What’s a decent rating progression for beginners?

Worth noting that a master in Lasker's time (1890s-1920s) is probably about at the level of a 1400 today.  (Exaggerating, but in truth it's probably somewhere in the range that today we'd call "club level.")

@tygxc

I find that this mental discipline goes far beyond 1500! I (and my opponents) make plenty of one move blunders in pretty much every rapid game at my level.  

A solid 2100 Elo club player will destroy and make blunder badly in the first 25 moves most level 1800 here...

#22
A 'master' in Lasker's time corresponds to a grandmaster in present day lingo.
By 'on par with a master' is meant such that a grandmaster cannot give odds, i.e. a strength around 2000.
The quality of games by Lasker far exceeds the quality of present day IM.
Here is an example:
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1258181

No present day IM would pull that off.

Go at your own pace, study the game as you enjoy it and see how much progress you make in a month or two. Generally below 1000 you can expect fast improvement, after that it slows down and month to month +-100-200 rating is reasonable. After 1600 you will slow down significantly.

You will also eventually plateau as your brain becomes less receptive and "bored" with the game. But as you take a break and regain interest and study correctly you will improve. Stick with the game and play to have fun and learn. It's very rewarding to improve and see progress.

Where did you get that number from? How do I say this is a dumb comment without sounding offensive?

On a bad day Lasker would be at least the equivalent of a 2500 today

A very good "club level" player (chess expert) is 2000-2200... and they play at a level that is lower than names you should look up such as Tarrasch, Chigorin, Rubinstein, Schlecter, Pilsbury, Nimzowich, Spielmann, tartakower, marshall, etc etc...

1400 players have trouble calculating forced variants that are more than 5 moves long and these mfers were doing blindfold simuls 

Even players before Steinitz played at a level above 2000... Blackburne, Anderssen, Lowenthal, Paulsen, Harwitz, Staunton, Bird, Barnes, Zukertort, Saint-Amant, La Bourdonaiss... not to mention morphy... philidor without all the theory that developed after his time would still probably be at least the equivalent of a 2200...

I'm not sure what Lasker's skill has to do with what you quoted.  The "master" title, at the beginning of the 20th century, was fragmented and poorly defined and covered players who were nowhere near Lasker's level.  Even today, 2200 is the standard for receiving a national master title from, say, USCF.

If Lasker said anything like that 200 hours of anything would make someone play at or near a "master" level (which was the putative quote above we were discussing) he certainly would  not mean that they would be competitive with him for the World Champion title, and would have been referring to these lesser "masters."

For the record, I am dubious that he said that in any case.

And no, not 1400s.  I said straight-up that I was exaggerating, come on!

Edit:  I should know better than to apply sarcasm or make a subtly joking comment in a multilingual community like this.  Sorry.

I simply mentioned Lasker's skill to roughly compare him to today's GMs strength...

Today's GM title covers players who are nowhere near Carlsen's level... it's always been like that

But kudos on cutting my message in half and ignoring the part where I explain why what you said doesn't make sense, whether it's 1400 or 2200... in time, all those names I mentioned were chess masters, way stronger than most (if not all) of todays USCF NM... but I do apologize for inferring your comment was dumb, that was unnecessary on my part

As far as Lasker's quote, I find it dubious as well lol, especially the way it was presented here... we would have to go back in time and ask him what he meant to know more precisely... but I find it believable that someone with some proper training (probably a bit more than 200 hours though), even if they have no special talent, can make it to 2000, maybe even 22-2300 ish

That is WAY different from blundering almost every move.  

But the average strength of your opponent is only 868 at rapid and you played 4890 games in total.

That is a lot of games in 9 months,it's 18 games per day.

Of course there is nothing wrong with that.

Congratulations it's a nice progress.

700 rapid for a guy which only played for a month is already really good. I played for 1 year and a month and somehow reached 1870 rapid and 2000 bullet. But I don't recommend bullet if you want to improve.

Your performance is so far beyond the norm that you're either young (under 22 years old, like cellen01 up there), or exceptionally talented at chess, or both.

Some peoples have awesome memory and learn a lot faster than us the average human being.

I remember when i was learning programming,there was a guy that was beside me and he was easily two times faster than me at understanding and memorizing everything and i'm pretty good.

Some peoples are really talented and focused like my nephew. 

Yeah, but performance like those posters describe is relatively common among younger players and nearly completely unknown among adults over about 25.

comment

I quite agree with this one. But you have to not just play chess games and also explore more using chess book and engine.

This quote is a lie. Here is the real quote

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/stop-misquoting-carlsen

Definitely. To go from 600 to 2000 in 2.75 years, I spent a lot of time on puzzles/tactics and endgames. Game analysis was also important, especially with a stronger player/coach to make sense of better ideas.