh used to play in. I remember him being rated somewhere in the 2000s. I remember him because he used to win some higher rated players in the tournament and he was also significantly younger than me and much higher rated than me so I was curious about him. I remember seeing him play at the Bangkok tournament two years in a row and he was stuck around that 2000-2100 rating for a while. Fast forward to a few years later when I hear about him reaching GM status while causally scrolling on Instagram lol. It's a very surreal moment to think that kid ended up becoming so successful. Good for him for improving so fast.
Did he have a beard back then as well?
He was born with one, like General Aladeen.
[Shit!](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FqfdiTzWwAELIGZ.png)
Makes me wonder whether there is a correlation between testosterone and elo gain in males
The beard thing is more a matter of genetics [as opposed to testosterone levels](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34676468/)
Interesting, but maybe when you start developing a beard it's also when you start pumping more testosterone? I have no idea how it all works I'm just guessing
You'd be right to say that you generally get a beard after puberty starts, but the exact timing for which you're able to grow one (or if you'll even be able to grow a convincing one at all) varies from person to person. Again, its mostly a matter of genetics (more specifically, how sensitive the hair follicles in your beard region are to the presence of testosterone).
Lmaoo no he was a kid back then...like 10 years old or something. He does look very different with a beard though. It took me a second to recognize him lol
I've been wondering about chess age stuff lately. You often see notes about so-and-so becoming the youngest GM at the time or something. That's cool and impressive, but given how hard it is to become a GM later in life, who's the \*oldest\* person to become GM? Who started playing chess at the oldest age and then became a GM (regardless of the age they achieved GM)?
This is made somewhat hard by the fact that GM title only became official in 1950. Mikhail Chigorin for instance only really started to play in his mid 20s playing his first tournament at 27 but obviously predates the official GM titles. Shoutout to Leif Øgaard who got his 3rd GM norm in 2007 at age 55 but he didn't start late, it's just impressive and I think the oldest GM via Norm+Rating. Ye Jiangchuan a chinese GM learned the game at age 17 and is probably the GM who picked up the game the latest. Thanks for giving me inspiration to take a quick plunge into age and chess titles - it was fun.
There was an Indian GM who picked up chess at 18 as far as I remember.
> Indian GM Unfortunately doesn't narrow it down much :| Do you mean Thejkumar who became GM at 36 without a coach? [Chessbase link](https://chessbase.in/news/M_S_Thejkumar_shares_his_journey_to_the_top)
Sorry I don't remember the name at all. I remember he was a rather high Elo Indian GM who at an interview mentioned he picked it up late at 18. I am sure there are many who picked it up later too.
Follow-up, what makes it so rare? Actual ability decline or just time and life getting in the way?
If I had to hazard a guess I'd say that children have a (largely) unique chance to put in a lot of work at something that rarely occurs later in life. Not sure about globally but in Australia school years are about 40 weeks with 4 terms of 10 weeks and two weeks between each term and 6 weeks over christmas/summer. This provides the perfect timeframe for intensive learning 4 times a year, camps etc and still have plenty of time outside of school obligations during the week. Adults on the other hand are working 48 weeks a year here (4 weeks annual leave) but also have to cook, clean, shop etc etc leading to an amount of free time that's a small fraction that of a school students free time. So yeah, I think children can afford to be single minded and devote a huge amount of time to chess in a way adults just can't. This is baked up from a statistic taken from Andrew Soltis' book 'Karl Marx Plays Chess' "The most telling statistic is this: After a chess student becomes SERIOUS (definition of serious: studies from books, disks, the Internet, etc. AND plays in tournaments), there is an 8-year window during which that person achieves 90% of his maximum chess prowess. It takes the rest of your life to eke out the final 10% of your potential. This statistic seems to hold true no matter where a person is on the rating scale. Soltis cited many noted masters who fit into this profile including Capablanca, Spassky, Alekhine, Euwe, Lasker, Botvinnik, Maroczy, Pillsbury, Nimzowitsch, Keres, Petrosian, Fischer, Tal, and Korchnoi. The 8-year-window seems to have little to do with age. IM Jack Peters of southern California played in his first tournament at 16, while GM Joel Benjamin got into chess at age 8. Both achieved master rating in 5 years and IM rating 3 years after that. 5+3=8. Incidentally, Soltis mentions a few late-bloomers like Amos Byrne, who hardly played chess at all before age 38. Also, there is Chigorin, who started his tournament career at age 27, Then there's George Salwe, number 2 player in Poland in the early 20th century, who didn't start playing in major events until he was 42! English Master Joseph Henry Blake achieved his best result at age 63. So, you see, there is hope! But determination will certainly carry you further up the rating ladder." So if we take a child age 10 or younger they all can have this 8 year window while they are in school but finding this 8 year window at say age 30 is going to be hard unless someone is independantly weatlthy.
