Is their a limit on someone's chess ability?

[Stephen Ormerod]

In a conversation about Magnus Carlsen with a friend - the question arose; in a game of limitless possibilities such as chess is there a limit on how good somebody could be? Just thought I'd put this one out there - might be a subject worthy of discussion...

[Paolo Casaschi]

I think mans ability is only limited by the limitations of his imagination and the effort needed to achieve a particular goal

I'd love to believe that, unfortunately in my personal experience, looking at myself and at people around me, there is a "natural ceiling" to anyone's chess strength. The actual value varies for each individual: we call "talented" the one that naturally go higher, we don't really call anything the ones that have a low ceiling because usually they don't stick around. However, chess strength tends to grow easily and quickly at the beginning when learning the game, up to reaching the natural ceiling in a couple of years or slightly more. Further growth after that is *very* hard, requires a lot of work and people can actually go backwards. I have seen this in many/most adults. I don't have much experience with juniors (never been a chess junior myself) but I suppose their growth might extend for a longer period of time following their general psychological growth.

Looking wound in the leagues I play, I did not spot any 40something constantly and significantly improving year over year, there might be some but those might be the exception rather than the rule.

My friend Norman Stephenson,ECF coach and former manager of the English youth teams firmly believes that most people can greatly improve their chess ability with hard work and dedication.

Sorry to say this, but this looks like asking the owner of the pub if their beer would make you happy

[Dan O'Dowd]

I think we need to discuss the question as two separate points.

1. How good can humanity (as individuals) become at the game, given its depth etc?

2. How good can any individual become, how many walls of understanding can he break down?

Lest this become an essay, I'll keep it brief.

We cannot really answer how good humanity can become at a certain discipline: the 4-minute mile was considered a peak, for one, and the certain barriers of 100m running also. Suffice it to say that if technology in its current form can aid the top players, then humans can probably get towards the level that computers currently play at. Once computing goes quantum, we're in deep trouble, but we could probably get to a couple of hundred elo behind the top computers and a bit more for those with the huge memory required.

As far as an individual, there are always extenuating circumstances. I had a chat with David Howell at the British, who opined to me that a good player who worked hard enough and remained objective might well make FM within their lifetime. If someone has the goal of becoming a GM (Will Taylor, for example), then that almost leads to the tail wagging the dog. Someone might easily overabsorb information, and either burnout, or not play enough. Personally, I'm graded 143 now, been performing at 163 recently, and aim to become 200 standard within the next 8-10 years. After that, I can try to inch towards 2200 FIDE and then maybe 2300. If I end up settling down, the latter goal will fall to dust.

We must distinguish that there is a limit ultimately to anyone's ability, but that relatively, there is no limit to what someone might achieve if they start right. I learned chess when I was 6, but only took up reading on it when I was 13. Those seven extra years wouldn't make the difference in my case (first published grade: 41 ), but if chess were taught as in the former USSR, but here, on a lighter level for the strong UKCC players we have churned out every year, and if the material were properly written for all abilities/thought types, probably the brightest could all become 2500. But would they want to? Probably not.

Oops, I've gone on far too long here!

[matt_ward]

I think mans ability is only limited by the limitations of his imagination and the effort needed to achieve a particular goal, that said I do believe physical or mental weakness's will create a barrier which cannot be exceeded. The key is getting people to reach that barrier. In chess we have people who work extremely hard at the game, Jonathan Hawkins is one, and he has pushed his ability upwards to new levels and its likely he will be a grandmaster through sheer determination,ability and much hard work.
If one looks at British GM's very few have breached the barrier and gone on to challenge for the top honours in the world, Michael Adams and Nigel Short are exceptions and perhaps they have a born with gift that allows them to achieve more than their contempories. Perhaps they simply wanted it more.

My friend Norman Stephenson,ECF coach and former manager of the English youth teams firmly believes that most people can greatly improve their chess ability with hard work and dedication.

Even with determination and hard work I still believe it has to be in your blood to become extremely good. Their has to be ability within that individual.

[James Byrne]

...

[Paul Cooksey]

Would certainly be a very interesting scientific study.

Possibly Laszlo Polgar beat us to it.

[Simon Dixon]

Based on IQ it follows that there must be a limit to chess ability. I have met the numpty who tries to tell you where you went wrong. The total idiot giving an opinion on a rule when he has never read the rules and probably never heard of FIDE to boot. Some of the players I have seen can't even dress themselves properly. Some idiots think that chess is a platform for gay rights. Some bigger idiots think children can be affected by people who wear gay rights t shirts.

With the amount of idiots I meet playing chess, the only limitation I can see is how the hell did they get to the venue. I think the one thing we all have in common is, we think we can play chess better than anyone else.

So I am going to pose another question. What deludes people into thinking they can play chess to the point where it is an obsession. Playing year in, year out and never improving.

[Alex McFarlane]

What deludes people into thinking they can play chess to the point where it is an obsession.

Possibly the same thing that makes some others think that their postings are smart/interesting/humorous.

[Simon Dixon]

What deludes people into thinking they can play chess to the point where it is an obsession.

Possibly the same thing that makes some others think that their postings are smart/interesting/humorous.

You are definitely in the group I am talking about.

[Paolo Casaschi]

In school we're taught that hard work + practice will get us good exam results, and that's true to a large extent.

True, but compare the percentage of pupils getting full scores on exams and the percentage of players getting a FIDE title...

