
Learning Chess at 40 - sergeant3
http://nautil.us/issue/36/aging/learning-chess-at-40
======
keiferski
Probably the most interesting example of someone pursuing chess later in life
is that of Marcel Duchamp, the famous Cubist artist. He grew up playing chess
for fun, but at age 36 he basically stopped making art and started pursuing
chess full-time.

 _" I am still a victim of chess. It has all the beauty of art—and much more.
It cannot be commercialized. Chess is much purer than art in its social
position."_

 _" The chess pieces are the block alphabet which shapes thoughts; and these
thoughts, although making a visual design on the chess-board, express their
beauty abstractly, like a poem. ... I have come to the personal conclusion
that while all artists are not chess players, all chess players are artists."
_

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Duchamp#Transition_from...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Duchamp#Transition_from_art_to_chess)

~~~
MichaelGG
I just don't see the beauty in chess. It's got a lot of unjustifiable,
inherent complexity. Different pieces with different rules under different
conditions. You wouldn't expect multiple designers to converge, or discover,
that game. It even has cultural elements embedded.

Whereas Go is nearly as simple as possible, yet much deeper. It's easy to
imagine different designers coming to the same set of rules.

~~~
V-2
While it's obviously true that rules of chess are more complex, I can't see
what it has to do with beauty or the lack thereof.

It's very unlikely that different writers would independently come up with
"War and Peace", does it make it less of a masterpiece?

------
jlg23
I think the author's real problem is less his age but his tendency to stick to
rules which are just meant as "rules of thumb". He says that this is how he is
thinking but still primarily blames his age.

Following rules and schematics in chess is great/necessary for end games
(which he says he wins) because there you really just work through the
algorithms and it also allows for quickly played openings (assuming you
memorized the few standards that are played 99% of the games).

But in mid-game you actually need creativity and concepts like forks become
much more important and I'd trade a "knight on the rim" for a choice between
two forks the next move any time. His daughter seems to be playing with
creativity while he is so stuck in schematic play that his daughter can even
predict his moves (“I knew you were going to do that.”).

What I think is really curious is his remark: "She played [...] as if I were
just some lower-level chess engine making haplessly random moves. Indeed, when
I made my moves, her eyes would often drift elsewhere—as if what I was doing
was almost inconsequential to the larger game."

She is right to do so, nobody cares about what one did 3 moves ago. The board
is in a state that does not care about its history, it only cares about future
possibilities :) When I play chess and look at the board when it is my
opponent's turn, I don't care for my opponent but just take the time for a
deeper analysis.

~~~
jegutman
I'm a national master chess player and I think the opposite. In middle games
heuristics are more important because even the final positions in your
calculations will often still be very dynamic so you need some tools to be
able to evaluate these positions you've never seen before. In endgames the
same thing may happen, but the confidence around my evaluation will generally
be much higher.

~~~
jlg23
Yes, heuristics are a very good guideline and I am grateful to have learned
those at a very early age (that's how you were introduced to chess in the
GDR).

I too apply them but my point is, in mid-game I'm much more free to ignore
them than in openings or end-games in which I usually let my forearm do the
thinking.

------
danielvf
I'm learning the game of Go at near fourty. But I'm not having any of the
problems he describes.

A great thing about learning and playing online is that you can find an
opponent at your same skill level within minutes. Unlike learning in a local
club, where every person you will ever play beats you every time, I win
slightly more than half my games. I also get this nice increasing graph of my
skill level. This is a lot more fun.

~~~
lordnacho
I wish physical sports were like this. Anything online is blessed with this
mechanic where you can keep it challenging for everyone other than the people
at the top or bottom (based on my experience in CoD where I'm pretty sure I'm
bottom).

With sports like soccer it's quite noticeable that some people are way better
than everyone else, or way worse. And there's no way to improve since you
can't just rearrange thousands of teams.

~~~
IkmoIkmo
I'm not familiar with your experience to be honest.

For example in the Netherlands we have Football right. There's 9 divisions.
You get promoted or demoted at the end of the season, such that on average
you're roughly in the middle of a spectrum of 5% worse and 5% better teams.