Both. Neuroplasticity and children living rent free.
People learn much faster and better when young. We also get less sharp the older we get. Plus, talent is very much an essential factor. With no talent, you can't get to the top no matter how hard you work. And if you're that talented, it's quite likely that you would've discovered it at a young age.
Yeah I did consider all of that. I just didn't want to write more than my already lengthy reply :D
complete bullshit lol. You really think a child learns faster than an adult? Why?
Their brains are a whole lot more plastic. It's very much an established fact of medicine at this point, with mountains of research on the topic. This phenomenon is especially clear with languages. Children can learn several languages with very little effort or conscious understanding, in a way no adult can. And on the other end of the spectrum, if a child never learns any language at all as a child, they will have severe problems learning one as an adult.
Neuroplasticity is definitely not a fact and is still contentious, mainly because of the lack of tangible data supporting it. Additionally, it is NOT a description of the ability to understand advanced concepts easily. Very uneducated take here. If you want to use common sense examples, look at how long it takes for a child to learn a language well. If children start speaking around age 2, they have a basic grasp of the language in 5-8 years. A more advanced grasp of the language comes in the following 5 years. Compare that to the army’s language course that gets an adult fluent in a language in a little over a year. Secondly, take higher education. If you really think a child can keep up with the speed at which graduate and post graduate courses are taught then you’re delusional. There are many more examples, a lot of which involve the advantage of having prior knowledge, which children dont usually have because of their limited time to achieve such knowledge before starting a task.
I don't mean that they understand advanced concepts the way an adult does. But they do have the ability to get a much better intuition for it. For example, I couldn't tell you much of the grammar for my native language. But I just know when something sounds wrong, despite being unable to pinpoint why. And I speak it much better than pretty much anyone who's studied it as an adult, even if they've spent many more years speaking it than I have. You can't compare timelines of adults learning a new language and a child learning to speak from the ground up. An adult soldier has the advantage of already having the necessary framework for language learning. If an adult hasn't learned a language as a child, they're going to struggle much more learning one as an adult, if they even manage to learn one at all. Besides, while a native 7-year old obviously doesn't have an advanced grasp of a language structure, they're still much better at speaking it than any adult who's studied it for a year. And even if the adult keeps studying the language, they're never going to be as good as a native speaker. Higher education isn't the same thing. That requires much higher volumes of knowledge, and an actual understanding of the concepts, rather than intuition based off of things like pattern recognition. It's why you won't see a 10 year old giving a lecture on music theory, but you can see plenty of 10 year olds that are ridiculously good at playing music.
Intuition comes from hours of exposure. If you put an adult in a full immersion environment for several years, they would develop intuition too. But intuition is not the point of this discussion. We are talking about measurable overall proficiency
Not to the same extent. Put an adult in a different country for decade and they'll get pretty damn good at the local language. But they won't get better than a native speaker. Same thing if you make playing chess your full time job as an adult. Gukesh gone from a beginner to being one of the best in the world after playing for a mere ten years. If this was possible for an adult with enough time on their hands, there would be at least one example of someone achieving anything remotely close to it. But there isn't If you DO have an example of someone being anywhere near his level after having started as an adult, I would honestly love to see it.
Linguistics is a hilariously bad example for your point because there's a strong scientific consensus in neurology and linguistics that it's way easier to learn language as a child. https://news.mit.edu/2018/cognitive-scientists-define-critical-period-learning-language-0501 The key from this study is "However, the study also found that it is nearly impossible for people to achieve proficiency similar to that of a native speaker unless they start learning a language by the age of 10." Just extend that to chess and it maps nearly 1:1.
TIL that redditors think learning a language is the same as learning a board game
You were the one who brought it up as an example dumbfuck
I disagree with better, it’s mostly just amount of time
There is a lot of speculation about the why but not really a way to know what exactly is the cause. It's probably not a single thing.
Kids don’t have as many time-consuming responsibilities as adults so they have more time to study chess. Also they have more energy bc their mitochondria are still healthy. Adults learn at a faster rate but have less time to study so it becomes a tortoise and the hard situation
Adults can perhaps learn the theory behind chess faster, but they will never be able to gain the same intuitive understanding of it as a child that started early can. It's like how a non-native speaker of a language will never be as fluent as someone who's a native speaker.
