Answers.Body: <p>It may be possible for an older man to "maintain" a certain level of play, but people's ability to <em>improve</em> and learn new things peak in their early 30s.</p>
  
  <p>Chess is a dynamic and changing game. Someone who had trouble keeping up with the latest developments would fall behind, even with the same level of raw ability. That describes most people after, as opposed to before, age 30.</p>
  
  <p>This phenomenon has become more pronounced with the current generation because chess is changing faster than it used to. Ditto for Go.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-07-10T02:57:53.573Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2016-07-10T02:57:53.573Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Tom Au
Answers.Body: <p>All the reasons you (and others) mentioned are very valid, however they don't explain the trend that top players become increasingly younger.</p>
  
  <p>I do believe that this has a lot to do with how chess is learned. In the past this was much harder: You had to find a coach, analyze openings by hand and gradually gain experience through many games. All of this took time.</p>
  
  <p>Nowadays, in the time of databases and chess engines, all the information is only a click away and accessible to everyone. Experience gained from playing chess is not all that important anymore. </p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-03-01T00:51:19.603Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2017-03-01T00:51:19.603Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: user1583209
Answers.Body: <p>In addition to the plausible answers already given, I'd venture another psychological aspect that resonates well with Leo Skhrnkv's point about family life and other 'distractions':</p>
  
  <p>Lack of single-mindedness. Generally, when people get older, they also get (to the extent applicable to them) wiser. Outside of competitive sport this is a good thing, but in fields like chess it means that not winning a game is not quite the same disaster for one's self esteem that it used to be, other fields of interest start to seem more important, etc. Younger people feel a stronger need to prove themselves and tend to feel that they can afford to put everything but their chosen field into second place.</p>
  
  <p>Compare to this that Magnus Carlsen famously said in an interview that the only reason in his opinion that John Nunn never became world champion is that Nunn is 'too smart', i.e. too good at and too interested in too many other fields.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-03-01T12:23:12.487Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-03-22T17:20:29.270Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2020-03-22T17:20:29.270Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Oliver Scholz
Answers.Body: <p>Note that all the exciting, major World Chess Championships occurred about 20-30 years ago (Kasparov, Karpov, Anand, Kramnik).<br>
  Hence, young people (people who are now in their 30s) got interested in chess.<br>
  This occurred especially in Europe and somewhat in US's major cities like NYC.<br>
  So, more than mental capacity, it is the history and motivation 20-30 years ago that accounts for large volume of GMs in 30s.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-07-08T17:51:24.613Z
Answers.Text: I wasn't even born then, but I still find Fischer vs Spassky the most exciting World Championship match ever.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Glorfindel
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-07-08T17:59:19.100Z
Answers.Text: Why downvote; answers seems reasonable?
Answers.UserDisplayName: HighEnergy
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-03-03T09:04:19.337Z
Answers.Text: The math is off, the people who would follow the matches then and start playing wouldn't have been 0 years old. Carlsen was only born in 1990, and many top players are younger than he is. Besides, Fischer's effect was much much larger than Anand's or Kramnik's, if your answer would be the explanation then the list would be dominated by GMs who started playing in the early 70s. But we actually see that that generation has declined, and your answer doesn't explain why.
Answers.UserDisplayName: RemcoGerlich
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-07-08T16:32:04.183Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2016-07-08T16:32:04.183Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: HighEnergy
Answers.Body: <p>For chess at tournament level, good physical condition is an absolute must. And it is well known that physical condition decreases after an age of about 30 years. Chess players can remain top-level somewhat longer than professional football players (maybe because of a lesser frequency of physical injuries, and because stamina lasts longer than sprinter qualities), but nevertheless they are affected by age. The effect was clearly visible in the World Championship match between Carlsen and Anand: Carlsen played out his superior physical condition against Anand (e.g., by playing out drawn looking endgames and making games longer).</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-03-01T10:20:46.913Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-03-22T17:20:15.087Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2020-03-22T17:20:15.087Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Sir Cornflakes
Answers.Body: <p>Chess is dominated by young players because other than your brain no part of the body is really involved. True, you need to have a healthy and fit body to concentrate on the game hard, but technically your brain is the only part that is involved.</p>
  