Of course there's lots of individual differences and some teams get much
better suddenly in one season, and ought to play a division higher right away.
But that's an issue for online mechanics as well. Online mechanics make that
5% range more granular, sure, but the notion that thousands of teams aren't
rearranged isn't true, that's exactly what happens in most sports!

Of course going to the court and playing a quick match with strangers doesn't
have this effect, but the vast majority of football players play in some
formal sense in a team which plays in some organisation's league system with
divisions. At least that's how it is here, although football is an
extraordinarily deep sport in most countries and so the difficulty of
opposition will be less granular in other sports.

~~~
bgilroy26
Coming from of the United States and hearing about how federated soccer is all
across Europe is really saddening.

In the US we have baseball where we have a sane semi-pro system. In football
and basketball which are the real money, growth sports, there's the best-in-
the-world professionals, the unpaid 20 year old college players and not a lot
in-between.

In college, a buddy of mine became close friends do with a semi-pro soccer
player out of Austria. He wasn't the best in the world and he was an au pair
in the off-season, but he was in tip top shape in his late 20s playing soccer
for a living.

It really isn't like that here. On the top end of the average case scenario,
you have 3 years to make a living doing what you've been trained practically
20 years to do and then you're out in most cases. The whole employment market
for these athletes would be a lot more sane if it were like baseball where you
have families coming out to see minor league football and basketball players
at reasonable prices.

~~~
Scarblac
The guy you're replying to is talking about _amateur_ sports, and you reply by
talking about semi-pros and making a living out of something. The divide runs
deep.

The people in those 9 divisions have a game every weekend, and training once
or twice per week on weekday evenings, as a hobby. Pro sport is something
different entirely.

------
trbvm2
I find answers such as "my brain is getting slower as I age" distasteful and
unsatisfying. One can not do anything with an answer like that. On the other
hand, a somewhat careful review of the process can lead in useful insights.
Reading between the lines in this article I notice a few points that I think
are important to the cause of the author's delayed progress at learning the
game.

First the author describes how he set about reading all manner of strategies,
variations of strategies, positions, tactics, etc. I think he shot himself in
the foot with this. Humans tend to surrender when a task looks too daunting
and his real goal was to keep up with a child who did not know anything about
chess. None of the stuff he studied would be initially useful against a fellow
novice with an innately short term focus.

Second, the author hired a coach, ostensibly to teach both him and his
daughter, but later notes "I would sometimes wander into the room when coach
Simon was there, watching him present her with some puzzle on the board". So I
have to wonder, what was he doing during the other occasions where his
opponent was learning chess from an expert?

Third, the author's stated motive to learn was to teach his daughter; he
removed that motive when he hired the coach. Without motive to drive
engagement learning anything becomes extremely difficult.

Finally, after he discovered the complexity of the learning task the author
then set about studying all of the reasons why he could not do well at his
initial goal. This, again, is not useful in actually learning chess.

All in all, it seems like the author actually learned a lot more than his
daughter did in the same amount of time. However, his lack of focus lead him
to spend the time learning many things that did not help him play chess at a
novice level.

------
ryandrake
I see the learning curve of chess to be similar to that of poker: Learning the
basic moves is as easy as learning what hand beats what. You can memorize each
in an afternoon. Then, you learn a few basic tactics and work on your ability
to enumerate your opponents next possible moves. Similar to the basics in
poker like betting strategies, calculating odds, etc. At this stage, you're
still not going to go out and start winning. Finally, there's this huge
learning cliff for both where, in order to even start winning even a little,
you need to invest an enormous amount of time, read a lot of literature, and
practice, practice, practice.

I'd like to get into chess, but the time commitment needed to get even
moderately competent is daunting.

~~~
chongli
I wouldn't say that's the case. If you play online as a complete beginner your
rating will drop like a stone at first and then you'll be matched against
other people of your level. At that point, the system will take care of you,
generally keeping you at a 50% win rate as you progress along.

There's only a huge cliff if you expect to be able to win against 1500 rated
players as a complete beginner, a totally unreasonable expectation.

------
BooneJS
Thankfully I'm 39 for 3 more months, so this article doesn't apply.

~~~
x5n1
That's the thing with age, it's an eventuality. No matter how smug you are,
the age you are smug about not being comes and much more quickly than you
thought it would. I am not quite at 40, but still I know it will come soon
enough.

