Starting bridge at a late age - how good could one get?
#1
Posted 2012-March-23, 15:42
eg Bob Hamman is 73 (according to Wikipedia), and Bob Hamman is a World Class player (according to pretty much everybody), and I expect he got to be World Class within a dozen or so years of starting to play seriously. But suppose he had never heard of bridge until he reached, say, 60. If he had played it for the first time then, and dedicated the next 13 years to it, would he still have been able to reach a World Class level?
#2
Posted 2012-March-23, 15:52
I think Fred G wrote on this forum that he thought that bridge players stopped getting better by their mid-forties, and I can't imagine that, if that is true, anyone much older than that has any hope of becoming good.
My limited experience with intelligent but older newbies is that they never become very good. I suspect that part of it is that all the truly good players I know wasted a LOT of their high energy youth learning the game with an intensity and passion that few older people can muster for anything, let alone a card game Edit: I am such an older guy, btw
Add to that the general truism that we lose a lot of mental flexibility and learning ability as we age, and I think it is impossible for a middle-aged or older person to become expert.
#3
Posted 2012-March-23, 15:57
- hrothgar
#4
Posted 2012-March-23, 16:42
What is baby oil made of?
#5
Posted 2012-March-23, 17:34
I'm sure there is one big name american player who only started in his forties? Remember reading about it in his profile.
But generally think you need to have at least one stage when you are playing basically all the time for a year or so to become an expert. Most experts get that in when at uni, and its hard after that.
#6
Posted 2012-March-23, 18:22
#7
Posted 2012-March-23, 18:36
To support my case, I have a story. I picked up a guy named Scott at the partnership desk at the 2006 Atlanta nationals for a regionally rated seniors (55+) pairs event (I happened to be in town unexpectedly on business). He had 400 masterpoints. Turned out he could play. We won the first event and placed in another event the next day.
So, we made plans for the upcoming nationals in Dallas. After a few frustrating days playing teams with my friend's peers, we jumped into the Silver Ribbon Pairs and ended up 17th. I think my friend has talent and could develop into at least an above average expert player if he wanted to.
#8
Posted 2012-March-23, 19:48
EricK, on 2012-March-23, 15:42, said:
Well, let's put this in context -- the vast majority of us will never "reach the very top of the game". I started at 11.
#10
Posted 2012-March-23, 21:37
#11
Posted 2012-March-24, 02:03
I am asking the Aussies to come in on this post (shoot it down or provide more info).
I read an article once about an Aussie senior woman who took up bridge at a late age. She became a very good player and was invited to a selection tournament (I believe it was in the mid-1980’s) to represent Australia in the Seniors. She didn’t qualify in the end but that fact that she was invited proves that you can still become very competitive. How old was she when invited? Can’t remember.
#12
Posted 2012-March-24, 02:28
#13
Posted 2012-March-24, 03:59
In other activities, even people who reach the top at a young age, can't seem maintain that level into middle-age, let alone old age. This is not just true of overtly physical activities (like football) or even "semi-physical" activities (like snooker), but also of mental activities like chess. There are very few chess players who maintain a world class level once they are over 50 let alone 60 or 70. Obviously, they are still very good compared to most other chess players, but they are not consistently challenging for the world title or winning major tournaments. This suggests that someone taking up chess at a late age could never reach that level.
Now is Bridge different? Or is Bob Hamman different?!
#14
Posted 2012-March-24, 07:13
EricK, on 2012-March-24, 03:59, said:
Oh, proof by example, very good. Would you like a disproof by counterexample? I offer the game of Go.
-- Bertrand Russell
#15
Posted 2012-March-24, 17:24
32519, on 2012-March-24, 02:03, said:
I was thinking open, but the fact that there is a separate seniors comp suggests there is some declination due to age. However, that may be in part due to not adopting the latest bidding theory...
#16
Posted 2012-March-24, 18:55
mgoetze, on 2012-March-24, 07:13, said:
I don't understand how is that a counterexample, for Go, there are lots of legend pro players in China, Japan and Korea reach top level at their young age but cannot defend their title when the younger generation start to challenge them even though their skill is still there, or even better.
#17
Posted 2012-March-24, 22:58
frank0, on 2012-March-24, 18:55, said:
Go Seigen, when he retired from tournament play, did so not because his Go was declining, but because he was not physically capable of playing stressful multiday matches anymore. He is still consulted by top pros today, at the age of 97.
Karigane Junichi challenged Go Seigen to a Jubango at the ripe old age of 62.
Honinbo Shusai played against Kitani Minoru (probably the 2nd best player in the world at the time) when he was 64, 2 years before his death, and aquitted himself quite well.
Sakata Eio won a professional Rapid Go championship at the age of 60.
So I think the reason that older Go professionals do not contend for major titles nowadays is a decline in stamina, not a decline in skill.
-- Bertrand Russell
#18
Posted 2012-March-25, 02:02
#19
Posted 2012-March-25, 07:22
-- Bertrand Russell
#20
Posted 2012-March-25, 09:25
*-excluding clients if you are looking at some official ranking.