  <p>During your childhood, your memory and intelligence are sharper compared to your youth years. Your learning capability is much more, and your intake for remembering patterns is higher. One more plus as a child is that your focus is not deterred by other factors. Your parents make sure you get more learning, and other responsibilities are taken care by them. You even get more time to learn but when you are in your 20s, then there are various factors which does not allow you to concentrate entirely on chess which makes you sometimes learn more slowly.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-03-03T07:35:43.783Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-03-22T17:22:55.143Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2020-03-22T17:22:55.143Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Seth Projnabrata
Answers.Body: <p>To all the factors already listed, I would also add <strong>fatigue</strong> and, to some extent, <strong>boredom</strong>.</p>
  
  <p>If you start playing chess at the highest level when you are still in your mid-late teens, by the time you're 40 you've been around for more than 20 years, and that is 20 plus years of being around, traveling for the good part of the year and studying chess many hours every day.</p>
  
  <p>It is very natural that when your intellectual abilities and your capacity of recovering from stress starts fading you may be willing to slow down your pace and that itself has an impact on your playing strength.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-07-16T15:09:18.393Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-03-22T17:19:56.407Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2020-03-22T17:19:56.407Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Andrea Mori
Answers.Body: <p>Well, all you mentioned are probably the reasons for some players.</p>
  
  <p>I would also add 'lack of time' as one of the reasons. When you get older you may need to go to a college/university (chess don't bring much money, unless you are at the top), then family life/kids (chess players have to travel regularly a lot) makes travel harder... So, many people 'switch' to teaching and playing only in local tournaments. </p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-07-07T15:54:18.860Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2016-07-07T15:54:18.860Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Leo Skhrnkv
Body: <p>The top FIDE rated players (<a href="http://2700chess.com/" rel="noreferrer">2700 chess</a>) are all under 50 years old. Most of them seem to be around the 23-32 age range. Why is this the case? I don't really know if this has always been the case or if it this is just something apparent in the current generation.</p>
  
  <p>I'm guessing this is the case for a number of reasons that may include:</p>
  
  <ul>
  <li>Leaving chess</li>
  <li>Lacking needed attention</li>
  <li>Lacking stamina</li>
  <li>Impaired memory of positions and theory</li>
  </ul>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2016-07-06T21:40:26.193Z
Comments.Text: You have answered it yourself
Comments.UserDisplayName: Jimmy360
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2016-07-07T21:54:27.903Z
Comments.Text: From Kramnik: http://chess-news.ru/en/node/19491 "In fact, chess is a game for the young. If only because after 30 years of age, a person starts suffering falling levels of testosterone - the hormone that including responsible and ability to concentrate."
Comments.UserDisplayName: Post-It-Note
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2016-07-07T22:04:01.763Z
Comments.Text: Most advances in mathematics come from men in the same age range. You just don't have the same ability when older. That is just how it is. Death cometh for every man.
Comments.UserDisplayName: thb
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2016-07-13T05:53:14.413Z
Comments.Text: I have the impression that this observation does not apply to Japanese chess. They do seem to have a very tight organisation and large fan base though.
Comments.UserDisplayName: hkBst
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2017-03-01T01:55:45.950Z
Comments.Text: @thb While you're correct that in the past most of the better advances in the mathematics occurred from those that are young, I don't see age as an important factor anymore ideally, assuming health and well being.  Is it important in practice?  Perhaps, but so was (and probably is still currently, unfortunately) sex.  You wouldn't say that men are better mathematicians would you?  Why say age limits ability?
Comments.UserDisplayName: Paul Burchett
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2017-05-03T13:56:31.400Z
Comments.Text: @PaulBurchett: I am not foolish enough to invite the wrath of the powers that be by strongly insisting that some particular kind of person tends to lack mathematical aptitude! I am not even a mathematician, so what do I know? Let me just say that, yes, many kinds of undemocratical factors may promote or limit ability. I have no list of these factors, nor do I assert any expertise, but my ordinary experience (especially in the raising of my six children, aged 18 to 3) teaches me that the blank-slate theory of human nature is mostly wrong.
Comments.UserDisplayName: thb
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2017-05-03T19:43:36.863Z
Comments.Text: @thb
  
