Domdaniel: <Avari Viraf> Greetings: I'm afraid I only just noticed that your forum was open. I've liked and appreciated your kibitzes and game comments for some time now.I see, too, that you've had some feedback on the appropriate age for learning chess, and the possibility of improvement. If I was younger, I'd be heartened by your experience and comments. But I'm almost 52: at that age any increase in experience or positional understanding seems to be offset by a tendency to blunder, weaker powers of calculation, etc. Still, though, I think what you've said is important. Age helps, but is by no means the only factor.
At an absurdly young age, still in my 20s, I thought I was 'past it'. I'd learned to play chess relatively late, at 17 or so -- and then when I began to play competitively I shot up through the ratings quite quickly. Something like 1650 - 1870 - 1980 - 2000, in my first couple of years as a rated player.
This was in Ireland, which had no GMs or IMs at the time, in the 1970s & 80s. There was a small group of players (B.Kernan, the Delaney brothers, Philip Short, Paul Wallace) who would have reached at least IM strength in countries with a larger population or stronger chess tradition.
All had been playing for longer than I had, at least since their early teens. I had occasional wins against them, but most of the time they were able to beat me.
At the same time, my rating stopped climbing. The growth spurt hit a plateau at around 2000. I maintained this level for most of the 1980s, but couldn't consistently get higher.
Foolishly, I deduced that this was a fact of life. I thought my late start meant I had no hope of keeping up with my rivals, who all reached the 2250-2450 range. Around the year 1990, I gave up chess, and didn't play competitively again until 2006.
This was silly of me. Even if ratings were the main issue (they aren't) then, with some work, I could easily have reached 2200-2300. Several of my peers, also 'late' starters, did so.
More to the point, I deprived myself of 17 years of chess. When I made my comeback four years ago, I was assigned a rating of 1900. It went up a little, then fell to an unprecedented 1700, then rose again ... and I finally understood that it didn't matter.
In some ways, I know I'm a better player than before. And worse in other ways: slower to react, tactically careless, etc. But I think I now have a more mature understanding of chess and its deepest values. It's not really about winning a few games to acquire a better rating. It's about striving to paint your own *Mona Lisa*, as Gufeld said.
Thanks for the inspiration. May your brush never waver.
Kibitzing