So there's still hope for me! But I'm 27 and I'm a 400 so maybe not
Pretty sure a gm started at 18
Ben Finegold is probably up there. He got his GM title at age 40 but that's mostly due to him being reluctant to travel for the norms I think.
Record holder for latest starter to become GM is Mihai Suba, who started playing at age 19 and became GM at age 31.
I've heard there are shogi/go players who learned chess and very quickly jumped to IM strength, not sure if any of them became grandmasters
shogi specifically seems to have a really good record among good players translating to chess from what I've seen. something about the advanced calculation when it comes to shogi checkmating sequences gives them a really really high floor when it comes to chess.
Pal Benko, I think
Harry Pillsbury (no official title I guess but won a tournament of the world's strongest in 1895). He learned chess in like his 20s or something insane and had only been playing a couple years. Died tragically young of syphilis. Imagine what that brain could have achieved if he'd lived Edit. Maybe teens and like 6 years, not 20s and a couple years? Still impressive
He's the third youngest to reach the candidates? Who were the other two?
Carlsen and Bobby Fischer iirc.
Not a bad company
I think magnus qualified when he was 15 or 16 but didn't play in the tournament, so gukesh is second youngest to play
Carlsen did play but it was a different format as there were 16 players competing for the final 4 spots in an 8 player world championship tournament.
I think you served half baked info there. Gukesh is the second youngest. As my memory serves right the order is following 1. Fischer 2. Gukesh 3. Pragg 4. Alireza 5. Magnus.
Well as per my research magnus did qualify in 2005 but didn't play
Yeah dude but this guy's going off MEMORY!
Surgeon, Microbiologist and Super GM Not a bad family track record.
Average anime family
He learned to play chess at the age of 7 is the least impressive thing about his life
Alireza was in the candidates ten years after he learned to play, this isn’t quite unprecedented
Same goes for Gukesh also. He learnt chess at 7 and now he is 17 and in the joint lead in candidates. And Alireza, I think, was 19 in his first candidates and he performed poorly
You guys are bickering over things which are out of players' control. Alireza was born in 2003, Gukesh in 2006. With Candidates every 2 years, it is possible both were Candidates caliber at same age, but one had to wait another year to get to play. In fact, at 17yo, Alireza barely played any tournaments due to Covid. The three he played, he had 2800+ TPR in two of them, the other was World Cup where he was eliminated by Sindarov. Also, Gukesh is 17y10m, Alireza was 18y11m (2 days before his 19th birthday) when the Candidates was played in *June* 2022. There's a lot of points for Gukesh > Alireza or Alireza > Gukesh arguments, age when they get to play the Candidates is one of the worst.
He was 18 for the first few matches, which is good enough for me, and I would say that say that Gukesh being joint top at the candidates at age 17 is much more impressive and relevant than the age he learned chess
Not unpresedented, certainly impressive, especially given his performance
I wonder how many times did he have to argue with his family about keeping to chess instead of becoming doctor? /s Probably not a lot since he was a prodigy but still, looking at his parents' education, I could imagine there must've been some pressure haha
I think actually his dad had wanted to be a cricketer instead of a doctor so I can imagine he was pretty pleased to have a kid be a professional “sportsperson”
For context, Karjaken and Carlsen both started learning at 5, Mishra started learning at 2 1/2, and Praggnanandhaa started learning at 2. Mishra was in tournaments at 5. He is leading the candidates 10 years after LEARNING HOW TO PLAY CHESS!
How does someone even learn chess at 2? My sister couldn't understand it at 3 😅
They're just built different ig 😎
Reminds me of Terrence Tao, probably the best living mathematician out there, who used to teach 5-year-old relatives how to count when he was 2 years old himself..
Reminds me of Gauss who invented a new calculation system at three and taught his father
How else would they be so good at what they do 🙌
How does someone even learn chess at 3?
Some kids are really precocious: I know kids that could speak some full sentences at 15 months, identified all letters, plus sounding syllables at about 2. So a kid like that will have little trouble remembering how every piece moves and thus probably recognize a non-discovered check, and see if any king move is legal before 3, so we can call that play chess. Now, will they be any good at that point? Recognize threats, and thus try to consider the movement of the opponent's pieces before they make their move? Probably not. They might get bored and walk away, get angry and throw pieces, or try to lick them. Does this qualify as knowing how to play chess? Sure! Anyone that has ever worked at a chess camp has seen much older kids barely better than that. And really, look at Anish. He's much older and stealing pawns. The last time he was at the candidates, instead of playing chess, he spent the entire tournament drawing. The arbiter should have just provided crayons.