  While I definitely agree that the blank-slate theory of human nature has its flaws, I don't exactly know what point you're trying to make.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Paul Burchett
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2017-05-07T14:38:43.257Z
Comments.Text: @PaulBurchett: Noted, thanks. Whatever point I was trying to make, I do not feel free to plainly make it, and anyway and I am not in possession of universal truth, nor am I on a crusade to reform my fellow man's perspective on the world. Thus, if my point has not already gotten through, there is little more I can say. I believe that (with exceptions) chess and mathematical prodigies will always strongly tend to fit certain demographical profiles. You don't. We'll have to leave it there.
Comments.UserDisplayName: thb
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2017-05-08T04:22:31.070Z
Comments.Text: I don't and many others don't in this day don't either - although I'm still young myself, really I think.  Since you're done with this, apparently, I won't bother with a good list of them, although I can think of quite a few respectable mathematicians that happen to be older than myself still churning out very good papers.  These are just among those that I've met personally.  While we probably still have some way to go with this, likely, I think it's important to note the progress that is made.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Paul Burchett
Tags: <super-grandmaster>
Title: Why is chess dominated by relatively young players?
ThreadText: # Why is chess dominated by relatively young players?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2016-07-06)
  
  The top FIDE rated players ([2700 chess](http://2700chess.com/)) are all under 50 years old. Most of them seem to be around the 23-32 age range. Why is this the case? I don't really know if this has always been the case or if it this is just something apparent in the current generation.
  
  I'm guessing this is the case for a number of reasons that may include:
  
  * Leaving chess
  * Lacking needed attention
  * Lacking stamina
  * Impaired memory of positions and theory
  
  **Tags:** super-grandmaster
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: You have answered it yourself  
  > **username_2**: From Kramnik: http://chess-news.ru/en/node/19491 "In fact, chess is a game for the young. If only because after 30 years of age, a person starts suffering falling levels of testosterone - the hormone that including responsible and ability to concentrate."  
  > **username_3**: Most advances in mathematics come from men in the same age range. You just don't have the same ability when older. That is just how it is. Death cometh for every man.  
  > **username_4**: I have the impression that this observation does not apply to Japanese chess. They do seem to have a very tight organisation and large fan base though.  
  > **username_5**: @username_3 While you're correct that in the past most of the better advances in the mathematics occurred from those that are young, I don't see age as an important factor anymore ideally, assuming health and well being.  Is it important in practice?  Perhaps, but so was (and probably is still currently, unfortunately) sex.  You wouldn't say that men are better mathematicians would you?  Why say age limits ability?  
  > **username_3**: @username_5: I am not foolish enough to invite the wrath of the powers that be by strongly insisting that some particular kind of person tends to lack mathematical aptitude! I am not even a mathematician, so what do I know? Let me just say that, yes, many kinds of undemocratical factors may promote or limit ability. I have no list of these factors, nor do I assert any expertise, but my ordinary experience (especially in the raising of my six children, aged 18 to 3) teaches me that the blank-slate theory of human nature is mostly wrong.  
  > **username_5**: @username_3  While I definitely agree that the blank-slate theory of human nature has its flaws, I don't exactly know what point you're trying to make.  
  > **username_3**: @username_5: Noted, thanks. Whatever point I was trying to make, I do not feel free to plainly make it, and anyway and I am not in possession of universal truth, nor am I on a crusade to reform my fellow man's perspective on the world. Thus, if my point has not already gotten through, there is little more I can say. I believe that (with exceptions) chess and mathematical prodigies will always strongly tend to fit certain demographical profiles. You don't. We'll have to leave it there.  
  > **username_5**: I don't and many others don't in this day don't either - although I'm still young myself, really I think.  Since you're done with this, apparently, I won't bother with a good list of them, although I can think of quite a few respectable mathematicians that happen to be older than myself still churning out very good papers.  These are just among those that I've met personally.  While we probably still have some way to go with this, likely, I think it's important to note the progress that is made.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 8 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_15 on 2016-07-07. Score: 7 | Accepted answer
  
  Well, all you mentioned are probably the reasons for some players.
  
  I would also add 'lack of time' as one of the reasons. When you get older you may need to go to a college/university (chess don't bring much money, unless you are at the top), then family life/kids (chess players have to travel regularly a lot) makes travel harder... So, many people 'switch' to teaching and playing only in local tournaments.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_6 on 2016-07-10. Score: 3
  
  It may be possible for an older man to "maintain" a certain level of play, but people's ability to *improve* and learn new things peak in their early 30s.
  
