having reached a point where I don't hang pieces, can formulate mating patterns, learned the point at which you have gained a solid position and can breath, to develop and not try and force tactics, forcing tactics are always good.. I'd say yes the average person could (but considering the average person I am hoping you mean average chess playing person). With every new thing I learn at some point a game comes along where it is put to use. Now I happen to play chess to often when less then sober so my rating sometimes belies the truth. But if I spent many hours a day fleshing out openings and anaylizing current and key positions.. it'd be a wrap. uh-oh LONG WINDED POST DISCLAIMER
Can an average person ever break 2000?
Sort:
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.
I'd be very proud to play "that poor chess WC Anand is playing"! 
Because it's far above 2000!
I'm not sure if even hard work can make a player to reach 2000. Maybe some can because they were better fighters. Others may not, because they too often blunder! (As for me when I see a game "is won", you can be sure I'm going to spoil and lose it. It's won but the problem is, not every move wins! *complicated game*)
ecause it's far above 2000!
I'm not sure if even hard work can make a player to reach 2000. Maybe some can because they were better fighters. Others may not, because they too often blunder! (As for me when I see a game "is won", you can be sure I'm going to spoil and lose it. It's won but the problem is, not every move wins! *complicated game*)
PIRATCH, yes being able to convert a "won" position into a win is a huge milestone. Not sure what your level is or whom you are playing but not every position you consider to be "won" may actually be. Now blowing a 5 point say knight and two center pawn lead, thats what you need to work on. And I've done it plenty. How often I've been utterly crushed with what I would of considered to be a completely won game Is much to do with my philosophy of chess. Often just achieving a tactical victory in the mid-game is enough for me and I get rushed, start eating my lunch ect. .. and bluner away the game.
Bluebird while I have no doubt that you do in fact work hard, the notion that hardwork alone will get one the title, and by extension anyone who doesn't have it doesn't work hard, is simply wrong.
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.
Yes but the average human doesn't try his best to reach 2000 soo your argument is really.. Just very unthought.
ratings differ a lot......the high rated players at gameknot are no match for much lowly rated players at chess.com....specially blitz....so 2000 is just a number ....there is no guarantee that a player say with a rating of 2000 will defeat anothr with a rating of say 1900
Dec 21, 2012
0
#148
Bluebird1964 wrote:
With respect to Firebrand X and FM Keith Hayward, there must be something fundamentally wrong! Having never seen any of his games it is hard to comment, but too much realiance to so called opening books might be an explanation!
Yes hicetnunc, I only started playing chess in 1982 when I was 18. By the age of 22 I was around 2200 and in 1989/90 although my ELO was only 2260 I was playing to around 2400. But I stopped to concentrate on my Accountancy exams - big mistake. Started playing again in 1999 and again in 2003, at or near 2400. Awarded FM title in 2008. Will be IM within 2 years.
ITS CALLED HARD WORK!
Wow, this is quite impressive ! 
Could you describe a little how you immersed yourself in chess from 1982 to 1986 to go from unrated to 2200 player ? Did you have some special hunger to win ? Did you benefit from a strong chess environment ? Were you relying on computer tools at this time ? (I guess not, as they weren't very developed).
perhaps you could. but theres a price to be paid. so i think it comes down to how bad you want it.
Bluebird1964 wrote:
With respect to Firebrand X and FM Keith Hayward, there must be something fundamentally wrong! Having never seen any of his games it is hard to comment, but too much realiance to so called opening books might be an explanation!
Yes hicetnunc, I only started playing chess in 1982 when I was 18. By the age of 22 I was around 2200 and in 1989/90 although my ELO was only 2260 I was playing to around 2400. But I stopped to concentrate on my Accountancy exams - big mistake. Started playing again in 1999 and again in 2003, at or near 2400. Awarded FM title in 2008. Will be IM within 2 years.
ITS CALLED HARD WORK!
Fundamentally wrong? In your experience how many players who work at it have made it easily from FM to IM? I say easily because your reaction of "fundamentally wrong" suggests that with a lot of work / correct work this transition should be a certainty.
Given your zeal I'm guessing you must have seen seen quite a large number, and surely you're not basing it solely on your personal progress as this is obviously bias for any person to do. (Not to mention you're not an IM yourself).
Bluebird1964 wrote:
That is very similar to the new scientic break through in human brain research. It was believed the human brain stopped growing in adolesence.
New studies suggest otherwise. The brain actually remains plastic throughout the human life span, and that it can also regenerate.
Degeneration has more to do with the "vessel" our body and how we abuse it or look after it. Somebody posted about looking after the body.
Haha, yes, but not nearly as plastic as it is in children.
chess is neither a science nor learned behavior it is a dark art and the avarege person can never break 2000.Most GM's are involved in the occult as it greatly helps to improve their chess.
Bluebird1964 wrote:
Kingpatzer - totally disagree with you 100%. Suggest to you listen to the best chess player EVER Bobby Fischer.
You can disagree with me all you want. You're simply wrong.
That you're a good chess player doesn't in any way make you an expert on human cognition or pedagogy.