------
mathattack
I'm a parent in a similar situation. I'm ahead of my young child, but I think
my days are numbered. I've improved since we both started getting interested,
but my ramp is slower. (In part because he has classes, and I don't)

Perhaps with this in mind, I found the interesting context of the story more
about the parent-child relationship, than learning beyond a certain age. It is
very easy to mis-balance the roles of parent, coach and competitor. In the
last line, the author captured this very clearly.

------
vinceguidry
The first time I beat my step-dad at chess was the last time we played. I
tried not to gloat, but I could tell he was disappointed. I half-heartedly
suggested another game the next week, he declined, and that was the end of it.

------
pcmaffey
I highly recommend speed chess (5 mins), as it allows for many more
repetitions. You'll learn faster what works / doesn't. Intersperse every once
in a while with a slow game to rethink your fundamentals and strategy.

Also, speed chess is much more forgiving. 1 mistake is not the end of the
game, as time is the great equalizer. Whereas in slow chess, going down a pawn
unintentionally is often a loss.

~~~
rilut
Where can I play speed chess against computer (offline/online) or people
online?

~~~
jlg23
A great, free site: [http://lichess.org/](http://lichess.org/)

~~~
dfc
Its really a toss up between lichess and fics. I wish lichess did not let
people chose color for rated games. I also miss xboard...

~~~
aptsec11235
esc really needs your look. Stephanie flew to close to the sun and lost her
king signal. the whole llama farm in at risk. and my radio sig isn;t
responding. my puter is going after the everyone valuable to me. Especially
the llamas, the farmers, the dogs goats chicken and CATS. The ducks are just
sitting in the line of fire. esc

------
dragontamer
Children are definitely quicker, and in my experience with Chess... tactics
are king. And tactics favor the quicker minds.

Strategic chess can be taught with words, and adults will naturally lean
towards the strategic parts. We respect our predecessors, we seek knowledge
that has already been discovered. Alas, heuristics and such aren't worth very
much to a Chess beginner, who will regularly make "simple blunders" (like
putting their own pieces in a knight fork) until Elo 1500+ (a moderately
skilled beginner club player).

And even then, Elo 1800 to 2000 will regularly put themselves in a position
where they can be forked in two or three moves.

If you can manage to play a blunder-free game (much harder to do than it
looks), that's when strategic thinking comes in. Knight placement in the
center vs edge, or backwards pawns here and there, or whatever.

In part, I think children do best at chess because they aren't distracted by
any of the myriad of books and research on the subject (which are...
hopelessly irrelevant to beginners)

~~~
thruflo22
In my experience this is very true. I was a better chess player aged 11 than I
am now.

Think like a Grandmaster is a great book that illustrates how tactical chess
analysis is -- all about iteration and composition of simple value judgements.

However, I have found books about chess strategy to be a very useful way to
practise tactical thinking. For example, following the thematic sections in
Think like a Grandmaster, or something like Bobby Fischer's analysis of his
most memorable games (which both cover strategic concepts like two bishops or
a strong centre) _requires_ tactical analysis -- you're visualising moves and
combinations in your head and making value judgements about positions just to
follow along.

So strategy is a great way for an older player to keep tactical practice
interesting!

------
billforsternz
As someone who has lost to a child on national television;

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL5GE6S7LEk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL5GE6S7LEk)

I can sympathise with the author of the article. The cruel truth is that it is
very difficult to improve as an adult. I think the analogy to learning
language is a good one - to get really good learn as a child.

As far as I know there are no instances of a player learning to play as an
adult and reaching grandmaster status. Akiba Rubinstein, an all time great who
didn't learn until 16, was (nearly) an exception. Another famous (almost)
counter-example is one of the pioneers of the Russian school of chess who
learned chess from scratch twice - the second time as an adult after suffering
total memory loss from a war injury. Unfortunately my Google Fu is failing me
and I can't summon any confirmation or recall his name.

