Is it possible to reach 2000 ONLY by studying tactics?

SNUDOO wrote:

I live in freaking alabama, where there are basically no majors

A friend who is a National TD moved from Alaska to California to play in tournaments where he wasn't seeing the same people all the time.

darkunorthodox88 wrote:
Trainer_Red99 wrote:
Steven-ODonoghue wrote:

No. Impossible


How high can someone get with the least amount of studying?

studying is loosely defined.

some would say i got to 2200 with virtually no studying (no coach, i have not read a single book start to finish, maybe 1 or 2 endgame manuals like Silman's and only like 70-80% of it) but this includes a lot of playing, pretty much mastering all of my openings , going over almost all games i play with the engine, some chesstempo  having watched a bunch of historical master games very quickly, etc

Some would say there are strange irregularities with your own chess strength. There were serious doubts cast on your level of understanding and comments on your most seriously-used opening - Owen's defence - and it was noticed how how your blitz rating is 2000 after having lost the vast majority of your games which were unrated (maybe the 2000 was given by your federation or it was converted to 2000). Nobody knows how you got to 2200 or what country and rating system the 2200 and NM title is in. In some countries 1900 FIDE is all it takes to be a NM, sometimes even less. 

darkunorthodox88 wrote:

if you mean, just playing a lot of chess, no book, no postmortem,2000 would be tough but no impossible for a talented player. A lot of what you could learn until then can really be learned by osmosis and you reach expert with minimal endgame skills. ( i didnt know what opposition was until about 2100!), but this is the rpg equivalent of grinding, you will prob have the amount of game experience of a good FM or IM but since you didnt maximize your learning, you will only be a class A or expert player.

You will at least need to know the basics - the strong knight outpost, good vs bad bishop, king activity, concept of tempo, fighting for the central squares, rook to the seventh, space, avoiding cramped positions, isolated/doubled pawns, opposite bishop endings and that sort of thing. All those things people take for granted after knowing for a few years.   

Now could there be someone out there who could reach all the way to 2000 on pure tactical ability alone? Sure but it would be incredibly rare and a lot more likely they will end up as one of the people on 1100 for years and wondering what's wrong. 

You use the term "by osmosis" for picking up concepts as you play, but there's a ceiling to how good you could get from that. Besides, the really talented players would be automatically going over annotated games and learning from them anyway "by osmosis". They would have already read through My 60 Memorable Games years ago. It would not occur to them to not want to look at what masters of the game have written about it or analyze with others and get good openings, it wouldn't be work to them.

I don't see how someone could get to 2000 with no opening knowledge at all other than general principles, they're usually going to have a bad position out of the opening and would have to come back from it.