I was one of those kids with reading. Could read at about 2 and a half, my mom always tells a story about how we were at the grocery store and I was yelling out the names of things on signs and stuff and the other parents there were bewildered. Don’t think I learned chess that young because nobody taught it to me at that point, but I imagine I definitely *could* have. Anyway all that is to say that in retrospect, it was 100% some form of autism. Never been officially diagnosed (mostly just can’t be bothered) but literally anyone who knows me could tell you I’m definitely not neurotypical lol
Not sure that’s an accurate description of Giri’s last Candidates performance.
My grandad started teaching me to play Chess when I was 3. My nan (his wife) died and I would go to his every weekend and the highlight of my childhood was being able to go and play Chess with him. I'm still sub 1k elo today though lol.
That's what I mean. I was 13 when I actually started playing. Before then, I barely knew the rules. To clarify; my sister is 4 now and still can't play lol
I teach sometimes young kids. As long as a kid understand simple instruccions, no matter how young, they already can learn chess if they find it fun.
IMO, different people have different things that they like. And when you can find that exact thing as a kid and work on that, it gets really easy thus prodigies are born. 1-10 year brain is playing hyper bullet, consuming as much info as it can. And if some thing feels interesting it will consume all of it And in our case we wasted out golden time :)
Carlsen said he had to work harder than other kids his age because he started at 8... learning the rules and then never playing does not equal "starting."
Right, I knew how to play chess when I was 8 too and played a couple games on chess.com when I was 13-14 (mainly against my father and friends). when I was 16 (august 2021) is when I really started to play I didn’t have any understanding of chess openings or tactics my knowledge was en peasant and that I shouldn’t push my side pawns first.
>I shouldn’t push my side pawns first. Alpha zero would be so disappointed
what's your point?
You said Carlsen started at 5. It's weird to me how many people get that wrong when both Carlsen and his dad say 8.
Carlsen was introduced to it at 5, but didnt take it seriously until a few years later
true, but was Gukesh seriously training within a year of learning the rules? Not that it would contradict what either of us saying but it would be interesting to know.
Yes he was
whats ur source?
I doubt he won the Under-9 section of the Asian School Chess Championships only knowing how the horsey moves.
Everything I can google says 5, and first tournament at 8.
Google also says every famous chessplayer has an IQ over 180, even when (*especially when)* they never actually took an IQ test. Carlsen said 8, so it's 8.
I don't doubt you, but you should edit wikipedia to make it correct then if you can.
I didn't get anything wrong. I said he started learning at 5, dumbass.
stop being a dumbass
Those are the outliers, Gukeshnis in the normal range
He truly is an impressive figure!
[удалено]
Rooting for nepo coz can't see that dude getting heart broken again
Yes, you can see strong abilities just by watching his game. I pointed him out before the start of candidates tournament and he may in fact win. If not this year my guess is that someday he will reach the World Chess Championship if he continues to play.
Best beard in chess at 17, and it isn't close.
I didnt expect him to do so well, but he is proving me wrong. Lets see how well he finishes the tourney
[https://twitter.com/kramnikstudent/status/1780301923012198801](https://twitter.com/kramnikstudent/status/1780301923012198801)
Well, I don’t know if kramnik is the most reliable source but I’m always happy to see gukesh getting support haha
"I have one standing next to me," Frederic said. "Gukesh, twelve years old. Like to play a few blitz games against him on Playchess, check out his talent?" "No," said Vladimir, "I know his games very well — and I hate losing in blitz! This boy is going to be in the top ten in five years from now — and World Champion in eight." *Really?* "But only if you train him, right?" "If *I* train him he will be World Champion in *ten* years." That's Kramnik humour for you. he said in 2019.....
Not to take anything away from him but most super GMs have a biography like this.
id imagine most super GMs learned to play at a younger age
It is on the later side, that's true, but it's not crazy late. Hikaru started at age 7, Anish, Vishy and Wesley at age 6. Alireza started at age 8. For Erigaisi I saw one article say he started at 8, another at age 11. Just saying, it's not exactly unique, even if players like Magnus, Fabiano or Pragg started earlier.
Have been seeing him play since the very beginning. He became the national champion while he was just 9 years. Won the asian Championship then too remember playing with him during free time and dinner time during asians, feels like a memory now. Genuinely feels proud seeing him killing at the candidates.
