Question about long term players hitting a rating wall.

So within the last month or so I’ve broken the 1300 rating wall for rapid and 1000 for blitz, and obviously dropping back down below these levels often. I’ve been playing relatively consistently for a year, on and off, sometimes a lot in a month and sometimes hardly at all. Basically long enough to figure out that I'm still pretty terrible overall, and a beginner really. But I’d say in rapid I’ve climbed around 100 points every 2 months I guess. From what I’ve seen this is around average for players at these beginner stages. But luckily I'm still improving, pretty much linearly. (Other than the extremely common 100 point swings. ha)

I’ve only really played games to improve, I watch chess videos on youtube but mostly for enjoyment, not really focusing too much. I use the analysis tool, but probably not enough, and I’ve never really studied or do puzzles.

Getting to the point, playing 1300s I’ve noticed when looking at their stats that many of them have been playing for quite a while, and have a lot of games, some in the 10000s, a good portion at least over 5000. And a lot have been at this 1300 level for more than a year or two.

So what makes these players live in this 1300 rating range long term? Is this a level where people experience a plateau? Do players need to start taking things more seriously to improve past this? And finally, at what point does just playing games and not anything else catch up with a player and they get stuck like a lot of these players do?

Obviously this varies a lot depending on the person, and for some 1300 is still considered pretty terrible, I know sometimes I feel like I haven’t improved at all. But it is still top 10 percent on chess.com. So what level requires more committment? Top 5%? Top 2%?

Despite what others will tell you, all platers have their own rating limits where no amount of experience will help you to improve. It's not possible for everyone to get to 1500 and 2000 "with a little experience".

I've said this so many times but nobody ever fricking gets it. There are limits on money, time and desire that prevent most people climbing that far. For most people, even 1500 is unobtainable. Hence, the average rating on here is around 1000. But no, keep on spouting your unjustified pointless nonsense to give weaker players false hope.

Most plateauing is for 1 of 2 reasons.

1) Looking at rating graphs, it seems to be the case that people who work hard every day (and do structured, useful work) tend to stop improving after 8-10 years. For example Carlsen was over 2800 when he was 18 years old. About 15 years later and his rating is the same.

2) The activities or topics a person needs to improve are not any fun, so the person chooses not to do them and so their rating stays where it is.

And #2 is related to your other question... how far can you get before you start taking things seriously. Well, everyone's level for "now I'm taking it seriously" is different. If you have a burning passion, then it's not hard work yet because it's something you want to do. At some point you'll probably have to switch from passion to willpower, and that point will be different for everyone.

Also, because of natural aptitude, people will general have to "take things seriously" when they start to slow down. So someone who has been at 2500 for years will typically say getting to 2300 or 2400 is simple enough, but after that you have to start working. Meanwhile someone who has been 1500 for years will say the same, but 1000 points lower... and I've literally heard every single rating do this. I heard a 2600  GM say it on Youtube, and Carlsen said it about Wesely So when So was new to the top 10 (he said good openings and tactics are enough to be a top 10 player, but to be really good you have to go beyond that, so time will tell whether So will thrive in the top 10 or not).

Of course not everyone can be 1500. There are people who can't even feed and dress themselves even though they're physically healthy.

Most people can get to 1500, but "most people" don't even get to 100, because they don't play chess, because they find chess boring. 1500 goes beyond just tolerating chess, and requires a non-zero amount of passion that most people simply don't possess. For most people, 1500  OTB requires a few years of playing and learning about chess.

That is a fairly accurate point. I just don't understand why people keep on selling this total lie that reaching 1500 is a piece of piss, and that anyone can reach 2000 within a year. I expect that person I'm referring to will inevitably appear here and try to put me down, as always...

Oh that guy... literally everyone disagrees with him, just ignore him

By the way, when I was really passionate about improving, I was stuck around 1500-1600 for a while (it's normal to have multiple plateaus as you improve) and it was really annoying to me when people online would say "oh yeah, I was 1700 super fast without learning anything, it's so easy to be 1700"

So yeah, just ignore those people. It's normal to be stuck for a while. The 2 main ways to get unstuck if you're under 2000 are:

1) Out of openings, endgames, tactics, and strategy, pick the one you've spent the least time on. Look on Amazon for a well respected book. Ideally a classic that many people like. Study the book with a board. Play though every line of analysis and take notes in a notebook. Study your notebook and re-read parts of the book that were interesting or that you may not remember well.

