USCF 2000's Who Have Never Reached 2200 ... Yet. How to Maintain Hope?

Gosh, I would be delighted to reach USCF 2000.  A "2" is significantly better than a "1" in front of the "thousand."  Plus a 2000+ Expert is clearly a better player.

Having said that, I have noticed not-a-small-number of USCF Experts who have never reached 2200, the level of National Master!   What I mean, is that they have been in the 2000+ level for years and years, maybe even decades, and never crack the 2200 barrier.  These USCF Experts play, they study, they play, they coach, they strive, they aim, they work, but cracking the vaunted 2200 level is seemingly beyond their grasp, and so elusive.

Do you know Experts at this plateau stage?  My questions are these:  What is the typical mindset of these Life Experts?   Do they ever despair of cracking 2200?  If so, what are the methods of overcoming this despair?  I mean, there's a saying, "Hope Springs Eternal!"  So how do they maintain the hope after years and years, and possibly decades of being in the 2000-2199 rating band, with perhaps the occasional dip into the 1900's?

This is probably the wrong website to ask. We’re a bunch of prodiges. Our ratings never go down, only up. 

There's actually a lot of these people where I live.  The biggest problem is that lack of players in the rating pool.  In my community, the top section of most events is 2000+ and typically there will be about 12 players in the section.  About 8 of them will be between 1900 (it's permissible to play up if you're within 100 points of the section) and 2060.  The remainder are 2300+, with perhaps one 2100.  In my community, the 2050 players just beat each other and lose to the 2300+ players and never improve their rating.  While this is strictly a problem in my community, it wouldn't surprise me if it's common in a lot of places for there simply to be a lack of strong enough competition

Like anything else, in chess it's harder to improve the better you get.  2200 is kind of an artificial number, and some will frustratingly max out close but not over.  Someone who maxes out at 2195 isn't that much worse than someone else who hits 2005, but only one gets the title.

Look at Kairav Joshri (sp?) the guy who started chess.com's Prodigy Program.  His peak rating for a long time (and possibly right now) was about 2180.  He created and sold a program to make people a master in 5 years or less and he can't do it himself.

I didn't know that.  That's actually a stunning and interesting fact.

I think Kairav is a good guy.  Maybe one way that he could blunt this particular criticism of his program is to offer a disclaimer that he himself has not elected to undergo the work in his Chess Prodigy program because he is too busy with his professional and personal life.  

If he's already 2180 or so it shouldn't take him the full five years.  A wee bit of coaching and one or two tourneys should get him there, assuming his rating isn't somehow inflated already, which is another good point to answer your OP.  Some people who reach near Master level can artificially inflate their ratings by playing matches, taking quickie draws, strategically withdrawing from events to get rating, and so on.  Players not near a plateau are unlikely to resort to these tactics, so that could explain why there is a larger than expected number of people who get just above master and a possible dearth of such players in the near-master category.

I had a friend from university who matched my progress step for step for some time. We were both about 2000 USCF when we started in August 2012, and in early 2014 we were both about 2150. There was sort of a race to see who would make master first. In April 2014, I crossed the finish line first. Turns out that he was taking a huge course load -- about 20 credits -- in order to graduate early, and had stopped working on his chess. Since then, in the few tournaments that he played, his rating decreased from its 2160 peak to around 2050, and he hasn't played anything since 2016. This is one of those "life experts" that you are referring to, and the difference between him and me is clear: I didn't stop working on my chess, but he did. That's the only reason he didn't make master; it certainly wasn't a lack of strength.

I also know of a few of these "life experts" in the Twin Cities area, that I had to play many times in my climb up the rating ladder. On a good day, they are a hell of a fight, and they got me a few times. Once again, however, my higher level of motivation won out; they play more than I do, but don't study.

This is why I don't believe that the "expert who's been trying for years to make master but hasn't gotten there" type of player exists. If someone's been an expert for years, they're not trying to make master. I challenge you to find a player that proves me wrong.

I obtained a USCF rating of 2188 in the year 1973. And due to some very bad luck--I played in 2 more tournaments and scored 4 wins and no losses and no draws in both tournaments AFTER obtaining the 2188 rating and never made USCF master. [my USCF performance rating for that year was 2430+] My USCF rating is still 2188.

I decided due to health reasons to take up correspondence chess and then eventually did way better than my o-t-board play.

There are many possible reasons a person rated above 2100 might never become a USCF master!?

Yeah, mostly this I think.

I know a guy who has bounced between 2050 and 2150 for almost 20 years. I think his peak was something ridiculous like 2197.

Anyway, he has a wife, 3 kids, a job... he'd play in tournaments every week if he could, but sometimes he has to work over the weekend because there's some big project and they're short on time. Sometimes his wife or one of his kids gets sick, etc.

