Can an average person ever break 2000?

Yes, "average" is not defined. I don't know that the words "average", or "normal" can be applied to free beings. You can successfully apply an average to a statistic, but to call an actual human being "average", really makes no sense. Since you are not asking what the average is of a human being being rated 2000 in chess, but instead assuming some imaginary average human being, then I would say there is a misunderstanding of the applicable use of the term, "average", from my view.

You can apply the term average to 'free beings', trysts. If you had complete information about every single person in the world, then you could come up with any kind of average you could think of.

I guess the OP is implying 'average intelligence', which is obviously impossible to really define (IQ tests don't measure intelligence, they measure ability to perform IQ tests).

But how can you ever get complete information about a being that can change it's mind, Tmb86?

A USCF rating of 2000 is roughly the 96th percentile of active tournament players in the country, of which there are about 55,000 people.

USCF 1300 is roughly the 70th percentile.

But there are 35,000 "kids" (defined as under the age of 20, I believe), and that alters the various means, averages, and the 50th percentile.

So, on balance, NO, don't expect "the average person" to break USCF 2000.

Sorry, "Just Ain't Gonna Happen."    

For all those people who argue that a person with average intellect and average desire can break 2000, what is keeping these people from achieving that goal?

As Reb and I have said, our experience is that people with intellectually demanding careers such as doctors, lawyers, teachers, and businessmen rarely break +2000 USCF even when they are on sabbatical or retired and working to improve their chess. These are people I would describe as above average both in intellect and desire.

What are all these people doing wrong?

If you can complete an decent B.A. or M.A. degree, you can probably break USCF 1600, or perhaps even USCF 1800, given enough time.

This assumes you are willing to do focused and intense study, plus practice, plus OTB competition, for a least a couple years.

Most people will "give up," very early on.  They (probably) have better ways to use their leisure time.  Nuff said?  

Si difficile que ca?

I certainly hope that a normal person putting the right time and effort can reach 1900-2000 level.

It's what I would like to reach: I would feel something about chess has stick with me

Not only will a player break 2500 for $100,000,000, a 2500 player will gladly

drop to 1600 for the same amount of money.

Life changes dramatically once you break USCF 1800.  That's the top 10th percentile of USCF players, and they account for fully 50 percent of the OTB tournament games played in the U.S.

These are very busy guys, and no fun to tangle with.  They devote LOTS OF TIME to the game, and they play to win!  

Every 400 rating interval represents a qualitative leap in your "chess skills."  Moving from an 1800 rating to a 2600 rating requires two rather massive leaps in your skill level.

Getting above USCF 2000 will remain very difficult, regardless of your intelligence, or career sucess.  Only 4 percent of active tournament players (in the U.S.) are above that level, and these guys are very active.

I don't think the very flawed assumption of an "average chess player", which is really an "average human being", can be neglected in answering the question. I don't think allowing imaginary beings called "average", makes any sense. Therefore I don't think it is "dribble", DagHardin, to question the question itself

@Trysts is correct, only Yogi the Bear qualifies as "average."

The OP's question is (indeed) poorly specified, and kinda dumb to boot.  

2000 is not that high. The reason why many people don't reach this level is that they never really tried to work on chess, not just play. I know many players with 1700-1800 rating who don't even know names of openings, they just calculate, know some simple plans and that's all. My first official FIDE rating was 1982 and I started as adult (22 years old), first played only online and after two years learning (I'm totaly self-taught), I decided to try otb and got that rating. The problem is that after three years I have 1925 ELO, so I guess I'm not improved very much although I'm trying to work on chess, but not very consistently. So for me the question is 'can average person ever break f.e. 2200 fide' and I hope that answer is 'yes'

"But how can you ever get complete information about a being that can change it's mind, Tmb86?"

Well... personally I'm not completely convinced that free will isn't an illusion, Trysts - albeit a very convincing one. Maybe if you had complete information you'd know how I was going to change my mind?

But even if it it isn't, I don't think that would mean you couldn't have complete information about someone, you just wouldn't be able to predict exactly how they are going to act. 

"For all those people who argue that a person with average intellect and average desire can break 2000, what is keeping these people from achieving that goal?"

Has anyone said that? I think I represent both of those categories and I can't break 1500 live - at a push I might one day make 1700, maybe. To reach 2000 I think I'd have to be seriously dedicated.

Average intellect*, above average dedication - yes.

Above average intellect , average dedication - yes

otherwise no

*at least, possessing those mental characteristics of relevence to the game. 

That would be the answer to the question - "Can all of us on chess.com simultaneously reach 2000?" - which would be hard, as you say.

Another breath of sanity (in post #81, above).  Thank you, Mssr. Gottlieb.

There is nothing "average" about a 2000 USCF rating.  Even less so a 2000 FIDE rating.  Stop dreaming and get with the program.

@TommyB86 are you really a physics student or just pretending?

Stop smoking that BC bud, and hitting the spiked egg nog.  The holidays are no excuse for lazy thinking.  

Okay, so I just want to make sure; are we agreeing that an "average person" exists only in the imagination? 

If you break the 2000 barrier, you no longer even meet the philosophical construct of an "average person," at least where chess is concerned.

"Okay, so I just want to make sure; are we agreeing that an "average person" exists only in the imagination? "

My stance is that there are such things as average characteristics. You can be of average height, or average weight, or maybe even both. Combining every possible characteristic into the 'average person' is probably beyond reasonable. I don't see any reason that just because we are talking about mental characteristics that should be any different... but it will certainly be harder to quantify.

p.s. I am an avid fan of yours since the gg thread. ;) 

I haven't read back through since yesterday but I'm glad that the first one I read is about quantifyably defining "average."  I thought to myself, 'In true chess player fashion, I bet someone might even do a thorough statistical analysis what it means to be a person of average intellect'. I suppose if you have the right data you could come up with some fairly accurate predictions.