How do I get to 2000 rapid elo?

Not really. I’ve progressed naturally from 200-1600 just by playing games and watching YouTube. Literally nothing else.

wow! A big jump of 13800 rating points!

I did say to increase gradually

InsertInterestingNameHere, That's what I've been doing! Literally just games and YouTube. If you and Kotshmot aren't talented, that only can mean that I'm REALLY not talented and I have to work even harder, which I'm happy to accept. The real question is: what channel is the most instructive? Subjective, but I'd like to hear your personal take.

Gothamchess’s “how to get past 1000”, and ChessBrah’s “building habits”.

To get past 1000, all you have to do is stop hanging pieces. It’s very easy to say and very hard to do, I understand that (I’ve been there) but it’s a very major step in improving. There’s no simple way to do that, all I can say is “look around and makes sure nothing is hanging”. I got it eventually, and I’m pretty sure you will too.

oh believe me, you are not doing any wrong, it's very normal for healthy (emotionally) younger people like you, and there is nothing wrong with you, and that you should be grateful it would normally take many years for people like you in honing chess skills, that is why you merely adopted the wrong, as for me, (scoffs) there's really something wrong within me, I was born in it, molded by it. I didn't see the right things in life until I was already adult and by then it was nothing to me but confusion. 😌

I know you didn't ask me, but personally my choice is Daniel Naroditsky. He explains his ideas much more deeply than gothan and hikaru - especially how he finds moves, not just "white has this line". He explains how he can find those moves.

Eh... be careful believing people when they say they improved while not doing _____ or by doing _____.

I think the trick is that some people enjoy certain things, so they don't call it work. My favorite example is one time this master told me he "never studied endgames" but then after one OTB game we analyzed afterwards and he knew more than I did about endgames lol.

When someone says they're "just playing" that can mean a lot of different things. Some people, just due to their personality, analyze every game after they play, maybe only for 5 minutes. They find some big mistake, and think "oh crap, I better remember not do that next game"

That's only 5 minutes, and only 1 mistake, but that's extremely useful, and if that person really can avoid making the same mistakes (and if they're playing every day) then they will improve.

If a person literally doesn't study or analyze or think about their games at all... not even thinking about their games... then they wont improve. There are tons of people like this. It's very normal to not improve if the only thing you're doing is literally playing.

Anyway, this is a long way of saying don't get discouraged by what other people report. They're not trying to trick you, it's just in their mind they really believe they haven't studied or worked at all.

And in general it's the same for anything in life... the kid who is good at sports, or is good at math, or whatever. Secretly, they've simply put in tons of more hours than you.

Yes geniuses exist, but they're super rare. Most of the time the person who is way better than you is "cheating" in the sense that their personality enjoys the work required to improve, so they've effortlessly done that work every day for years.

Update: I quickly made it back up to 800! I remembered to play simple chess, defend everything, and scan for weaknesses, and before I knew it, I made it one step closer to breaking 1000. Next milestone: 900

This game where I played black had a lot of blunders from both sides, I must admit, but I can't help but brag about my incredible rook sacrifice!! Even the chess.com engine said it was the best move for black! Here is the full game: https://chess.com/live/game/45910199915

I inserted the full game here, hopefully it shows up.

To get to 2000 points you have to learn an opening or two with a lot of variants and you also have to learn a lot of traps

no

Impressive rook sacrifice.

However if you want to be a good player, you will have first to get rid of the feeling that you are ashamed of your blunders. Be proud of your blunders, and understand why you make them, don't throw them under the carpet. Write post mortems, search in google "Postmortem Culture: Learning from Failure."

 I am currently in the 1800s. To reach this level you need to be a strong player, tactically and strategically aware, knowing what a good end game looks like and then playing towards those opportunities. I find that in rapid, 90%+ of the time that at some point in the game I have a winning position, even if I miss how to win from that point. It is rare that I am dominated by an opponent from start to finish, even if they have a similar rating to me. At my current level, you can get by with natural talent and being tactically astute, making very few real blunders.

I could reach 2,000, but it would take more time studying chess than I want to commit to it, like thousands of hours of actual study, not just playing games.

Unless you are very young, or have never studied chess at all, it is very unlikely that you will be able to make the jump to that level. I had a rating in my teens around 1600-1700. Even at an early age, I would never have been playing at a rating level similar to you.