> > I remember reading (I think it was by Larry Evans) that, on the
> > average, it takes five years to make Master, five more to make GM.
If Larry Evans wrote it, it no longer applies.
Today, young players have access to such
things as *strong* computers and massive
databases and even training videos, each of
which can speed up the process of learning
about the game. None of these things were
available back when Larry Evans played;
back then, you had to learn from studying
books, and in truth, many chess books
were hack-jobs, written for rank beginners;
the hacks who churned out these potboilers
dominated the English language chess
book market (today, we have a whole new
set of such hacks).
Back in the day, if you wanted to know
why Black could not safely hang on to the
Queen's Gambit pawn, you wrote a letter
to Chess Life. Today, you turn on your
computer, load Fritz and in a few seconds,
it easily refutes every conceivable attempt
(except the one your next opponent will
come up with, which you somehow
overlooked).
On top of all that, there is a small matter
of ratings inflation and deflation over time,
which complicates matters. I know of
several players who used to be over 2200,
but who now are Experts-- not because
they play worse than before, but because
the overall pool has receded after bonus
and feedback was discontinued. Go back
far enough and you will find the exact
reverse: players who suddenly gained
from the introduction of bonus and
feedback points or a sudden surge of
scholastic players.
One more item is what did LE mean
when he wrote "Master"-- USCF master
or FIDE master? At times, there has
been a significant difference. Someone
with access to the USCF's ratings data
could perhaps give us some averages:
how long before a random master gets
over 2200?; how long before a random
grandmaster attains that title, on
average?
-- help bot
|
