Greg asks:

I started to seriously study chess and play in tournaments when I was a sophomore in college. I progressed well enough and currently have a USCF rating of 1615. I am wondering, however, if a goal I had set for myself (to reach the 2100 rating level by the time I was 25; I am currently 22) is possible. I'd like to think that if I studied and played enough I would reach my goal, but I tend to feel pessimistic towards my chances of improving my level of play to anything higher than a class "A" player. Am I too old to reach my goal?

Silman replies:

No, you're not too old. In fact, you could be seventy and still make significant inroads in relation to your understanding of the game and, as a result, your rating. The real question should not be about age, but about method - HOW does one study in such a way as to address their specific needs?

There isn't an all-encompassing generic answer to this question because each player has his or her own strengths and weaknesses. For example, I was recently in the Middle East trying to improve the play of a particular gentleman who loves the game, but was having trouble moving on to the next level.  After prolonged talks, watching him play friends, and detailed looks at his games I realized that his problem was purely tactical - his tactical ability was hundreds of points below his knowledge of openings and positional play. This knowledge allowed me to create a personal two-year study program taking him from the most basic tactical ideas and situations to far more detailed combinative situations.

Other people, however, might find that they are quite good tactically but have little or no understanding of positional chess, endgames, or even openings (as you move up the ladder, you need an opening repertoire that suits your style and makes you feel comfortable).

The answer to your question, then, is to ascertain your weakest chess characteristics (A certain brutal honesty is needed to do this!) and then create a very detailed study program designed to root out the problem. So yes, you CAN improve at any age (never doubt this!), but it takes more than wishful thinking, it takes hard work. If you are willing to do such carefully "choreographed" work, and if you're willing to play as many games as possible against opponents that are (preferably) slightly stronger than yourself, then the sky's the limit.

David asks:

Hello Jeremy. I have a question about the rules of tournament chess. About a week ago, I was playing in a rated game against an "A" player. I was creaming him; two pawns to the good. While he was away from the board, I made a queen move and hit my clock soon after with great zest and confidence, only to immediately realize that my bishop was en prise. My opponent was away, so I quickly took my move back and made a king move. It seems to me that doing such a thing was perfectly ethical; after all, my opponent wasn't at the board. What does the USCF rulebook have to say about this matter?

P.S. The move I substituted was even worse.

Silman replies:

I don't have the USCF or FIDE rulebooks handy, but I suspect they will classify your act in the same category as excessive coffee drinking before or during play, or taking an over the counter flu medicine so that your opponent won't be bothered by you coughing up your lungs all over the board (to read my views on the idiocy of drug testing in chess, click HERE).

All these oh-so-evil affronts to morality and fair play result in public flogging and a lifetime ban. On top of that, your neighbors will be notified of your behavior problems and offered new white robes and hoods to greet you with.

Your story brings to mind the classic philosophical query, "If you move a piece while alone in the forest, was it really moved?" As it turns out, chess rules have a clear answer: touch move is touch move, whether anyone sees you touch a piece or not!

Translation: your actions were not ethical and, if caught, you would most likely have been forfeited by the director and browbeaten by the other players.

When I read your letter to IM Anthony Saidy, his reply was far more succinct: "Never confess to a crime!"