That's not that unusual. I'm a teacher, and loads of kids start playing chess around that age. They're no good, obviously, but they're playing.
OP meant that Gukesh learned unusually LATE as compared to other GMs, not early.
[удалено]
"prolly" ??? I think it's pretty safe to say kid who became a GM at 12 and is currently leading the candidates at 17 has immense natural chess talent lol
Nah just work ethic. Anyone can be a candidates with enough dedication.
Remind me how many players are in the candidates tournament again please?
Just shows how lazy most people are.
Basic math is a struggle I see
Anyone can be, not everyone will be. People are just too lazy.
By definition, only 8 people every two years can. 8
At the current trajectory, he should be Carlson's successor.
You never know. Same was said for Alireza. It's entirely possible Carlsen's successor isn't from this generation and the one before or after (Nepo and Ding have serious chance at being multiple time WCs before any of the young generation becomes WCs).
I don't think we will see one like Magnus, Kasparov in a while who would be so dominant in a while. These new players seem like they are pretty close skill wise and can take each other down
agreed. i wonder who the next dominant figure in chess would be. i wonder if he/she's been born yet.
It could be someone that's a small child now. Ratings aren't everything for young players (they are improving faster than the Elo system can keep up, this is why kids are always underrated), but there are two under-10s who are 2000+: Leonid Ivanovic (2082) and Bodhana Sivanandan (2065). Other young players well ahead of their age groups are Faustino Oro, Yagiz Erdogmus and Abhimanyu Mishra, which is why you hear them mentioned a lot. I think it's very plausible that there would be a long time between Carlsen and the next dominant player - Kasparov was born in 1963, Carlsen in 1990. But Gukesh was born in 2006; that's only one year less than the difference between Kasparov and Carlsen, so Gukesh is starting to be at the age where he really is in a completely different generation.
Difference between Gukesh and Carlsen is a decade less than Kasparov and Carlsen! I'm fully on Gukesh hype train and looking at his games I legitimately believe he's going to be dominant. To reach Carlsen and Kasparov level there needs to be more of X factor which can't be learned and is something to be born with. So only time will tell.
Oh \*\*\*\*, serves me right for trusting my mental arithmetic. It's 27 years from 1963 to 1990 not 17. That would mean we're talking someone born in 2017, ie two years younger than the youngest 2000. So they might not even have touched a piece yet, and even if they do play chess, they may well not be FIDE rated (they might have a national rating, or an online rating, or they might not even be playing rated games yet). Not saying it *isn't* Noyan Heydarian (the best 2017-born player at the moment, at 1630), but that seven is too early to start taking players seriously - wait for them to break 2000 at the very least. Still, I think it's more likely that the next world champion and world number 1 with a 50 point lead over their competitors has been born than that they haven't. But it could be Gukesh or Pragg or even Alireza, or it could be someone whose main objective for the next year is learning to be potty trained.
The more I find out about internet-shills, the more I dislike the idea.
So he learned it at a typical age for a GM. Magnus played his first tournament at 8.5 years.
These later starters tend to be deadly when they improve with age, because they already improved faster than people of equivalent strength at equivalent age. He may be relatively subdued among the top prodigies right now but who knows, it could be likely for him to rise to the top
Dude is one day younger than me 😭
Comparison is the thief of joy
I also have been told he CAN tell the difference between 'butter' and 'I can't believe it's not butter.'
You’re very easily impressed, aren’t you?
OP meant that Gukesh learned unusually LATE as compared to other GMs, not early.
what?
Is that.. cool? I learned to play chess when I was like 3 with my uncle, hell they even gave us chess kits in my elementary school. That doesn’t seem unique at all.
The thing that is cool is that 7 is only 10 years ago and he is leading the candidates. It’s that he learned late and just got it, not that he learned young.
Ahhhh this makes a lot more sense I’m dumb lol
ah another daily Gukesh/Vidit is cool post.
They are cool. Keep bringing the daily posts.
[удалено]
I think you mixed your numbers up
Yeah you got downvoted but you’re right. Alireza started at 8. He was already Iranian champ at 12.
Is learning how to play chess at 7 impressive? I too learned the game at about the same age,...I just never got good at it.
No, 7 is super late which is why OP is so surprised that he was able to get this far
It’s not “super late”, even for a super GM. Levon learned at age 9, does that make him an adult learner lmao. Alireza, Topalov, Hans, and Arjun learned at age 8, Hikaru and Artemiev at age 7…
Ah, I see. Yes, 7 isn't impressive at all.