I’m a long-time chess player (starting in the Fischer boom). I was rated over 2000 for about 25 years, peaking in the 2100’s when I was about 35. Now that I’m 55, I’m having problems getting my expert rating back. I feel like I know more about the game than I used to, I have better tools (no software in the 70’s and 80’s!) and I’m playing more often. My “good” games are better than they used to be but I’m also making more mistakes in critical positions.
Is anyone else going through this slow rating decline after 50? Does anyone have any ideas on improving focus and getting back to their peak ratings after 50?
I peaked at about the same age at just a little over 2100 and am now down to 1980. My true playing strength is probably much less than that.
You can probably get a portion of your strength back but will have to work harder than you did to get there in the first place. Burnout is quite likely going to be a problem. In my case start here and back up a paragraph. OTOH, being able to play online (and have all games recorded for you) can be a big help as well as having a chess program on your PC to help analyze your games. If you can help out some way in scholastic chess, you can get a lot more enjoyment out of the game.
Good luck getting back to the board.
What kind of physical shape are you in? As you get older the stamina you have for a game diminishes. Try to strengthen your cardiovascular fitness by walking or jogging. Work with light weights. Watch your diet. Then you will be able to wear out the kids with your superior experience.
Chess is more dynamic today than 20 or 30 years ago. Start a regimen of doing tactical puzzles several times a week to exercise your mind. Revamp your openings; new computer driven developments have made many lines that were popular 20 years ago seem quaint. Pick up copies of John Watson’s “Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy” and “Chess Strategy in Action” to see how chess has changed over the last couple of decades. Look at some of the games of the present generation of top players to see what is popular and how risk driven they are even in “positional” openings. There is no reason why you cannot regain your old form. But you have to be willing to work and take some lumps.
Since our age & rating history is similar, I’ll risk a personal observation. The average 1900 of 25 years ago (the small predators you preyed upon back then) generally knew more about chess than today’s average 1900. But the average A player today doesn’t make as many gross tactical blunders: computer training has strengthened everyone’s tactical play.
So your competition may be somewhat shallower, but stronger! (The Soviets thought Fischer was shallow, not without reason. And I routinely lose casual games to my blankety-blank telephone.)
I’ve struggled with many of the same issues. At times I didn’t play because I didn’t think I was sufficiently booked up to play at my former strength. But I finally came to the realization that I like playing tournament chess, and that I want to play more often. I don’t play sharp mainline tactical openings like I used to (except as Black against 1. e4), but I found that I can still win games anyway. Personally, I think that trying to get back to a peak rating is a mistaken goal. One should play chess for fun, and what happens, happens. I admire GM Arthur Bisguier for continuing to play chess, he has allowed his rating to drop from 2500 to 2200.
On the other hand, some suggest that there has been a serious rating deflation over the last 30 years or so, connected with the scholastic boom. The notion is that scholastic players suck rating points out of the rating pool and then quit chess sometime after high school, leaving the rating pool with fewer over all points. Personally, I don’t know how true such assertions are. I’m reminded of Professor Elo’s statement:
“Few chessplayers are totally objective … about their personal capacities and ratings. Most of them believe they are playing ‘in form’ only when far above normal form, and they tend to forget that an outstanding tournament success is just as likely the result of off form performance by opponents as superior play by themselves. There is truth in the paradox that ‘every chessplayer believes himself better than his equal’.”
My peak rating was 2149 (just 51 points away from master), but now my rating is in the low nineteen hundreds. I have no idea whether I play better or worse than I used to, I just know this, I’m going to continue to play chess. (And yes, I’m in my 50s.)
Steven Craig Miller (chess coach at Lincoln-Way West High School, New Lenox, IL)
Thank you for your replies.
In response to one comment, I’m actually in pretty good physical shape…I go to the gym regularly, and otherwise lead a fairly healthy and active lifestyle. I agree that it’s important to stay in good physical shape to keep your brain sharp also.
I work hard at home prep for tournaments using software and some books but I know that my tactical skills need to improve. Interesting observations around today’s 1900’s – I find that I can almost always outplay them positionally but sometimes I’ll just “lose the thread” of the game somewhere down the road. It’s usually just a question of staying focused through the entire game and not taking any moves for granted. Time management is also important.
I’ve revamped some of my openings but it’s always fun taking out something from the 80’s against a kid to see how they react.
And yes, I enjoy playing more than I used to…but I always enjoy winning more than losing!
Anyway, I’m playing in the Senior section up in Stamford, CT this weekend. We’ll see how it goes against other seniors!
