Maybe I should :p
Can an average person ever break 2000?
Sort:
DippinChicken wrote:
How can an average person break 2000 when 2000 isn't an average rating for players? If you really were a 2000+ rated player you wouldn't be AVERAGE anymore. That's what average means... mediocrity, ordinary, middle. Stop asking ridiculous questions.
the question is can an average person break 2000, not does the average person, stop posting ridiculous opinions.
I suppose what is being said is that once you get an above average score you are no longer an average person which makes sense to a degree.
How does that then correspond with everything else in life though? If you are above average at chess but below average at 100 other activities, does that balance out to mean that you are actually a less than average person or, do you believe that your chess rating still makes you a better than average person?
jv1 wrote:
DippinChicken wrote:
How can an average person break 2000 when 2000 isn't an average rating for players? If you really were a 2000+ rated player you wouldn't be AVERAGE anymore. That's what average means... mediocrity, ordinary, middle. Stop asking ridiculous questions.
the question is can an average person break 2000, not does the average person, stop posting ridiculous opinions.
Keep it nice!!
I fell in love with this game in November. I can't stop playing it, reading about it, watching videos about it, studying it, etc...on and on. While my rating is currently not reflective of my actual playing ability yet (I need to get 20 rated games in for that), but I feel like I truly understand the game and have decent instincts. I KNOW (not maybe) that I can reach 2000 and I will (I am in my early 30's too....but I don't believe older people cant get to high playing levels...nonsense!). I work very hard at chess and I am developing quickly. My strength is tactics at this point and I am working hard to develop this strength early. I am finally just now starting to see the relationship between tactics and strategy. They are intimately intertwined. So, I am paying my dues but seeing big returns.....
Sorry...rambling....it is 7am where I am... :)
2000 baby....
Genghiskhant wrote:
I suppose what is being said is that once you get an above average score you are no longer an average person which makes sense to a degree.
How does that then correspond with everything else in life though? If you are above average at chess but below average at 100 other activities, does that balance out to mean that you are actually a less than average person or, do you believe that your chess rating still makes you a better than average person?
If you are above average at chess but below average in 100 other activities than taking those 101 activities into account consider yourself a 'below average' person.
Dec 20, 2012
0
#48
It means quite a bit of work. Players above 1800 are generally tough to beat. I got to 1950 OTB, but started to notice the fun going out of chess. A better question is can anyone of reasonable intelligence become a GM. Through a lot of hard work and self-sacrifice I think it is possible. For an Adult just taking up the game, the odds are really against it. As we age our spatial reasoning ability tends to decline. That's why when you get over 40 at the very top level it is extremely diffilcult to stay on top. This is why Kasparov retired when he did and witness the poor chess the present WC Anand is playing.
To compensate, the older player has to be in good physical condition. I don't see that being mentioned in any of the posts, but its very important at the top level. That together with a good diet with lots of protein and nutrition.
naturalproduct wrote:
I fell in love with this game in November. I can't stop playing it, reading about it, watching videos about it, studying it, etc...on and on. While my rating is currently not reflective of my actual playing ability yet (I need to get 20 rated games in for that), but I feel like I truly understand the game and have decent instincts. I KNOW (not maybe) that I can reach 2000 and I will (I am in my early 30's too....but I don't believe older people cant get to high playing levels...nonsense!). I work very hard at chess and I am developing quickly. I am paying my dues and seeing big returns.....
play me!!!
JamesSneller brings some sensibility to the topic...but the phrase 'reasonable intelligence' is troubling me...
JamesSneller wrote:
It means quite a bit of work. Players above 1800 are generally tough to beat. I got to 1950 OTB, but started to notice the fun going out of chess. A better question is can anyone of reasonable intelligence become a GM. Through a lot of hard work and self-sacrifice I think it is possible. For an Adult just taking up the game, the odds are really against it. As we age our spatial reasoning ability tends to decline. That's why when you get over 40 at the very top level it is extremely diffilcult to stay on top. This is why Kasparov retired when he did and witness the poor chess the present WC Anand is playing.
To compensate, the older player has to be in good physical condition. I don't see that being mentioned in any of the posts, but its very important at the top level. That together with a good diet with lots of protein and nutrition.
