What does it take to get to a 2000-2200 rated player? Really.

"Despite having the ability to learn well and understanding my own learning process, my brain doesn't seem to be "wired" well for chess. I have great difficulty with calculation, which is really just holding visual patterns in your mind. I wonder how far I could get before I became limited by my brain's physical abilities. Or if I could somehow break through that phystical limit. Perhaps it's just a matter of "learning" how to do it -- perhaps not..."

Maybe it's a lack of talent, maybe not. The problem is that logically, this inference is problematic:

1. x is a technique that I can't understand now.

2. I don't see, right now, how I could come to understand it.

3. If 2 is true, then the only explanation is that it must be impossible for me to understand it.

Therefore, it's impossible for me to understand it.

The problem is that how hard something looks depends on your perspective :) Carlsen thinks everything is easy. But of course we wouldn't think his opinion applies to our situation. What seems true from one perspective could totally change once our perspective changes (e.g., we learn more about chess).

Well, I've gone through such changes many times! Many things I thought beyond my grasp I do easily. For example, sacrifices where you are not immediately getting back material. I always had to calculate everything to make sure it would be ok, and thought I could never get rid of that problem. Not only have I done so, I've done so to a large degree.

There may be some things that actually are beyond my grasp. The problem is, I can't know this if my only justification for it is the argument I presented earlier.

^^
I agree. After I posted, I added more to my post which I think says something similar.

The distinction between time and work is one I failed to make in my posts. When I talk about work, I simply mean the study and practice of chess, be it games, puzzles, books, or anything else. I only posit that most strong players enjoyed doing the work, which is why they did so much of it, which is why they became so strong.

EDIT: I would also posit that Josh Waitzkin did not enjoy it, or fell out of love with the game, which is why he hit that IM "upper limit". It's a perfect example of the amount (or difficulty) of work needed to make progress overcoming a player's motivation (passion, drive, love for the game, whatever) to do it.

I think I'll go do some puzzles too.

@Elubas -

Yes, but chess isn't about 'understanding', or at least no more than language proficiency is about knowing grammar rules.

Most chess knowledge is internalized and subconcious, like the idioms of your native language. Incidentally, that's one of the reasons why even strong coaches have difficulties conveying their knowledge and most strong players have learned chess by immersion with the masters : it takes time for the knowledge to be adequately transferred, bit by bit...

Understanding and chess concepts are crutches. You can understand Carlsen's games. Still...

"One percent inspiration, 99% perspiration"

- Henry Ford

Go to a chess tournament and discuss with the best amateur players, and you'll see at least 80% inspiration at work.

If you go see the pro players, it will probably be more balanced

"I'm giving up chess for cars."

-Henry Ford

Wasn't it Bobby Fischer who famously learned another language just to have access to more chess literature? He loved the work and it rewarded him.

How do so many who haven't done something know what it takes?

"Subconscious chess patterns" are merely understandings you have already come across. Sure, if I have already learned something about outposts, I may recognize it without thinking. That doesn't mean there isn't something logically to it that one ought to learn.

Well, Silman says looking through thousands of master games ultra fast with no analysis is good. Well, I'm not saying that can't work, but I don't consider that as efficient as actually understanding the ideas. Of course some balance between depth and breadth of understanding is important, I wouldn't disagree with that.

Even the craziest computer lines have some beautiful logic behind them. You play a move, then this move is forced because of something going on in a sub variation, which only works because of its own logic, etc. Patterns are all around us. But so is the logic behind those patterns, and it really helps.

I don't think any of us are claiming to know what it takes. Personally, I'm just drawing the logical conclusion that if everybody that has done something did it through lots of time spent practicing, then practicing is likely what it takes to accomplish those goals.

We are all speculating to some degree here : some have experience in chess, some in other fields. I find it interesting to compare those.

Those who cannot do, usually teach brah

I get that, but speaking which such certainty.

Who is speaking with certainty here?

I think everybody will agree here.

Yes although chess is also a performance art, at least between humans.

I am not a very persistent person. If I sit down and across the board is a guy who is very persistent, that person already has an advantage over me in the game regardless of our levels of chess understanding. A lot of being a good chess player is being a good performer.

+1

The funny thing is, the end product between the finding of a chess pattern and the memorization of the abc's is kind of the same -- they have a memorizable answer. Yet, each chess pattern that may happen to be memorized, unlike in the abc's, serves a purpose that one will benefit much from understanding.

In other words there is a reason to why we are memorizing a pin and not the move a2-a4. Whereas with the abc's why a comes before b is totally arbitrary. Understanding won't guide you at all. In chess the stuff is easier to memorize when it means something to you. If you had a game where an outpost was really important, you'll remember that because it was important, not because you are amazing at memory. So understanding is always a big guide, even if the end product may be lots of patterns that no longer have to be thought about.

That's true. But if every frog is green, it's doesn't mean that everything that's green is a frog.

Not everyone can achieve by hard work.