Hint for #1... you should almost certainly NOT pick openings

2) Play long games (not blitz or bullet) and after each game write down your single biggest mistake. It can be a move or a concept or simply the fact that you played too slowly or quickly. Whatever it is, write down 1 thing per game. As your list grows, you'll discover some mistakes are happening more often than others. This gives you practice playing long games, and lets you know what you need to work on.

Uh, what..just happened? I wasn't aware I was spouting anything or trying to give anyone false hope. I came on here to get some ideas about a legitimate topic. Trying to get an idea what level beginners can expect to plateau before more in depth study and commitment is involved. Sorry if I offended you?

All good points llama, thank you for responding and putting it into words for me. I guess your point about what constitutes serious give me perspective. I realize I was asking an unanswerable question. Really I guess I was just wondering how long I can get away without starting to have to study opening/ lines or read books about positions and stuff. I don't do any of that yet, and I really just kind of wing a couple of "openings" I'm comfortable with. But I imagine once I start to run into people who memorize openings and lines I'll be at a severe disadvantage and growth will stop. Guess I thought maybe there was a consensus when this starts to happen.

Yeah, it's tough to answer, and I'm not aware of any consensus (and I've been posting regularly for 12+ years).

It's probably intimidating when you hear some GM streamer say "oh yes, I had this position against ____ player in ____ tournament and the typical moves are ____"

But route memorization is almost useless because as soon as your opponent plays something you didn't memorize you'll be lost... and route memorization is not how GMs remember games from decades ago. I remember games I played 10+ years ago too... not as well a GMs, but I could tell you the opening, the general flow of the game, and who won... because eventually you know enough about chess that the moves make sense, and it becomes just as unimpressive as roughly remembering the plot of a movie you saw 10 years ago. It's really not a big deal.

So how do you get to the point of moves making sense? Three things: playing a lot, studying strategy, and studying endgames... isn't that nice? No tedious opening study necessary, and you too can say "oh yes, this is just like Fischer vs Spassky in 1972"

And that's the real trick... because if I understand the strategic themes of a position, when you play a move I've never seen before, all I have to do is look at it in the context of those themes. For example if you're white and you start moving towards my king, but I know that's not a normal plan, then I can make the educated guess that your attack wont work... maybe in the short term I should defend, but I know that ultimately I should be able to successfully counter on the other side of the board. Stuff like that.

Purely speaking for myself: I reached around 1300-ish without studies but by playing on and off for 40 years. Since covid I do study and I enjoy that maybe even more then playing. My blitz did not improve but that's logical, I use it to quickly test stuff and for lazy leisure. My rapid did improve and I most probably would have kept on plateau-ing without those studies.

And if you do want to pick up some studies what Ilama36 says in post #9.

I'd guess because they're casual players who play for fun and aren't trying to learn anything. Also, I'm pretty sure that it isn't just 1300, many ratings have a lot of people who have played thousands of games.

Depending on their starting age and talent most people improve to a certain point just by playing. For some it's 1200, for other's 1600... After that "working" on your chess becomes necessary. I guess the majority of players who park on 1300 for xx years never really attempted to study (which is fine, of course). So depending on your time and your motivation to improve it might be necessary to start reading chess books, playing and analyzing slow games, taking lessons, joining a chess club, studying endgames etc...

Just played a person in blitz that plays blitz and only blitz

https://www.chess.com/member/vinyana

You mean they only play blitz on chess.com. You don't know if they're a tournament player, for example.

Also their first rating on the site was 2000 so... obviously they played before having a chess.com account, and they've "only" improved 200 points in 7 years.

There are a lot of people who just enjoy playing.  They do not care about trying to improve and/or do not care about doing the things it would take for them to improve.  It is a hobby and they enjoy just playing.  When you do that, you might improve a little bit, but not significantly.  The simple fact is that what got you to where you are is unlikely to get you to the next step.

For example, tactical mastery is the primary skill needed to approach 2000.  Once you start getting close, you need to start working on other weaknesses: positional understanding, endgames, converting winning positions, saving lost positions.  If someone is stuck at 1300, the most likely reason is simple: they still need to work on their tactics and they either do not realize this or have no interest in doing so.