There is no doubt deliberate practice in any skill based field will make any person better over time to some degree. But there's absouletly no evidentiary reason to presume that any random "average" person can achieve a skill putting them in the top quintile of a distribution, let alone in the top few percentage points.
I am aware of no case of a single person ever achieving a title who started learning chess past the age of 30. Even the number of people who demonstrated a fair level of talent for the game and acheived the title late in life is increadibly small compared to the total world population of chess players.
Why is this? Simple, the human brain stops developing sometime between the age of 20 adn 25 typically, and past 30 plasticity starts to markedly decrease. While the human brain always retains some plasticity unless diseased or damaged, the amount of plasticity decreases rather steadily once the brain is fully formed.
Information and skills learned past that age are much less frequently intuitively applied.
That doesn't mean a person can't get good at some skill learned past that age, but it does mean they opperate at a significant physical handicap in doing so, and for any given amount of work they will improve less than a neurologically equivilant younger version of themselves.
But even if you could find one such person, that still doesn't prove your thesis that any average person can achieve a title.
To prove that, in the face of the factual evidence of 90% of the chess players who've ever played the game and dilligently studied tactics and read books day in and day out, you'd need to actually present some experimental evidence that suggest that level of skill development is attainable if not in chess than at least in some comparable field.
And, btw, if you do that, I assure you you'll be able to charge a great deal of money for your coaching services . . .
BorrisKarloff wrote:
chess is neither a science nor learned behavior it is a dark art and the avarege person can never break 2000.Most GM's are involved in the occult as it greatly helps to improve their chess.
Could you please provide some material to back up your statement as I am most intrigued by this. In 1990 when the Dali Lama decided to publish the book; The Tibetian book of Living and Dying he was hesitant as the teachings when fully understood can be used as a furtherence in the learning of the Dark Arts. As member of the Theosophical Society and avid reader of the Doctrince's of the occult this has really peaked my curiousity. Without going much further about myself most that know me consider me to be highly empathic. I'm not saying Im some esp genious or psycic but my "gifts" are proven. Chess is a game yes, but one that is very opponent specific. I could see someone practiced in the arts spending their "spritual currency" to gain an edge. Hmmm, in any case ..interesting indeed. Did I mention how awesome this game of chess is!
Great Summing Up, by @Kingpatzer (in post #176), and @FirebrandX too.
@Matthew11 would probably have to block you guys for stealing his thunder.
Great Public Service separating the wheat from (Chess.com forum) chaff.
Keep up the Good Work!
Kingpatzer wrote
I am aware of no case of a single person ever achieving a title who started learning chess past the age of 30. Even the number of people who demonstrated a fair level of talent for the game and acheived the title late in life is increadibly small compared to the total world population of chess players.
Why is this? Simple, the human brain stops developing sometime between the age of 20 adn 25 typically, and past 30 plasticity starts to markedly decrease. While the human brain always retains some plasticity unless diseased or damaged, the amount of plasticity decreases rather steadily once the brain is fully formed. """"
I agree. I am now 38 and have studied chess a bit. Lines like the QGA or QGD used to be easy for me to play when I was in my teens and with much success. Now with marked more study and play I just don't have the spark I used to. I love chess and this will not deter me from trying to grow and get better myself but attaining a level like 2200 in OTB play I think is rather unlikely for me. What do you think if I devoted 30-40 hours a week for a year with study and also some time with a proffesional coach to validate my thinking? what is a realistic goal.
I'm sure his reasoning is better than the laughably absurd "I'm probably going to do it in 2 years therefore anyone could do it."
In fact that he hasn't done it himself and that he is empirically so wrong leads me to believe his evidence must be extraordinary. While some may keep this a secret, given how outspoken he's been in this topic I'm sure he'll be excited to share his discoveries with us.
Kingpatzer wrote:
Bluebird1964 wrote:
Kingpatzer - totally disagree with you 100%. Suggest to you listen to the best chess player EVER Bobby Fischer.
You can disagree with me all you want. You're simply wrong.
...
I am aware of no case of a single person ever achieving a title who started learning chess past the age of 30. Even the number of people who demonstrated a fair level of talent for the game and acheived the title late in life is increadibly small compared to the total world population of chess players.
Why is this? Simple, the human brain stops developing sometime between the age of 20 adn 25 typically, and past 30 plasticity starts to markedly decrease. While the human brain always retains some plasticity unless diseased or damaged, the amount of plasticity decreases rather steadily once the brain is fully formed.
...
What about Larry Kaufman (born 1947) who became GM by winning the senior WC in 2008?
Even in Switzerland we had a player (above 30) who reached 2 GM norms. The only reason he did not receive a title was the to low ELO (for FM 2300, IM 2400, GM 2500) over a sevral period of time. That leads to a temporary absence of playing for those players who have the norms and don't want to be below this ELO-barrier again ...
@PIRATCH
You're saying Larry Kaufman didn't start learning chess until after the age of 30?
If not, re-read the text you quoted of kingpatzer's.
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
Robin, to help feeding this thread with more data, could you tell us what your rating curve has been ? When did you start competition chess ? When did you cross 1400, 1600 and so on - and what is your age today ?