either did not take the time to read the posts before commenting or just didn't understand them. Perhaps if your totally average rating where above the 2000 mark your statement would carry some wieght. 2000 being just a round number and all it should be no problem for you to cross. Think thats something you can master? if not why, enlighten me with your average insights and above average means...
Rating: 1474 (Online Chess)
All you AVERAGE losers need to stop thinking you're going to be masters. Masters are masters because they are masters. Average players are averages players because they are average players. Masters cannot become average players, and average players cannot become masters. An average player playing masterfully is no longer average, and a master playing averagely is no longer masterful. It is imperitive that all you masterfully average morons stop pretending to be more than average and believing that you can achieve masterhood through average means. It takes true mastering to become the master average that most average players try to master. It CERTAINLY isn't 2000 because that's a round number.
Every master was an average player at some point in his chess career.
Your logical reasoning abilities are well below average, but your rudeness is well above.
Disagree with him all you like, but you can't deny he has a very positive attitude! :)
It's not pathetic, when given the choice it's the best way to think I suspect. It's cliche but if you aim high and fall short you've still made it very far. And if you tell yourself you can't, then you definitely wont.
All you AVERAGE losers need to stop thinking you're going to be masters. Masters are masters because they are masters. Average players are averages players because they are average players. Masters cannot become average players, and average players cannot become masters. An average player playing masterfully is no longer average, and a master playing averagely is no longer masterful. It is imperitive that all you masterfully average morons stop pretending to be more than average and believing that you can achieve masterhood through average means. It takes true mastering to become the master average that most average players try to master. It CERTAINLY isn't 2000 because that's a round number.
Every master was an average player at some point in his chess career.
Your logical reasoning abilities are well below average, but your rudeness is well above.
Uri, every satellite launch started off below the speed limit.
DippinChicken isn't rude, he's Australian
Chicken.....you make my brain hurt
Most good players seem to have something in common
1.they were born with a silver spoon in their mouth
2.have had a very easy ride in life
could an average person break 2000?
no I don't think so because we have more than our hair to worry about
Kingpatzer is obviously using a different definition of "strong" from the rest of us. Nobody is claiming it's realistic to learn the moves at 30 and become 2700. Any titled player is "strong" to me.
Let's be realistic here, 2000 is not really that amazing of a rating. An average smart fella can reach it with enough practice. It is NOT impossible. However GM might be.
I don't know. I hope that 2000 is possible with a lot of hard work and effort - my gut feeling is that it is but I don't have any evidence to add to this, just that hard work and dedication goes a long way in life I think. I'm aiming for 1800 standard. Surely that is possible with a lot of hard work and effort? And then if that is, is not the extra 200 points possible with lots of hard work on top of that? 
Well I know what I am capable of when:
1) I am playing and
2) Putting in the effort
Players like Blalock, I would turn up and dismiss.
What are you trying to say exactly ? Don't be shy . I simply point out that you play so very little that your boast is highly unlikely to be fulfilled , but not impossible ofcourse. To make IM you must be very serious about chess and serious chess players don't go 9 years without playing. Also , your current age is going to make it more difficult to achieve goals in chess . You are 48 so stamina is going to be a factor .
All you AVERAGE losers need to stop thinking you're going to be masters. Masters are masters because they are masters. Average players are averages players because they are average players. Masters cannot become average players, and average players cannot become masters. An average player playing masterfully is no longer average, and a master playing averagely is no longer masterful. It is imperitive that all you masterfully average morons stop pretending to be more than average and believing that you can achieve masterhood through average means. It takes true mastering to become the master average that most average players try to master. It CERTAINLY isn't 2000 because that's a round number.
Every master was an average player at some point in his chess career.
Your logical reasoning abilities are well below average, but your rudeness is well above.
agreed. and chicken my rating was not at issue, although I see its up a few points this am. I don't think anyone was or at least myself is pretending to be some chess guru. It was just a curious topic. If the average chess player stopped everything, you know forget the kids, quit the job and retired from the historical society, what could be expected in terms of rating and title. A mindless rant about acorn's not be oak tree's and if a master got hit in the head really really hard would he then be average,.., was pointless.
Kingpatzer is obviously using a different definition of "strong" from the rest of us. Nobody is claiming it's realistic to learn the moves at 30 and become 2700. Any titled player is "strong" to me.
I'm not talking about 2700 players. I'm talking about titled players.
Have you ever read FM Martin Weteschnik's tactics book? One of my favourite chess books. He learned chess as an adult.
I don't think an average player can ever reach 2000 on chess.com. If you do then they will claim you are cheating and lock your account and put you on a cheating list.
On a tangential note....
I've noticed that on another site I have a significantly better record against IMs in casual games than I do against FMs in similar casual games.
I estimate that my performance against
NMs (that I know are NMs) ~50%
FMs ~25%
IMs ~33%
GMs ~15%
My working theory is that the FMs on that other site are younger and hungrier than IMs, especially in casual games. Have others also noticed that FMs seem to play better in casual games than IMs do?
,
Any average player can become an IM with effort.
If he or she works like a dog for 2 - 3 years (and I mean 6 - 8 hours a day), develops a very sound opening repertoire as black - has a balanced repertoire with white (be prepared to play lines to try and seize the initiative) you WILL succeed. Im a 2300 FM and to be perfectly honest in 1989/90 had I "pushed on" I would have made GM. Now I am going after my IM title which I will get within the next 2 years. So yes, if you put the time in you will be rewarded.
FM Robin Moss
http://ratings.fide.com/id.phtml?event=401331
I doubt seriously you will make IM in 2 years given this graph of yours that shows how little you play . It appears that you didnt play for several years then in 2003 after making FM and a 2300 rating you dropped your rating in your very next event and havent played since then .
hahahawesome
Attention NM Reb! You can doubt all you like, having not played for such a long time will not cause me any problems at all. My rating fell in 2003 because I just "played". No work, no prep. I WILL be IM by the end of 2014, fact.
haha you're impressive.
I think most people are capable of achieving a 2000 rating, some would have to put more work into it than others.
Breaking the 2000 rating is not impossible for the average chess player. But he must really study long hours. Hiring a chess coach would even increase his chance.