He loves chess, but ends up going to maybe 4 tournaments a year with not much study time in between.

 My first expert rating was 2019 uscf and mine next goal was to get to mid-2000, I was able to keep at 2080 uscf  for a long time and one good tournament result tip me to 2110 uscf. I have learned to get to the next level you have to dominate the lower half 1900 to 1600 70 % and 90 % and get 60% on 2000 uscf and 50% on 2100 uscf. 

If I can improve the lower half I can get to master level, first goal 2100 uscf and then go for 2200.

Record vs Opponent's Rating (Pre-event)

It's very simple: Play better.

2200 USCF or FIDE is rather easy. The secret is a four letter word: work.

I love your advice. Its a lot work.

I haven't been over 2000 for years and years (yet) but I don't expect to be a master, so maybe I can answer a little bit.

Chess is hard work!

And boom. Once you think of it like that, it's over for you. When you have the passion, almost no amount of study is too much. You could play 12 hours a day, for two days in a row at a weekend tournament, then on Monday analyze for hours. But once it's work, you don't even bother putting it into the engine.

Could I get to 2200? Honestly I think so. I'm in my 30s so why not?

But it's work. It's hard.

I have quality books where it takes, you know, 4 hours to get through a few pages because I do lots of analysis on my own, and struggle, and suffer, and I get so much wrong. But that's how you learn. So then I compare my analysis to what's correct, I engine check my lines, their lines, and explore new lines. You pull up GM games and other reference material to see these ideas in action in other games from other players. I learn a lot... but I get burned out, and I guess one day it stopped being fun.

But I still like to play, and I learn little things here and there and that keeps it interesting.

Pfren beat me to it

This is a significant observation.  Is it safe to assume that this small community of 2000-rated players know each other well, and more to my point, they all know each other's opening repertoires because they have played each other so much?

Alright, so let's assume that.  Here's my imagination run amok:  There's got to be one of these players whose strong goal and ambition is to make National Master.   He knows the other Expert's Opening Repertoires and they know his.  He would probably say something like this to himself:  "Alright you Effers, I like you all, but I'm going to have to kick all your a$$es.  I'm going to have to own you because that's the only way I'm going to make it up the ladder.   We're fighting to the Kings because I need every half-point I can get."  

So then our Hero Expert goes into Rocky Balboa mode or Daniel LaRusso of the Karate Kid movies (transferred into a chess context, of course) and after sustained and intense training work in hibernation, he emerges stronger than ever, beating his 2000-rated community cohorts with a 75% or greater winning ratio. 

Nemo breaks free! from the fish and the little fish pool/pond he has been swimming in circles for all that time.  The 2000-rated Dorys look on in both admiration and envy at the newly-minted 2200 Nemo.  Because now ... He is a Master Shark!!

ROL! That does seem like a natural outcome after half a dozen events playing the same guys...

I’m a semi-prodigy myself, therefore my rating isn’t just straight up, but pretty close to that. 

The fact that so many experts are struggling to become masters is encouraging actually. It shows that the road is difficult, and most people have a hard time with it. Because they can’t do it, I don’t feel as bad about myself when I fail. So I actually feel encouraged by their failure, and know that one bad event doesn’t mean anything.

After a bad event, like my last one I come back to the next event more evil than ever, and win, at least in my dreams. 

no, that can't be it!  babaji told me different.

the jump from 2100 to 2200 is brutal., but as far as what to do ,its nothing special. just step up on the intensity of the training. review your material, watch over games etc.  i think most decently talented players can reach 2300 by working hard on their own. at least that's the number i have in mind before i would consider hiring anyway to take me to the next level.

actually 1600 and 1800 are common points where people get stuck. 1600-1800 i see often because 1600 seems to be  close the upper limit that skilled club players who mostly only play blitz can get to without working hard or studying. 1800 requires one to slow down for the first time. 1800-2000 is specially common among skilled scholastic players that dont have their heart set into the game.  certain passive positional moves  and more abstract considerations become important in play. 2000's also play considerably fewer secondary moves than 1800's do.

mind you my graph has gaps, i dont think i have been able to focus on chess seriously for any consecutive 3 year period except 6th to 8th grade where i was pretty much 1800 strength but massively underrated. life always gets in the way somehow. its those few spots of a flatness that i rarely played or was doing something else more seriously.

http://www.uschess.org/datapage/ratings_graphR.php?memid=13274297

interestingly, the game that got me the title was the crucial game for my team to win amateur team south last year. my win  drew us the match and secured our championship. it got me exactly 2200 on the dot.

I am far away from that strength, but what I have seen is that some players can sit at 2000 a long time, and suddenly they gets something right, plays a couple of strong tournaments and the rating elevates fast.   IM Silman told a story like that about himself. He trained hard for years, and got stuck on a level, and suddenly, boom, he started winning.