Can an average person ever break 2000?

Good to see the Unabomber got rid of that old typewriter.

as well you should have, lmao

My top five Scotches, in no particular order: Lagavulin, Macallan, Laphroig, Talisker, and Oban. Currently pouring Templeton Rye.

@Ziryab can you recommend me a good bourbon?

yea and penguins and cat's play chess; the mess'd up thing is Im getting requests to change it back.  

lol

Someone help me, I'm not alcoholic enough to love scotch yet.

Scotch is a big money-saver early on. One will last the whole night.

My camera wasn't working and had just got new computer ect. . so one thing led to another and I had a picture of Liz Vicious playing chess and then this last one.  I figured most people with half a brain would figure it to be a farce.  But, lately its was like a full time job blocking people so figured I better find a more appropriate photo.  For the record I never proffessed to be female I mean like this chick would play chess

with that, good nite, enjoy your constitutionals and let me know if you ever figure out if Obama could become a titled chess player..

Absolutely I can see that woman playing chess!  A lot of hot "club girl" types play chess.  That's one of the reasons that the game has remained popular for centuries.  What kind of girls do you think Andre Philidor was hanging out with in Paris, huh?

Thanks Scorpion, great comparison and supporting evidence.

So ELO 2000 is roughly 3 hour Marathon... That's tough.

In any event, even with abilities (not average), it would need lots of training.

Smooth and sweet, and good value: Woodford Reserve

My standard: Wild Turkey Rare Breed

Most valued, due to difficulty procuring: Dry Fly http://www.dryflydistilling.com/bourbon/

Waffle: im not talking about wisdom, but rather reasoning and problem solving.  At least here in the Arkansas where data is taught in school, but not procedure and principle.  So that kids cannot grasp the processes needed to solve problems, but rather how to look up data use it, and discard it.

It's pretty hard to get kids to think critically about a problem, but I know what you're saying.  Maybe a product of the no child left behind stuff?  Teach to the slowest student?

There is also laziness.  We have a standing challenge to kids in our group.  Write out how to calculate a random number using algebraic principles and you win $50.  In seven years 2 schools, ad 3 churches not one kid has ever tried even though they could have just looked it up on the internet and made an easy $50.  That is the kind of thing  I mean.

Any truly good educator can tell you how backwards our school system is.

That said, technology tends to be a good thing. It creates a much higher potential for learning. After all... if it weren't for the internet, we wouldn't be having this lovely discussion.

I blame the schools. They create this sense of apathy and suck the passion out of life and learning. I can tell you, though, I would have won that 50 dollars.

I don't think I really would call that laziness.  I remember when I was a kid all of that grown-up stuff seemed to be from another realm, and it was not clear that we young-uns would be allowed in there.  And then too what if it all turned out to be some sort of educator's trick? 

I think after 648 posts I have a definitive answer.

It is impossible for an average* adult** person*** to reach 2000****.

If an adult person reaches 2000 they have shown they are not average.

Oh?  We're changing the discussion to what is normal? No, a normal person doesn't spend his days playing chess obsessively.

I hope I answered the question.*****

*Average in this case means  someone who falls within the middle two-thirds of the bell-curve. Which bell-curve? I dunno. The one that measures averageness, I guess.

**Adult in this case means someone who is mentally mature. Oh, wait. That doesn't work on a chess site. Ok. Ummm. How about a person who is currently between the ages of 18 and 128?  Errm... in earth years. Yes, counting leap years. Oh. ... I didn't consider emotional age.

***Person in this case refers to a sentient human. No, Engines do not count as persons in 2012 and I doubt they will count as such in 2013 either. Cats?  Cats is stupid. Dogs?  Well, I guess it depends on the dog.

****2000in this case is 2000 USCF. Yes, the official United States Chess Federation. Which rating? USCF has more than one rating system?  Hmmm. Ok. Standard over-the-board rating. No, correspondence rating is not standard. I know chess.com considers online rating to be more important than live ratings. We're talking about USCF. Oh?  Chess.com doesn't actually have a position about which is more important or legitimate?  I learned something. Do provisional ratings count?  No. They're provisional. What if someone does what?  Throw all their games to get somebody an artificially high rating?  Well, if you allow cheating the discussion kinda loses its point, doesn't it?

*****But I realise this thread will probably go on for another 100+ posts before dissipating into the ether.

Lol