Can an average person ever break 2000?

All anyone has to do is read this and you will have the answer sorely sort......

No I can't. I will never break 1000. 

Your question answered : )))

I'm a 1200 player: average.

I "usually" think of myself as pretty smart, and can play up a bit from 1200 if I really focus, put in some effort thinking through consequences. There are two really big crutches that are making the game less fun for me though: one, the analysis board and two, memory. The analysis board permits effortless exploration through the various likely possibilities. It turns up your ability if you're willing to put in more time to do the homework, and THAT seems like a short cut to trade effort for skill. By "memory" I mean the ability and effort to memorize the many games and situations. I was depressed to learn there's a book in Russia of all the games, and that part of being great at chess is knowing them. To the extent that my games are scripted (and I suppose they all are, 100%) and my loss is a foregone conclusion provided i were playing a good player who knows the game instead of another chump like me, I find it disheartening. I want chess masters to be geniuses, and skill founded on insight, cunning and bravery, not memorization.  Is there a way to think about it to restore the magic for me?  I have no heart and surely inadequate memory, to start memorizing things like a robot in order to get better.

It must be possible to crack 2000 on this site for an average player.

How do I know?

Earlier today I was dropping off a trophy at my opponent's home when I noticed a comment calling him a rude loser. Not what I'd thought, so I checked out the guy who left the comment.

Well, he was "strong", closing in on 2000, winning over 75% of his games, so beating a 14-1500 player should be easy and go without comment. No need to abuse somebody that you are 95% likely to beat.

But look closely at his stats....best win... 1577.  Average opponent ....1364

What I don't get is how he can get such a high rating. 200pts difference usually comes out as +12 win/+4 draw' -4 loss, and the opposite if you enjoy kicking down to significantly weaker players. This guy is playing 500/600 pts weaker, but somehow his rating goes up. WHY?

We're not talking about this site cus then we would have answered it first page.

Well honestly an average person (me included) might just reach the 2000 elo at chess.com if only those higher rated players wont run out on us lower rated players (in the fear of an upset and lossing rating points).If a 2000 elo or higher would play a 1300 elo guy anytime on this site then it is reachable.

If someone has taken algebra they should be able to solve this problem without needing to remember a trick like that.  And by the way I was never taught that trick :p

You just think it out and write X + X*0.04 = 795 and solve.

Obviously a 2000 rated player can reach 2000 regardless whether or not they decide to play low rated players from that point on.  

On another note that isn't a good way for someone close to 2000 to get there.  I think I am about 50 points from getting(back to) 2000.  So if I only played 1300's it would take me 50 games to reach 2000(and I would have to beat EVERY one).  ON the other hand if I lost one game I would lose about 40-50 point(I have done it before haha)

You've never taken one of those numerical tests, did you?

The math is not hard per se, the real challenge is the time pressure. For example you might have a whole table with 5 different products with a different price and a different percentage increase each, and they ask you to calculate which one was more expensive before the increase.

You have 45 seconds to answer. Consider that the question is written in a way that it'll take you 10-15 sec only to understand what they want. If you don't know all the percentage tricks you'll never make it in time.

Which demonstrates that the test really isn't about intelligence at all. The test giver doesn't care about the person's ability to ask meaningful questions of a problem in order to obtain insightful answers. They care about what "tricks" you were taught.

Yeah that would kinda suck to have to do it so fast.  I'd rather them ask me something really hard and give me 30 minutes or an hour and maybe I can't get it at all, but at least I have a chance to be creative and try to problem solve.

If someone has enough determination there are almost no limits to their ability to achieve. Not accepting the limits our environment insists are there is step one for success. Step two is finding the most productive way to apply that effort. Then just do it! Good luck!

Everybody seriously attempting the tests knows those tricks. Practice helps but you have diminishing returns. Everybody ends up in the same playing field and what eventually makes the difference is intelligence/IQ/ability of your brain to perform.

We might argue that "intelligence" should be even about creativity, thinking outside the box, understanding arts, solving situations completely new, etc.

But chess looks exactly the same as those numerical tests: what that matters is raw calculating power, or I might call it "mathematical performances".

memory is intelligence

"tricks" are knowledge

In chess, memory applies to openings, tactical patterns, endgame techniques. Creativity still comes into play. Nearly every game enters new territory.

There are 10^43 (best estimate) possible chess positions. Every one has a truth (White has the advantage, Black has the advantage, or the game is even). After the opening phase, and sometimes during it, two people playing chess are adding to the sum total of positions that were theoretical, but have become practical. We knew those positions could occur, but until your game, they had not. Will you find the truth during play, or will you rely upon postgame analysis? 

My IQ is 131. This is very average in my family and I will not reach 2000 because I am average. It's a good excuse and I am using it. Cheers!

Well hell.  I kinda' liked the idea before reading the linked articles.

Now, I'm kinda' with Orangey:  inane.

Snake Oil.  Two salesmen below.  Take your pick.

Yes, "Natural Selection" (on humans) largely stopped working following the Neolithic Revolution of 10,000 years ago.

And life expectancy in the U.S. was only 46 years old at the turn of the 20th century.

Cumulative human intelligence continues to grow, rapidly.  Especially during the past 300 years, when societal progress, income, and wealth, started rising like a "hockey stick."

And there's No End in Sight, unless we cook the planet along the way.      

Sorry - No matches were found for NORRIS,TONY   

I couldnt find you on uschess.org 

Found him ...  thanks. 

I usually think of the "average" person as a complete idiot. Probably because of Unnatural Selection!

I mean, for centuries, people would say the dopiest things about (the chess.com taboo subject of) religion and if they gave the wrong answer they were burned to death. So century after century of this adds up to culling the inquisitive and intelligent out of the gene pool, leaving behind people only smart enough to keep their mouths shut. I wish it were different, but it wasn't. I'm amazed anyone can do anything.