Can ANYONE reach say 2000

Hello,

i have a question, sorry if it has been asked already, i can't find it..

Can even adults with no special skills for chess reach 2000 with some work, or is it 'either you have it "inside you", and with some work it'll come, or you don't have it and forget about it"

i started playing chess late (at around 20y.old), just for fun on the internet, i quickly reached about 1700 and i'm now 25 but never improved and i'm still 1700..

now i'm willing to spend more time and work and play in real life tournament to finally reach 2000... if that's possible.

I believe that with training anyone can get to 2000

Absolutely

Agreed! Everyone can reach 2000, though for some it comes quicker than for others.

As for myself, 2000 is my goal for next year. I'll reach 1850 OTB in the next rating list. The problem is, I think my game has improved greatly over the last year, but it does not yet come out in my tournament play.

You probably still need to adjust your play to would you've learned.

I have encountered the same problem, even dropped before going up.

I know, but I play better in my games, though not consistent enough. In my experience as a chess teacher, I think it takes (young) chess players about 3 months to apply what they have learned in their games.

Sure, just put in the effort. I started late too (around 20), 10 years later I'm now rated 2080 FIDE.

Heck, I'm 65; just started "studying" chess a year ago and I plan on becoming a titled player before I die.  Realistic, probably not, but if it keeps my mind sharp I'll be happy.  At 25, you won't make GM, but 2000 ?  Why not?  You've got a diamond membership.  It's not like there are no training resources available.  Figure out where you are weak and work on it.

Of course everyone can reach 2000, it just takes alot of work.

I certainly admire your optimism and of course there is always the exception that proves the rule, but the consensus on the forum (I'm retired so I've read a lot of threads) is that unless you are a titled player by your teens, you just won't make GM.  Apparently you are just too far behind your peers and can never catch up.  It's not my opinion; I'm just parroting the consensus of previous threads.  A titled player?  Sure, at almost any age.  GM is a different animal altogether.

 I don't think you have to start as a child to become a grand master. I think it will be easier if you start as a child though. Many studies (including a recent one and ones from 200 years ago) show that it takes a human being on average about 10 years to master a skill. I think most adults just aren't ready to put in that time and effort to bring themselves all the way to GM status if they start at say 20-30 years old.

Also parents who really want a child to be good get them a coach who spends a lot of time with them to perfect their skills. How many adults take the time (and money) to do that?

I don't think there is anything a person can master starting in childhood that someone can't master starting in adult hood.

there is a benifit to starting Later, You are more willing to listen to advice, and you will probably not be discouraged by losses. (I am actualy encouraged when I loose because now I am out for Revenge, and I learn more from losses than wins)

Well, let's hope WGM Natalia Pogonina is still reading this thread.  I'm certainly willing to accept her opinion as gospel.  I have certainly been wrong before (and will be again, often), but I think you guys are underestimating the difficulty of becoming a GM.  I hope you all prove me wrong and become Grandmasters some day.

 that is one of my goals

here are the others

Bowl a 900 set

Record a toop 10 single

become and engineer

Live in Seattle

Have a Family

 I think you are reading it wrong. It is certainly very tough to become a GM. Most children who play chess will never see the rank of GM, same with most adults who play chess. I'm simply saying I do not believe that because you don't start playing chess seriously as a child you are now prevented from ever achieving GM.

I don't think age plays a roll in the ability to make it, the person does. Olympics for example are typically seem as a young persons game because almost everything is a physical competition so age certainly plays a roll. Yet last olympics there was the older lady who started training to become a professional swimmer later in life and she did well.

I simply don't believe starting chess later in life would ever block a person who has GM potential from becoming a GM.

GM Anand "Nowadays, when you're not a grandmaster at 14, you can forget about it".  OK, I've obviously taken this quote out of context-GM Anand was talking about competing on the world stage, in effect becoming a superGM.  Nevertheless it points out his opinion of the grave difficulty of starting late and becoming great.  I'm afraid we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.  And yes, I am aware of the absurdity of this whole discussion.  An old patzer arguing with class players about who can and can't become a GM? 

 My reply,

The man who claims something is impossible is often interrupted by the man doing it.

Everyone can get as good as they work hard enough to be. You just have to work at it.

Practice makes perfect!  If one puts in the necessary hours, and dedicate oneself to the task of becoming a 2000 level chess player, then and only then will one obtain the rating of a 2000 player.  You have to believe in yourself.  Play alot of chess.  Record your games.  Study your loses, wins, and drawn games.

If you mean "can" in the strictest sense of the word, I'd say yes, barring genuine cognitive issues which would make it unreasonable. But for one person it might take 5 hours a day of study and play for 5 years, for someone else it might take 1 hour a day for 2 years, it's going to vary wildly.

I did see one idea which apparently works as a general rule for players 2,000 or over, which is that your rating ceiling is 2000 plus 10 x (your IQ-100). For example, if your IQ is 130, your ceiling might be 2000 plus 10x30, which is 2300. But I think their sample sizes were small, and it's only a generalisation, there will still be outliers.