  Chess is a dynamic and changing game. Someone who had trouble keeping up with the latest developments would fall behind, even with the same level of raw ability. That describes most people after, as opposed to before, age 30.
  
  This phenomenon has become more pronounced with the current generation because chess is changing faster than it used to. Ditto for Go.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_7 on 2017-03-01. Score: 3
  
  All the reasons you (and others) mentioned are very valid, however they don't explain the trend that top players become increasingly younger.
  
  I do believe that this has a lot to do with how chess is learned. In the past this was much harder: You had to find a coach, analyze openings by hand and gradually gain experience through many games. All of this took time.
  
  Nowadays, in the time of databases and chess engines, all the information is only a click away and accessible to everyone. Experience gained from playing chess is not all that important anymore.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_8 on 2017-03-01. Score: 3
  
  In addition to the plausible answers already given, I'd venture another psychological aspect that resonates well with username_15's point about family life and other 'distractions':
  
  Lack of single-mindedness. Generally, when people get older, they also get (to the extent applicable to them) wiser. Outside of competitive sport this is a good thing, but in fields like chess it means that not winning a game is not quite the same disaster for one's self esteem that it used to be, other fields of interest start to seem more important, etc. Younger people feel a stronger need to prove themselves and tend to feel that they can afford to put everything but their chosen field into second place.
  
  Compare to this that Magnus Carlsen famously said in an interview that the only reason in his opinion that John Nunn never became world champion is that Nunn is 'too smart', i.e. too good at and too interested in too many other fields.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_9 on 2016-07-08. Score: 2
  
  Note that all the exciting, major World Chess Championships occurred about 20-30 years ago (Kasparov, Karpov, Anand, Kramnik).  
  Hence, young people (people who are now in their 30s) got interested in chess.  
  This occurred especially in Europe and somewhat in US's major cities like NYC.  
  So, more than mental capacity, it is the history and motivation 20-30 years ago that accounts for large volume of GMs in 30s.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_10**: I wasn't even born then, but I still find Fischer vs Spassky the most exciting World Championship match ever.  
  > **username_9**: Why downvote; answers seems reasonable?  
  > **username_11**: The math is off, the people who would follow the matches then and start playing wouldn't have been 0 years old. Carlsen was only born in 1990, and many top players are younger than he is. Besides, Fischer's effect was much much larger than Anand's or Kramnik's, if your answer would be the explanation then the list would be dominated by GMs who started playing in the early 70s. But we actually see that that generation has declined, and your answer doesn't explain why.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_12 on 2017-03-01. Score: 2
  
  For chess at tournament level, good physical condition is an absolute must. And it is well known that physical condition decreases after an age of about 30 years. Chess players can remain top-level somewhat longer than professional football players (maybe because of a lesser frequency of physical injuries, and because stamina lasts longer than sprinter qualities), but nevertheless they are affected by age. The effect was clearly visible in the World Championship match between Carlsen and Anand: Carlsen played out his superior physical condition against Anand (e.g., by playing out drawn looking endgames and making games longer).
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_13 on 2017-03-03. Score: 2
  
  Chess is dominated by young players because other than your brain no part of the body is really involved. True, you need to have a healthy and fit body to concentrate on the game hard, but technically your brain is the only part that is involved.
  
  During your childhood, your memory and intelligence are sharper compared to your youth years. Your learning capability is much more, and your intake for remembering patterns is higher. One more plus as a child is that your focus is not deterred by other factors. Your parents make sure you get more learning, and other responsibilities are taken care by them. You even get more time to learn but when you are in your 20s, then there are various factors which does not allow you to concentrate entirely on chess which makes you sometimes learn more slowly.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_14 on 2016-07-16. Score: 1
  
  To all the factors already listed, I would also add **fatigue** and, to some extent, **boredom**.
  
  If you start playing chess at the highest level when you are still in your mid-late teens, by the time you're 40 you've been around for more than 20 years, and that is 20 plus years of being around, traveling for the good part of the year and studying chess many hours every day.
  
  It is very natural that when your intellectual abilities and your capacity of recovering from stress starts fading you may be willing to slow down your pace and that itself has an impact on your playing strength.
  
  
  ---
  
  