~~~
rpgmaker
I never knew about chocolate chess. Thanks for posting it!

~~~
billforsternz
I wouldn't say chocolate chess was a thing, per se. Just a one-off promotional
idea I think.

------
xom
I learned Go several years ago at the age of 20, and tracked how much time I
spent on it. Comparing my progress with that of a certain strong amateur who
started at age 14 and estimated how many games he played throughout his
progression, I think I reached my current strength of 1-kyuu after roughly the
same amount of practice that he had when he was 1-kyuu. This anecdatum of mine
agrees with children's extra synaptic density leveling out around age 12. I
would guess that it doesn't matter whether the writer was 40, 20, or 14;
hypothetically, it might matter if the writer were 4 (or 7).

------
mjklin
My favorite quote on chess:

Why shall I not judge Alexander at table, talking and drinking to excess, or
when he is fingering the chess-men? What chord of his mind is not touched and
kept employed by this silly and puerile game? I hate it and avoid it because
it is not play enough, and because it is too serious as an amusement, being
ashamed to give it the attention which would suffice for some good thing. He
was never more busy in directing his glorious expedition to the Indies; nor is
this other man in unravelling a passage on which depends the salvation of the
human race. See how our mind swells and magnifies this ridiculous amusement;
how it strains all its nerves over it! How fully does this game enable every
one to know and form a right opinion of himself! In no other situation do I
see and test myself more thoroughly than in this. What passion is not stirred
up by this game: anger [the clock-banger!] spite [the spite check!],
impatience [the hasty move!], and a vehement ambition to win in a thing in
which an ambition to be beaten would be more excusable! For a rare pre-
eminence, above the common, in a frivolous matter, is unbefitting a man of
honour. What I say in this example may be said in all others. Every particle,
every occupation of a man betrays him and shows him up as well as any other.

\- Michel de Montaigne, Essays, Chapter 50, tr. Trechmann, p. 295

------
Pingviini
I think Chess could be learned and enjoyed by all ages. It just takes some
dedication.

Hmm, I think it might be easier for young people to get better at chess
because they are not burdened with the responsibilities of an adult. Also
Chess is prominently pattern recognition which may play a role in chess
development in older people, since the recall maybe slower.

------
viperscape
I enjoy playing chess since maybe middle school, but it wasn't until about 20
years later that I tried to program my own chess game, including logic and
rules. It was extremely difficult for me at certain points, especially
figuring out check mate. I really didn't think it was going to be so hard at
first.

------
giacomone
How do you have a 5 year old to play chess and poker?

------
atoponce
I played chess religiously as a kid. I attended chess clubs, went to private
tutoring, and completed in U.S. Chess Federation tournaments. I even have a
few trophies in my room that I'm still proud of.

Some time in high school, while studying openings and their variations, I was
curious if computers would ever beat the great Grand Masters regularly and
consistently. It seemed to me that the key to this success would be a full
comprehension of knowing which opening to start with, how to respond to your
oponent's opening, and how deeply that opening variation was memorized.

So, it wasn't surprising to me to learn that the Grand Masters are Grand
Masters because of their memorization of opening sequences, the depth of that
memorization, and when to use which variation.

Then while studying old games played by the masters, I saw a trend that
disturbed me: more and more, Grand Master games were ending in draws. I recall
reading an article recently that more than 50% of said games are draws.

This bothers me for two reasons: first, that the game is designed so poorly,
that draws can occur as frequently as they do. But, more disturbing, is
knowing that they are ending in draws because of a mastery on the opening
game.

I am no longer a chess proponent, and won't play it when asked (although that
might change if my daughter wants to learn). The only chess I will play is
Chess960, by Robert Fischer, where the back row is randomized to 1 of 960
possible starting positions. This way, the game is less sensitive to opening
sequence memorization, but on more on basic tactical strategy, such as control
of the center board, when to pull out your queen, and how knights can
compliment bishops.

Now, I'm a large advocate of Go. The game is much more strategy based and less
memorization (although there are a good amount of tsumego and joseki that
should be memorized, and you should know opening theory). But, due to the size
of the board, the games are considerably different, and it is less sensitive
to tactics. Thus, draws occur mostly based on evenly matched strategies, and
less on cognitive capacity.

Another game I am enjoying is the currently developed Tak by James Ernest
([http://tinyurl.com/takgameks](http://tinyurl.com/takgameks) (link to
Kickstarter campaign (I'm not a paid schill, I just enjoy the game))). A
simpler game than chess and go to explain, yet deep with strategy, and new
enough, that patterns and sequences are still being studied.

Don't get me wrong. Chess is entertaining. I am glad there are people that
enjoy it, teach it, and play it. It's just no longer for me. Again, unless the
game is Chess960.

