3 ms·

It's certainly rare, but it's not unheard of. Mikhail Chigorin apparently learned the rules of chess at 16, but only really started playing at 27. Gersz Salwe

by SamBam 6y ago

It's certainly rare, but it's not unheard of. Mikhail Chigorin apparently learned the rules of chess at 16, but only really started playing at 27. Gersz Salwe started playing around age 20, and apparently entered his first tournament at 36. And in terms of blooming late, Oscar Shapiro and Bernard Friend became GMs in their 70s. (Also, I don't see it stated anywhere that the prisoner was not an exceptionally-talented youth.)

fogof 6y ago
Chigorin and Salwe were both born in the mid-1800s. With the prevalence of chess computers for training and studying, the amount of strength you need to play at a top level is much higher these days.
- icelancer 6y ago
  On the other hand its never been easier to get that kind of information. It's probably easier than ever to reach Candidate Master (2000 Elo). GM, maybe harder, but definitely could see the argument otherwise.
  - jeremyjh 6y ago
    The skill required for a particular ELO is relative to the strength of all the other players. More learning resources that are available to everyone can't provide a comparative advantage, which is what you need to move up. Part of the reason the Soviets dominated for so long is they had developed a training program that the rest of the world did not have access to.
- jeremyjh 6y ago
  I don't think it is just the computers. The training environments and systems for learning advanced quite far without the engines. Kasparov didn't train with computers in his prime and he is still very strong by modern standards. More children were encouraged to pursue chess...in the 19th century many people (such as Paul Morphy) would consider a professional chess player in roughly the same social tier as a professional gambler. If you look at many of the games from that era it seems like only 20 people in the world even knew how to play chess.
  - iambrj 6y ago
    Indeed, Morphy once said "The ability to play chess is the sign of a gentleman. The ability to play chess well is the sign of a wasted life".

by SamBam 6y ago

fogof 6y ago

Chigorin and Salwe were both born in the mid-1800s. With the prevalence of chess computers for training and studying, the amount of strength you need to play at a top level is much higher these days.

icelancer 6y ago
On the other hand its never been easier to get that kind of information. It's probably easier than ever to reach Candidate Master (2000 Elo). GM, maybe harder, but definitely could see the argument otherwise.
- jeremyjh 6y ago
  The skill required for a particular ELO is relative to the strength of all the other players. More learning resources that are available to everyone can't provide a comparative advantage, which is what you need to move up. Part of the reason the Soviets dominated for so long is they had developed a training program that the rest of the world did not have access to.
jeremyjh 6y ago
I don't think it is just the computers. The training environments and systems for learning advanced quite far without the engines. Kasparov didn't train with computers in his prime and he is still very strong by modern standards. More children were encouraged to pursue chess...in the 19th century many people (such as Paul Morphy) would consider a professional chess player in roughly the same social tier as a professional gambler. If you look at many of the games from that era it seems like only 20 people in the world even knew how to play chess.
- iambrj 6y ago
  Indeed, Morphy once said "The ability to play chess is the sign of a gentleman. The ability to play chess well is the sign of a wasted life".