I’ve been working on a comeback for several years now. It has required a substantial committment of time, effort and money but the results so far have been positive. Incidentally, for those who are concerned about attempting a comeback in their early 50s: I was already 57 when I started and am now 60, so you should have plenty of reason to be optimistic.
Some background: I’m a Life Master with a 2200 rating floor. I peaked in the early 1990s at just over 2300. Then, in the mid 90s I began taking on more and more in the way of non-playing chess obligations (teaching, USCF committee work etc.). My activity and results declined over the years to a dismaying extent.
One of the things ChessBase is good for is providing statistics which can provide an absolutely objective measure of one’s progress. Here are some facts.
First, for comparison, statistics from my peak year, 1991. In that year I played 78 rated games, with a performance rating of 2253.
Next, let’s look at the 2 year period 2006-07 (just before I started my comeback). For that 2-year period, I played 56 rated games, with a performance rating of just 1965. Out of date openings, horrible tactical oversights vs. lower players. It was humiliating and I made up my mind to change it. I gave up all teaching and most other chess volunteer activity. I began working on my openings again and dramatically increased the number of tournaments I played in. Here are the results so far:
For the two year period 2008-09, I played 120 rated games, with a performance rating of 2109. So far in 2010, I have played 38 games with a performance rating of 2116. So, significant improvement but not all the way back. I think more improvement is possible but whether that’s true or not remains to be seen. One thing is certain - I’m not going to give up trying.
– Hal Terrie
Erik Karklins’s ratings history for 1991-2010 (age 76 to age 95). There’s a spike at the very end of the graph (July 2010 forward) that you may or may be able to see, depending on how your browser renders the image…
He peaked at 2270-ish in the mid-1980 (circa age 70)
Do away with rating floors. Then we’ll see how many try comebacks. 
I’m 67.
I took almost a thirty year hiatus from chess, playing my last open tournament in 1976 and my last club event in 1978. At the tail end, 1977-8, I seemed to lose motivation and my rating dropped out of Expert into A.
When I started playing again in 2005, they eventually found my old rating of 1969 and it’s now up a bit from that but not to where it used to be. I play a lot of blitz on PlayChess and don’t have much trouble keeping my rating there above 2000, although I have to be really “on” to get it above 2100. Not sure how this maps to OTB play.
Some observations:
Based on the number of players who peaked in the early 1990s, I suspect some major rating inflation in that time period.
Most of the “A” players today seem more booked and understand the openings and middle-game strategies better than comparably rated players did in the 1970s (this seems contrary to Bill’s observations). I think they’re tactically sharper as well.
I’ve analyzed both my old and new games with Rybka, and I’d say I’m generally playing better chess now. Unfortunately, so are my opponents.
I much prefer the trend to faster time controls, which essentially means shorter days. In the bad old days, with 2/40 then 1/20 TCs and six-game weekend Swiss tournaments, you could easily suffer consecutive 12-14 hour days. I couldn’t handle that well back in the day, and it would probably be impossible now.
Exhaustion-driven blunders are the bane of the older player, and I’ve adopted some strategies to address that:
[list]I don’t work as hard during a game, relying more on general principles than calculation. Sometimes this helps, sometimes it hurts, but it hasn’t hurt as much as I would have expected.
I play faster and generally avoid time pressure situations, at least more than I used to.
I avoid tournaments involving extensive day-of-game travel. I also avoid late night travel the day before the event. Being retired helps with this. 
I pay extra to stay as close as possible to the event venue, which means I can usually get in a short nap or rest between games.
[/list:u]
I think the important thing when you’re getting older is to concentrate on having fun playing in tournaments.
Come to think of it, that’s a good idea at any age.
Bill Smythe
I am sure that Mr. Flying Rooks realizes that advice to get involved in youth chess and have fun at tournaments is probably a polite way of suggesting that it is fruitless to attempt to regain one’s rating peak when someone is in their 50s or 60s.
I agree. I’d suggest taking up bocce or petanque in the fair weather months and backgammon or poker in the winter.
Why devote a couple hours commuting to weekend tournaments for the opportunity to spend Saturday night at a bedbug-riddled hotel in order to play four, eight or twelve hours of chess against children without manners?
I am 60, I also “grew up” during the Fischer boom and I almost made it expert level. However, when I retired last May, I faced a major decision whether I would spend my time with chess pieces or with people.
I gave up tournament chess in favor of more sociable pursuits and have never been happier. And, as soon as my USCF membership expires, I will stop reading this forum.
“Old age should burn and rage at close of day” (and hey, I’m only 52).