[Paolo Casaschi]

So I am going to pose another question. What deludes people into thinking they can play chess to the point where it is an obsession. Playing year in, year out and never improving.

Wrong question.
Unless you are trying for a GM title and make a professional living out of chess, who said you need to constantly improve to make it worth playing? I play because I just like playing chess, even without hope of getting much better than I am now

[Stewart Reuben]

Stephen Ormerond's initial query has been hijacked. It was: in a game of limitless possibilities such as chess is there a limit on how good somebody could be?

Comparing success in exams with chess for this question is unsatisfactory. The highest mark you can get in an exam is 100%. There is no such ceiling on chess rating.

But chess is not a game of limitless possibilities. It is true that there are more possible games than electrons (or is it atoms?) in the universe. But even so that is not limitless.
It has been suggested that computers can reach 3300. Therefore so can humans. Some very, very clever humans have played chess, but none, I think, of the absolute genius type ( set a very high standard). Currently you cannot have a rating much over 3650 if you play only against humans. That is because a score of 100% is calculated as 800 above that of the average of your opponents. 3650 is artificial. No rating system works well for players at the top. That is why Kasparov's rating was statistically invalid. 800 is just a conventional number. It could as well be 1600.
2700 used to be a super-GM strength. Now there are about 50 such players. Personally I have no doubt the ratings of leading players will go up and up. That has nothing to do with inflation. It is a perfectly natural process provided the top players are sufficiently motivated. I feared that the motivation would diminish for professional chess with the advent of computers playing at the highest level. So far I am delighted that I have been proven wrong.

Has an 'ordinary' player a natural limit, beyond which no amount of coaching, training, reading, experience will take him? Probably yes. But that is not what Stephen asked. I have met a fair number of people who I recognise are intellectually superior to me. That suggests there is a ceiling on my chessplaying strength.

Paolo >True, but compare the percentage of pupils getting full scores on exams and the percentage of players getting a FIDE title...<
Are you in possession of such information?

Stewart Reuben

[Simon Dixon]

Wrong question.
Unless you are trying for a GM title and make a professional living out of chess, who said you need to constantly improve to make it worth playing?

Logic dictates that you must improve if you constantly work at something, but that does not happen for most chess players.

Stephen Ormerond's initial query has been hijacked. It was: in a game of limitless possibilities such as chess is there a limit on how good somebody could be?

Not really, just putting a different slant on the same question. There is a limit and I think if you can explain why players stick around the same rating for years, give or take a few points, you might be onto something.

[Stewart Reuben]

Simon chooses to answer a different question to the one Stephen asked. He tries to turn attention to a specific person of perceived limited abilities.

Trying to pursue Stephen's question. Why has there been such a substantial increase in the playing strength at the top this century?
ANSWER 1. There hasn't been, there has just been inflation in ratings. I disagree, but it is a legitimate, albeit ill-informed view.
ANSWER 2. There are social and intellectual reasons:
a. The diaspora of Russian-speaking players following the break-up of the Soviet Union
b. Greater ease of travel means competitive play is more available
c. More technical information in the form of books, particularly spear-headed by the British cottage industry
d. More technical information from chess databases
e. More chess coaching improved partly by a
f. Players becoming strong at a younger and younger age. Partly caused by earlier onset of puberty, partly by coaching and partly by playing opportunities
g. Chess on DVD
h. Ability to play online against one's peers
i. Use of computers to improve one's understanding

All this suggests it would be rather strange if playing strength and ratings had not gone up. Of course mine has gone down, as has Korchnoi's, as is true in all sports once a certain age is reached.
Can this process of improvement continue or will it need some other impetus? If none happens, does this mean stagnation, which could mean the end of professional chess?
Can we predict what else might happen to improve chessplaying strength?
Implant of electronic intelligence (computers) into the brain. That may need to be legalised if it becomes the norm in society.
Better physical preparation. I doubt there is much to be achieved there.
Use of mind-altering drugs. Some may come along without appreciable disadvantages. Why not then use them?
A way of implanting skills into the brain using the existing brain.
Several people's brains working in unison. A hive mentality. Currently illegal during play.
I expect others can dream up science-fiction ideas.

Going to Simon's quite separate subject. People do tend to plateau and that is partly to do with a loss of hunger to improve. We can see that in Spassky, Fischer and Kasparov. Maia Chiburdanidze became Women's World Chess Champion and stopped improving. It was only when Pia Cramling came along that she again made the effort. At a lower level people realise that to improve at chess would take too much of an effort to make it worthwhile.
In the USCF I suspect they deliberately introduced inflation into their rating system. If people's ratings go up year on year, they will think they are improving and thus are more likely to stay in chess.

Stewart Reuben

[Paolo Casaschi]

Paolo >True, but compare the percentage of pupils getting full scores on exams and the percentage of players getting a FIDE title...<
Are you in possession of such information?

I don't have statistics, just my (rather old now) personal experience and some notes from the newspapers.
For instance, a friend whose daughter is applying to medical school was concerned she might not get a spot despite her full scores marks because there are more students awarded with full score marks than medical school places.
The percentage of players with a FIDE title (FM, IM GM) for let's say the ECF members should be easy to gather if you know where to look, but do you think you get anywhere close to 5% ? My chess ego would be definitely depressed if you do.

PS: reading the original question, I'm not sure I interpreted it right, was the question "is there a limit to the chess strength any given person (you, me, my neighbour) can achieve" (that I answered) or "is there a limit to the chess strength that some person might possibly reach some day when the human chess knowledge grows"?