Is there really a decline with age when it comes to chess? I’m not sure he will really decline until he reaches his retirement age.

▲

traes 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

For some concrete numbers, there are only four players over 50 years of age in the top 100 at the moment by live ratings[0]. They are ranked #13 (age 56), #89 (age 53), #95 (age 54), and #97 (age 57). In their primes these players were ranked #1, #10, #4, and #3 respectively.

[0]: https://2700chess.com/?per-page=100

▲

dehrmann 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Isn't he playing Chess960 because he started finding standard chess boring? And wasn't that why Fischer worked on it in the first place? Experts might get bored of it by the time they're 50.

	▲	peter422 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The reason the top pros like chess960 is because they don’t need to spend hundreds of hours of opening preparation, they can just sit down and play. Caruana (the guy who lost to Magnus), mused in a podcast that chess960 feels strange as a competitor because he doesn’t really prepare (because there are far too many openings to study) and said it feels like he’s getting paid for much less work.

▲

Taek 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This is some fascinating data, thanks for pulling it together.

▲

Trufa 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There's a sharp decline with age. Magnus himself says he's not as sharp as he was younger, even if he can compensate with experience.

	▲	bee_rider an hour ago \| parent [-]
		He just has to gain experience faster than he loses sharpness.

▲

jacquesm 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

For most people there is a cognitive decline with age, and chess is clearly a cognitive effort. Like with everything else: experience really matters, but you will simply be a bit less sharp over time and in a game where a tiny mistake can compound to a loss it really matters.