Are 2000s really not that good?or are they genius?

The better you get, the more you realize how bad you are

true... well it actually works even for other things.. when you know about something more than average people you also find out that it's more deep than it looks and then you feel like you dont know enough about it at all..

Well, I do wish I was a genius

Yeah, but it's depressing for someone rated 1200 after working hard for months, to read some 2000 guy saying how bad 2000 is.

Obviously the more you learn, the more you realize you don't know, but again, objectively, 2000 is extremely good compared to most people.

Sometimes it's hard to remember... teach a beginner class, and you'll be surprised how bad people are at chess lol

Until you get better, and realize how good you are (following dunning kruger)

Aren't you doing all sorts of advanced class stuff? You're probably pretty smart

So is about half of my grade level, so either we're all geniuses or we aren't 😐

Well sure, there can only be a few actual geniuses.

Part of the reason why when people ask me if I'm good at chess, I just respond with "yes." I don't think half the people that I talk to irl know how much I did to improve. I suppose being humble is good, but everyone I talk to is extremely humble. Keeping the balance

Did you see that one interview, Carlsen said when someone asks him if he knows how to play he just says no "because it's easier that way" lol

I mean, he has a point. If someone doesn't know you're world champion, then they're obviously not a good player.

But yeah, as for what you're saying, the same goes for school work I think. Some people might say "oh you're so smart" but you're thinking "if you studied as much as I did, then of course you'd get an A..."

Also it builds up over time. If you're a good student for 1 year, then it's easier for you to be a good student the next year too vs someone who recently decided to start taking it seriously.

I consider myself not to good of a player and am 2500 blitz. The thing is we are all learning and improving so the only thing that matters Is focusing on developing and improving your play.

The problem that I see with a statement like this is that it (un)intentionally implies that people below your rating shouldn't consider themselves good.

It’s just weird though. Because as someone who just hit 2000, while I get excited and happy at seeing that number next to my name, and while I remember how I used to think about people who were rated 2000 and above, now that I’m sitting on the rating, I still genuinely do not feel like I’m good at chess. I constantly drop details when I’m calculating, I constantly have a hard time figuring out the right plan for a position, I constantly throw away big positional advantages, and I constantly fall for annoying little traps. I definitely recognize myself as better than before, and I feel like I understand square control a lot better than I used to. But other than that, I feel like every win was me bumbling around and then accidentally winning

bro how did you read my mind

I think that if you try really hard to get a rating and achieve it, you are rejoiceful until you remember that you haven't really improved drastically since the last minor milestone, and people at your rating don't seem to be inhumanly good like you used to think they were. At that point you just need to step back and look at your progress, and some of your old games to reinduce self-coonfidence.

If you can say: "I am have become somewhat good at chess due to the hard work I have put in, but there is so much to improve upon that I have barely scratched the surface, and I still have my bad moments to go along with my triumphs," then I think you have the right mindset.

That is why I said I said that it is only important to focus on your own progress.

Not that good

They're actually pretty good. They're really strong. They're unbeatable. 

I've beaten many of them, therefore, I am unbeatable.