Surpassing one’s earlier peak rating IS most doable (though extremely difficult) IF one did not make a serious, concerted effort to reach one’s peak potential in the first go-round. And indeed, most of us didn’t because of family and career choices.
There’s no harm in setting a lofty goal over age 50 and failing to achieve it as long as one is having fun in the process. And even if one doesn’t improve at all, there is much joy to be had in the beauty of the game and in sharing that beauty with others.
Lots of interesting feedback in this forum!
In response to some of these:
Yes, I agree that you have to have fun playing in tournaments. Otherwise, what’s the point? But I’m a perfectionist by nature and I get annoyed when I don’t play at my full potential. But then I’m still ready to try it again a few weeks later. In fact. I’m playing more the last few years than any period since college years. There’s something enjoyable about forgetting everything else in your life for a few hours and focusing all of your attention on the next few moves.
I agree that today’s ‘A’ players seem more booked and tactically sharper, probably due to software and playing countless games on ICC. I haven’t run my old games through Rybka yet but I’d probably agree that I’m playing better now. I usually don’t get the results I’d like due to 1 or 2 mistakes, usually in critical positions – an overlooked tactical shot or a better defense.
I’m too slow and careful to play in faster time controls. 40/2 is fine with me (though I have had several 5 1/2 hour games recently). Sometimes the longer games fire me up for the next round.
To jakethecat…sorry you feel that way about tournaments. I’ve given up for several years at a time, only to come back and play again. I’ve met some very nice “experienced” players at some of the events. Also, there’s nothing more enjoyable than winning against some bratty 12 year old ‘A’ player (far too many of those at tournaments lately!). But yes, I still do other activities – especially when the weather is nice when I’d much rather be on the golf course.
Not so good results this past weekend due to a variety of factors. 6 weeks to regroup before I try it again!
When asking how to get back to your former strength or how to improve when over 50, usually the wrong question (HOW?) is asked. The question to yourself should first be WHY? And this question of WHY must be totally and honestly answered. If you have reason and goal, you then have the motivation and passion to continue. The How part is easier to answer.
I think back to when I started in 1972 while in high school. What was my reason? I played a neighbor who was an older man and he would always crush me and then make fun of me afterwards…That was my motivation.
I then played for several hours after school each day and we had a league.
I also joined a recreation center and played with adults as well as being
1st board on their team. This developed the passion…Fischer also helped!
Of course I came back to crush the neighbor and was happy to do so.
It seems that chess was the only thing on my mind. Life was easy!
At my first tournament I thought I was invincible, but learned a hard lesson
that this was not the case. I believe many kids today think they are also invincible and can get better and better. Losses can be easily shrugged off. This is what keeps them from being disheartened. They haven’t learned enough from life yet.
What have we learned and what can we learn after 50?
If you can devote lots and lots of time, energy and with purpose, then go for it.
Otherwise just have fun along with everything else that life has to offer.
This is so funny. you sound like a clone of me (or i of you). I’m 55, started playing chess in 1967, peaked at 2100. I gave up in about 1994. I found i couldn’t play the way I had formerly, and this at 38 years old!. Time pressure, something i never suffered, came regularly. Made more mistakes than i ever did. My strength varied wildly. One game I beat an IM, then followed it up with a loss to a young kid who wasn’t even that good.
Hey, sorry to be downbeat. Don’t give up like me. I kind of regret it. I miss the tourney scene. I do have one suggestion. i feel like playing against the computer weakened my strength. It allows move takebacks, and made me a more superficial player, not looking as deeply as i did. Use the computer wisely! Also, i have a feeling you just have to get over a “tipping point”, a point where you’re stuck, and a point that you will get over, then improve rapidly in a short period. Best of luck. Hey, someday i may make a comeback and face ya!
This is wonderful advice. Simply using ChessBase (or whatever equivalent) to enter moves & variations without turning on the darn engine for awhile is excellent policy.
The question of how to maintain your rating as you age is akin to the search for the fountain of youth.
My situation is a bit unusual. I’m 56 and three weeks ago I achieved my highest-ever rating, 2002. I’d been a class C player for most of my life, took a break from chess for the better part of 25 years, and took up the game again in my mid-40s. My rating jumped quickly from the high 1600s to about 1880-1900, where it stayed for about 8 years. Then, for some strange reason, I picked up 100 points.
What worked for me might not work for everyone, but here goes.
My chess renaissance began with the study of tactics, which continues to this day. At the sub 2200-2300 level there really isn’t much else. I also study games, but I focus on relatively short (20-40 moves), decisive games. Let the GMs drool over those “gorgeous,” 80-move draws. I’m incapable of appreciating most of them and so are most players rated below 2200 or so.
