Can an average person ever break 2000?

"top few percent"?

How about top few hundredths of a percent. You're looking at a group that is clearly far above the norm

2000+ is 66,611/154,786 FIDE players, so not even close to top few hundreths of a percent, not even top third.

Scott, when you consider how few players at chess.com play in official OTB tournaments, astronomer's figures may not be far off.

Once upon a time, it was impossible to get an initial rating below 2000 in FIDE. Simply being FIDE rated meant that you were already at that threshold.

I don't know the break down of FIDE players. In the USCF, a player who is +2000 is in the top 96.94th %ile. Again, that only includes players who have played in official USCF tournaments, which is a pretty small selection of players.

http://archive.uschess.org/ratings/ratedist.php

 I honestly don't know whether astronomer is correct or even how to prove it.

I think if the "average" person had a coach he might be able to break 2000.

but that is the problem the average person doesn't have the time /money to hire a coach so he studies on his own and may continue to make unknowingly losing inaccuracies / mistakes.
A coach might detect such things and make you a stronger player.

When asking if something is possible for the average player, surely you want to look at the group of players who actually make some effort, not the population that plays the odd game...

Every player I have known over 2000 was an " extremist " and I have always been accused of being one myself . At least where chess is concerned this is true I believe. So,  is the average person an extremist ?  I think if the average person is not an extremist the chance of them breaking the 2000 barrier is practically non existent . I have always been an extremist in whatever caught my attention at the time and over the years it has been several things until chess took over .... 

Hey, the first digit of my rating is the same as Carlsen's. And the last digit might even be higher.

November 2012 breakdown of FIDE players

Though as Smyslov_fan explained, this graph results from a historical pool of players above 2000 in FIDE : the graph is going to be populated on the left side in the coming years...

Will somebody please bring up an example of a person who has accomplished this? Maybe not an "average" person, which is getting too much scrutiny because there really is no such thing. How about a "normal" person? Maybe a person who learned to play in grade school, but wanted to play outside instead so they gave it up for a while. As an adult, they remember how to play and play enough online games to become an average chess player ratingwise. Now this person decides they want to be the best player in the world, so they practice hard and deliberately to achieve this goal. They don't become the best player in the world as they had hoped, but they have a rating of exactly 2000 after several years of working hard at it. I would bet that there are several players ranked 2000 or higher that closely fit this description. The main reason that it would be uncommon is because only a small percentage of people actually strive for it. So all we really need is one case study and we can put this baby to bed.

I would also be interested to discuss with people having experienced important progress in their rating after age 25. Or even better : after 30.

sure it is possibly I haven't done so myself, still working on improveing defensive skills and openings with black, but you can get to 14-1500 rating without knowing more than a few openings, some are geniouses and play at that level the first time they enter a chessclub, for the avage person however just playing frequently enought will get you there no theory at all just enougth years of playing. Then you start studying a bit of opening play and other improvements and suddenly 2000 is within reach just dooing it like old strong players who gradually improved by age nothing like todays flash super grandmasters.

National rating is 1769 fide is 1908 and I only care about gambit theory, I'm 29 and getting there some day hopefully before I'm 50.

Yoey, just about all of us think of ourselves as normal. I made expert just after college. But just as Reb said, I am an extremist.

I was reading chess books in middle school and high school but didn't play in my first USCF tournament until I graduated from high school. (The state scholastic championship wasn't USCF rated in those days.) I really studied hard. In one summer, I probably studied chess for 10 hours a day on average.

If that sounds "normal" to you, then yes, a "normal" person can become an expert.

Another thing that makes significant improvement difficult is simply the way the FIDE rating system works : if you're rated say 1800 and want to reach 2000, you must either play a very large # of games at 2000 elo level, or a smaller # of games at +2000 elo level.

You could play at 2000 level consistently and your rating only reflects your progress after, say 30-40 games...

So you select your pool from the elite and then define "average". This site has 6 million members, which is only a portion of online players.

I would guess about half the people in the world would at least have an idea of the names of chess men. Even if only 1% would describe themselves as chess players when prompted, you'ld be talking about 70 million people

If you're talking about whether an average person can achieve something which takes a lot of dedication, what sense is there comparing them to people that know the rules but have never studied, or the millions of inactive accounts on chess.com?

Of the people that actually take it seriously, 2000 doesn't seem like an unrealistic target.

I would hardly say everyone rated with the worldwide governing body is 'elite'...

Well after reading all the comments let me rephrase:

One chess should have started as a child.

Two chess requires study and instruction.

Three chess students really need to play above their levels.

Okay I got that.

But how much is Chess dependent on aptitude?

I can see how you'd have to be an extremist in a way. And I certainly wouldn't say it's abnormal for someone to put extreme effort into the achievement of a difficult goal. Of course not everyone could do it. I would bet my life that my ex has absolutely zero chance of becoming a great chess player. I don't even think I have a good chance of doing it and I love chess. I go through phases. There are just too many more interesting things in life that I like to do. Plus these bills have to get paid. Somebody would basically have to pay me to work that hard at it... Any takers? 

Chess and golf are very similar. In chess, the average player can break 2000. They just need a lot of time and money, something which not many people have to break an arbitrary ranking number. In golf, the average person can break 80. They just need a lot of time and money, something which not many people have to break an arbitrary scoring number.

The average person can do it. The question becomes is that number important enough to the average person that they want to go out there and do it? For most, the answer is no. They just like having fun playing the game that they love. And if they do want to reach that number, a lot of them don't spend the right amount of time studying or practicing or don't go enough tournaments or play enough rounds. 

recall reading in some studies (and a friend, SM, said he's read this too, we were discussing this today) that GMs on the whole only have slightly higher than average IQ - although i would mostly disregard IQ tests, rather  more value exists on what people actually do.

The elite players (world championship contenders) have outstanding memories.  but that is not required at other levels of strength.

I learned to play chess at age eight, but had no understanding of nor exposure to strategy and tactics until age 15. I played competitively in high school, and then quit playing in college. At 35, I played in my first USCF tournament, and after one year had an established rating in the mid-1400s. At 45, I broke 1600. At 49, I passed 1800. At 51, I broke through 1900 and reached a peak a few months later of 1982. I've never considered myself average, however.