James:
This would be a great forum post all in of its own. I am reading how important nutrition and exercise was to the Soviets. Would you like to start a forum topic? Either that or I will because I'm not convinced that exercise has a big role to play, even though nutrition does.....I know I must be mistaken here, because the GM's and the Soviets use these two repertoires in their training...so...
Mike
DJAbacus wrote:
Genghiskhant wrote:
I suppose what is being said is that once you get an above average score you are no longer an average person which makes sense to a degree.
How does that then correspond with everything else in life though? If you are above average at chess but below average at 100 other activities, does that balance out to mean that you are actually a less than average person or, do you believe that your chess rating still makes you a better than average person?
If you are above average at chess but below average in 100 other activities than taking those 101 activities into account consider yourself a 'below average' person.
So then a 'below average' person could reach 2000 rating by that logic.
Yes, see your point, but I guess the skills related to getting a rating to 2000 would need to be above average, whereas non chess related skills such as 'Singing' and ' Pastry making' can be a low as possible. I am indeed well below average in both of these areas.
Don't sell yourself short, I bet you make a mean Quiche
Dec 20, 2012
0
#55
I once had a conversation with an avid chess player who was also a college professor. Obviously, he has above average intelligence. I had thought, along with Emmanuel Lasker, that anyone can become a master, or at least an expert, with enough work.
He disagreed. He pointed out that he studied chess regularly but never got above ~1800 USCF. Chess does reward talent. I've seen numerous very intelligent people study chess and never get above 1800. They may be able to improve somewhat with better coaching, but +2000 is rarified air.
Few players will ever get above 2000 even if they have above-average intellect and above-average desire.
Dec 20, 2012
0
#56
SmyslovFan wrote:
I once had a conversation with an avid chess player who was also a college professor. Obviously, he has above average intelligence. I had thought, along with Emmanuel Lasker, that anyone can become a master, or at least an expert, with enough work.
He disagreed. He pointed out that he studied chess regularly but never got above ~1800 USCF. Chess does reward talent. I've seen numerous very intelligent people study chess and never get above 1800. They may be able to improve somewhat with better coaching, but +2000 is rarified air.
Few players will ever get above 2000 even if they have above-average intellect and above-average desire.
Imagine how much time a college proffesor has to study the game...
@SmyslovFan, that's assuming that intelligence is just a 'level'. Real-life intelligence is multi-dimensional and multi-faceted. A college professor is likely to be an all-round very clever person, but it doesn't automatically follow from that that chess will be one of the things they become good at. Nobody is good at everything.
I need for " average person " to be defined . The average rating of all USCF tournament players is significantly below 2000 , so achieving a rating of 2000 and better is certainly not an easy task . In my life I have known many people of above average intelligence who were also addicted to tournament chess . They were Doctors, Lawyers, Chemists , Teachers/Professors and most of them never got above A class ( 1800-1999 ) and a few never made it above B class ( 1600-1799 ) . I also believe the " average " tournament player is better than 99% of all " social " players . I think the current average tournament player ( USCF ) is 1500-1600 but havent checked recently .... If you check ratings by state ( USA ) you might be surprised to see how few there are over 2000 in each state . http://main.uschess.org/datapage/top-players.php
I think if an average person is offered $100.000.000 for achieving 2500 rating in 5 years (without cheating=), he will manage it.
DippinChicken wrote:
How can an average person break 2000 when 2000 isn't an average rating for players? If you really were a 2000+ rated player you wouldn't be AVERAGE anymore. That's what average means... mediocrity, ordinary, middle. Stop asking ridiculous questions.
It's a perfectly reasonable question. I would try to be less rude if I were you, seeing as you're not capable of understanding simple concepts yourself.
1. Average person doesn't necessarily mean average rating.
2. Someone who currently has an average rating may or may not be able to improve to 2000, that's the question.
Personally I think the answer's yes. For 'the average' person I think the task involves a great deal of study though. I'm extremely average and after 3 years of no study, but playing and solving tactics problems daily I seem to have levelled out around 1450.
It's not about an average chess player. It is about an average person deciding they want to take up chess and reach a rating of 2000 by working hard and devoting time.
Since a persons worth, be it above or below average, is not determined by their ability at chess, your point doesn't really hold up.
So can the 'average' person take up chess and get to a rating of 2000?
I guess that depends whether they have an 'above average' chess ability and an 'above average' will to achieve this.