At my level the whole-game approach popularized by the Soviet school and adopted by every Tom, Dick, and Harry who’s written a chess book over the last couple of decades is a waste of time. I avoid those books unless the games are instructive from beginning to end, and they’re properly – and lightly – annotated. In my experience the most instructive chess books are collections of positions followed by analysis.
I’m baffled at how anyone could read a chess book in which every move is followed numerous long variations, each with additional sub-variations of between five and ten moves. Analysis to that depth is well beyond my personal “horizon,” so the likelihood that I’ll learn anything from it is close to zero.
Knowledge of endings is important, but basic king + pawn, a few rook endings, and perhaps a dozen endgame principles are all that 99% of players need to know. Out of the 650 rated games I’ve played I’ve encountered exactly two Lucena positions (I won one from the winning side, and lost one from the losing side). If you want to read the latest tome on rook endings go knock yourself out, but you’re never going to see very many non-trivial endings unless you’re a 98th percentile player.
I play all open games and, as black, open or semi-open games as white dictates. I also have about half a dozen gambits in my repertoire, from both the black and white side. I abhor formula openings and will never play them for any reason. Avoiding them despite the temptation to “get to a playable middlegame” has kept me sharp.
A few other things that have helped:
- Computers, particularly for analyzing and storing my games, and playing over lots of other folks’ games
- playing “predict a move” (anyone remember the “Predict-a-Move Federation”??) when going over GM games
- adopting algebraic notation. An absolute must if you want to visualize the board.
- testing new openings risk-free, online, in blitz games
- playing SLOW chess, as in G/90 or slower. If you’re over 40, you simply do not have time to play your best at faster time controls. And if you’re still young and developing, you’ll never appreciate the possibilities of positions unless you can spend 20-30 minutes from time to time. In my opinion anything between G/10 and G/60 is garbage. Not fast enough to be fun, not slow enough for serious thinking.
As I said these strategies worked for me.
Angelo DePalma
Although I’m not in my 50’s (I’ll be 46 in a couple of weeks), I identify a lot to what I’ve read in this thread. I stopped playing tournament chess about 3 years ago, noticing my FIDE rating dropping below 2000. Chess had been a very important part of my life for over 20 years.
In my case, the loss of interest came with the feeling I had accomplished everything I had ever wanted to do with regards to chess (getting my rating to 2000, getting the IA title and having had the chance to work in many different countries, having been ED in different chess federations, meeting and becoming friends with different GMs all around the World, etc…). I had no more realistic goals to pursue without spending so much time, almost nothing else in my life would have had a place of enough importance.
Recently I went back to some chess clubs in my area. People were nice, but I didn’t enjoy it as I used to do. Still after all this time, playing chess in a church basement is just too depressing.
Over the last 3 years, I attended a few non-rated tournaments. Mostly to show support for old friends from chess. I know I will never get back to my “old form” as I am just not ready to put in the time and effort to do so. But I will continue to love chess forever.
What is likely to happen for me in a near future is what has been happening in the last few years. Going to non-official chess events accompanied by my much better half, spending time with friends and visiting all those wonderful places I’ve yet to visit !!
I guess what I’m trying to say is I now believe chess tounaments are only one form of living my passion for chess. That’s what I’ve discovered over time.
More good comments from the over-50 generation.
To Karchad…funny how similar our timing was. I gave up several times in the 90’s. In fact, I only played in 10 rated events in the entire decade(!), taking off the last 4+ years. But some of those were my best results ever. As a contrast, I’ve played in 25 events over the last 3 years. It was tough coming back in 2001 and I was practically shaking when I sat down against a 12 year old girl rated 1900 for my first rated game in years (I drew). You should consider playing again!
To Angelo DePalma (I’ve played you!) - Congratulations on getting over 2000 for the first time at 56. I have a lot of respect for that accomplishment. I’ve been pretty much doing your list of ideas for years. Tactics, tactics, tactics is definitely key. Maybe we’ll meet again over the board.
Here’s a question…do you find that you’re improving (both quality and rating) by playing against a lot of higher rated players (experts and masters) or are you improving by beating ‘A’ players? I used to play almost exclusively against experts and masters and held my own, while beating ‘A’ players about 80% of the time. Now that I’m losing against experts and about even against ‘A’ players, I’ve been playing in some U-2000 sections instead of U-2200. I should play up but, then again, I should be winning against ‘A’ players also!