Body: <p>Define: <strong>&quot;Late onset chess player&quot;</strong></p>
  <blockquote>
  <p>&quot;A person with mental health condition that results in them
  being very commited to improving chess skills when aged over 21 who did not make any effort to become good at chess
  at a younger age.</p>
  </blockquote>
  <p>Define: Mental health condition</p>
  <blockquote>
  <p>Any behaviour a normal person does not consider to be normal.  Eg an obsession interest in understanding details.</p>
  </blockquote>
  <p>Define: <strong>Improvement</strong></p>
  <blockquote>
  <p>Progress from losing most club games to be playing in national opens getting above medium scores.</p>
  </blockquote>
  <p><em>I am looking for <strong>evidence</strong> of such improvement, not a list of resources to be used by someone who wishes to improve.</em></p>
  <p>Define: <strong>Scientific evidence</strong></p>
  <blockquote>
  <p>Independently verifiable, eg using a data source that someone else can access.
  Sample size large enough that it is clearly not a one off exception but shows something that is likely to be repeated a significant number of times.</p>
  </blockquote>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-09-22T02:39:41.537Z
Comments.Text: Define "evidence": would a poll suffice? Factor analysis? Define "scientific": how many impact points does the journal publishing the paper have to have? "Nature" only? "The Applied Irrelevance Review"? Something in between?
Comments.UserDisplayName: bakunin
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-09-22T07:45:32.357Z
Comments.Text: @bakunin I expanded the question, but basically something good enough to allow all the questions like "Can I improve?" to be closed as duplicates.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Ian Ringrose
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-09-22T08:23:27.383Z
Comments.Text: Google Scholar might be worth at try with the right keywords. E.g., remotely related: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2006-23020-013 and https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S104160800700129X
Comments.UserDisplayName: Hauke Reddmann
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-09-22T10:24:58.053Z
Comments.Text: That's a pretty high standard for "scientific evidence". Most research studies don't actually publish their data (probably the reason why so many of them are poor-quality). From personal experience I can tell you about 2 gusy who started at ages 18 and 22. The former is a FIDE Master and the latter a 2200 Elo player. I know some guys from my club who started playing after their kids and are in the 1600-1800 range.
Comments.UserDisplayName: David
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-09-22T12:10:27.310Z
Comments.Text: @David, many national rating systems have historically data "published", including the the of the person when they played their 1st rated game.    Also results of local chess league etc.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Ian Ringrose
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-09-22T12:13:45.383Z
Comments.Text: I plan on attempting an answer to this excellent question but need to provide one comment:   Of course, any verifiable data (even small sample sizes) is scientific; we just have to be careful with interpretation. A single point proves it is possible but may fall short of providing a repeatable method.
Comments.UserDisplayName: SecretAgentMan
Tags: <analysis><training>
Title: Scientific evidence of possible improvement rates of "late onset chess players"
ThreadText: # Scientific evidence of possible improvement rates of "late onset chess players"
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2024-09-21)
  
  Define: **"Late onset chess player"**
  
  > "A person with mental health condition that results in them
  > being very commited to improving chess skills when aged over 21 who did not make any effort to become good at chess
  > at a younger age.
  
  Define: Mental health condition
  
  > Any behaviour a normal person does not consider to be normal. Eg an obsession interest in understanding details.
  
  Define: **Improvement**
  
  > Progress from losing most club games to be playing in national opens getting above medium scores.
  
  *I am looking for **evidence** of such improvement, not a list of resources to be used by someone who wishes to improve.*
  
  Define: **Scientific evidence**
  
  > Independently verifiable, eg using a data source that someone else can access.
  > Sample size large enough that it is clearly not a one off exception but shows something that is likely to be repeated a significant number of times.
  
  **Tags:** analysis, training
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: Define "evidence": would a poll suffice? Factor analysis? Define "scientific": how many impact points does the journal publishing the paper have to have? "Nature" only? "The Applied Irrelevance Review"? Something in between?  
  > **username_0**: @username_1 I expanded the question, but basically something good enough to allow all the questions like "Can I improve?" to be closed as duplicates.  
  > **username_2**: Google Scholar might be worth at try with the right keywords. E.g., remotely related: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2006-23020-013 and https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S104160800700129X  
  > **username_3**: That's a pretty high standard for "scientific evidence". Most research studies don't actually publish their data (probably the reason why so many of them are poor-quality). From personal experience I can tell you about 2 gusy who started at ages 18 and 22. The former is a FIDE Master and the latter a 2200 Elo player. I know some guys from my club who started playing after their kids and are in the 1600-1800 range.  
  > **username_0**: @username_3, many national rating systems have historically data "published", including the the of the person when they played their 1st rated game.    Also results of local chess league etc.  
  > **username_4**: I plan on attempting an answer to this excellent question but need to provide one comment:   Of course, any verifiable data (even small sample sizes) is scientific; we just have to be careful with interpretation. A single point proves it is possible but may fall short of providing a repeatable method.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 0 answers
  
  