~~~
komaromy
> So, it wasn't surprising to me to learn that the Grand Masters are Grand
> Masters because of their memorization of opening sequences, the depth of
> that memorization, and when to use which variation.

This is not true. Opening knowledge is a common deciding factor in games
between GMs, but that's only because they're already so good at everything
else. A low GM actually probably has a smaller skill margin over other players
in terms of openings than in other areas of the game: as someone that's
arguably a decent amateur (~2200 USCF) and has played against several GMs, I
would prefer my chances in a game where we both have our opening knowledge
versus one where neither of us has opening knowledge.

~~~
atoponce
Yes that's true. GMs are GMs, because they have full and complete mastery of
the game- opening, middle, and ending. But that mastery is disproportionate,
which is what I was trying to say (and didn't do that great of a job). You
might be able to play a mad middle and end game, but if you didn't open
strongly, your game could already be decided.

To pinpoint my gripe with chess, a single tactical error in your opening game
can be unrecoverable, and the deciding factor on losing your game. It's too
precise. Whereas with some other abstract strategy games, such as Go, you
might make a strategical error, but the game might be more forgiving, where
you can heal from your mistakes.

Of course, weak players should lose to strong players, regardless of game. I
just wish chess didn't depend so strongly on defining a strong player by who
has more opening variations memorized.

~~~
Scarblac
An error anywhere during the game can be unrecoverable, that's why it's an
error. The opening isn't special, in fact I'm sure an error in the ending is
more likely to lead to a loss.

Chess strength _doesn't_ depend strongly on memorization. GMs are often
content to take an equal position against IMs and then just outplay them in
the rest of the game.

At top top level, they do spend a huge amount of time on opening research, but
that is because they can. They can work full time, they know who their
opponents are going to be, they have engines and seconds. You can use those
resources on concrete analysis of positions that might occur, but not as
easily on expanding your generic middlegame knowledge. It doesn't apply to
normal GMs.

~~~
atoponce
> An error anywhere during the game can be unrecoverable, that's why it's an
> error. The opening isn't special, in fact I'm sure an error in the ending is
> more likely to lead to a loss.

Agreed, but a tactical error in the opening is replicated and multiplied
throughout the game. if I'm going to criticize it as an abstract strategy
game, it's too sensitive in that regard. Yes, an error is an error, that's why
they're called as such. In chess, opening errors have much more drastic
consequences, depending on the error, than say Go, where you have more
opportunity to recover from the error. An opening tactical error can spell
doom for your middle game and end game (as analyzed by chess commentators,
instructors, books, videos, etc.).

Outside of amateur casual play, you must play a stronger opening game than
your opponent, if you want any hopes of winning. Even if your mid and end
games are stronger, if you make a tactical opening error, you may never get
the opportunity to play that genius finale, because you'll never get the
opportunity to recover. Openings have to be damn-near perfect when playing
seriously. That's what bothers me.

~~~
Scarblac
It's just not true. Even at top level, many games are won from an equal or
slightly worse position after the opening, heck Carlsen is famous for it and
he's #1 by a huge margin. Saying that you must have a stronger opening than
your opponent to win is not true at any level.

~~~
atoponce
That's because the opening is 17 moves deep when the error is made. You're
entering mid game at that point. Ruy Lopez, Queen's Gambit, Sicilian, Dutch,
and King's Indian defenses, Stonewall, others, are generally preferred,
because of their strengths. But if you're not familiar with them 17 moves
deep, and several of their variations, you're screwed. There's a reason why
you have "Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings"\- it's the disproportionate
strength of chess.

~~~
Scarblac
It's really not necessary, especially with white. Before that move 17 you can
deviate at virtually any point and end up with an even game. As black it is
harder to be really equal without knowing theory against an opponent who does,
but black has a huge information advantage (you only play 1 obscure defence to
1.e4, white has to know them all).

What distorts your view is that many chess players _like_ to study theory. The
Sicilian with its famous counter attacking situations! The King's Indian with
its famous attacks on opposite flanks and a closed center! I have seen many GM
games like that and I want to play like that too.

When both players are like that, they play into really sharp and hard to
understand lines, where it really matters if you know the theory one move
deeper. There it does, because such positions are often extremely sharp, and
as you _can_ prepare them often, that is worthwhile.

But in the other games where you meet an opponent who plays something quiet
that you've never seen before on move 3, it's all useless. And such moves are
a perfectly legitimate and strong choice.

Anyway, go to any chess club, and ask around which players have memorized the
most opening theory. It'll be the 1700 guys, not the masters. Memorizing
theory doesn't actually make you stronger.

------
jonbaer
"She was lacking that larger, strategically metacognitive sense, that Bayesian
ability to use probability to change one’s beliefs." \- that says it all and
puts the age difference into real perspective, there is alot to theory, games,
AI which can't be understood until you have a child.

------
iKenshu
Where can I learn Chess online?

~~~
oli5679
Lichess.com

~~~
GeneralMayhem
It's lichess.org.

lichess.com is a parked domain with what appear to be some very malicious ads.

~~~
oli5679
Sorry!

------
pitchka
The research on young and successful isn't really showing any causation.

Maybe being young and concentrating on a single thing makes you more obsessed
about it? So you end up spending a lot of time on just it.

Maybe the older you get the less obsessed you can be, having the interest
spread around on family, work, and other thoughts?

Maybe accumulated knowledge makes you slower at learning and playing because
you're more cautious due to the mistakes you made before?

The research showing the decline is really weird. As I've got older I felt I
learned stuff much more quickly than when I started college. I know so much
that this knowledge allows me to avoid traps. Far sooner I have a feeling of
understanding and can demonstrate it to someone else.

If your whole life is oriented on learning and improvement it's weird to think
that will slow down.

People, as they age, lose interest in learning and rarely become obsessed
about something, for most it is right after highschool, for some after
college. No wonder the performance drops and IQ too. No one is using that
brain as hard as it was used before.

~~~
EliRivers
"As I've got older I felt I learned stuff much more quickly than when I
started college."

Drifting into a personal monologue, I know I am a lot better at learning now
than I was 15 years ago. Learning advanced mathematics now is much easier than
it was then (measured in the rather subjective unit of "amount learned / time
taken"). Languages also are much easier. The only difference is the amount of
time I put in now compared to the amount of time I put in then. If I was in
full-time education now (instead of a half hour to an hour a few times a week)
I would be yomping through textbooks and courses.

I think some of it is that I just know so much more now, and I've got so much
more experience of joining knowledge up and making use of the combined result.
I've also got so much more confidence in my ability to learn, and I know that
if I'm struggling, grinding through does get results. I don't get demoralised,
I don't wonder if I'm ever going to be able to understand it; I just do it.

~~~
jnbiche
At around 40, I'm now learning things like math quicker, but then I forget
them a year later, whereas the things I learned in college I still remember
now.

Is this normal, I wonder?

You might say, well, if you're forgetting them a year later then you didn't
really learn them, but I disagree. I feel more complete mastery of a subject
matter more now than I did in my teens. No, I forget things I learn much more
quickly now, and the only way to not forget them is to practice them at least
each week, and that rapidly becomes a time sink.

~~~
markism
This might be as simple as the fact that you're spacing your learning out
less. In college you learned things over a span of 15 weeks, giving you many
opportunities for spaced repetition, which is one of the most effective
methods to make material stick. Now I'm assuming you learn material in much
less time than a semester, so there's less repetition and therefore less long
term retention.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaced_repetition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaced_repetition)

~~~
jnbiche
Thanks for this suggestion -- this may well be the cause. Perhaps I'll start
trying spaced repetition learning.

------
bobjordan
Science be damned. I reject any reasoning built on limit based thinking. I'm
40 now and if I wanted to be world class chess player by 50, I would be. We
are all constrained by the limits we accept. Limits can be accepted at any
age. There are plenty of limits I have accepted by 40. The problem becomes
when we believe those limits are not optional. Any limit I accept is optional.

~~~
sweeneyrod
Unless you are already a good chess player, 10 years isn't long enough to
become world class, even for a talented youngster. Thousands of hours of
practice is necessary, but not sufficient, to become truly world class. You
could become a strong amateur, but without special talent you wouldn't be able
become a grandmaster.

