Debate Topic: Can ANYBODY reach 2000?

you've been on this site for a while then

looking at @ravi28750 's blitz stats, you can see that he is 1547 blitz and 96th percentile.

this is because the site has grown exponentially over the years and many more casual players are joining

another thing you have to take into account is when someone starts chess. If you're too old when you start it's unlikely that you will improve as fast.

indeed

You know people say this all the time but I actually think they have more time then what they say they do. How much time do people spend watching tv? How many hours have people put in binge watching shows/movies on netflix? Or on their phone on tik tok? or debating topics on an online forum? Everyone is different and some people really do live very busy lives but a lot of adults actually have more time then what they think. The just don't want to spend their free time for enjoyment on a difficult task

They have about 2 hours, if they work full time, commute, and have a family. At best. Often they're so tired they use that time to watch TV or something restful. They'll have maybe 4 hours on weekends.

That is a subset of all adults, it does not represent everyone. If you have kids it's infinitely harder but not everyone has children. If you work a 9-5 and don't have kids you can put in a lot more hours than that. I used to work and go to night school and there's thousands of other people who have gotten full degrees while working full time. I use to get off work, get on a 45min train, go to class and get on a train back home that's more time consuming then going straight home to study chess. Now are people willing to use that time to devote to chess is entirely a different matter.
To be clear I am not saying that they should be studying chess, I get it it's just a hobby, I am arguing that I don't buy the time argument at least not from everyone

I don't view myself as having natural abilities, even if I am in the 99.5th percentile. In my case, I was stuck in the 1450-1600 range for years, playing for fun. Then I took puzzles more seriously and I am now a 1800.

I do agree a lot of <1000 players here have the potential to become at least a 1400 if they put enough time and dedication into chess, and that a handful of players under 1600 have the potential to become 2000s without any natural habilities. But, as you said, it takes time and dedication. And most users here do not dedicate their time to improve, they play chess lightly and for fun.

Agreed.

Also, a lot of players don't know how to efficiently study and practice chess. Some players certainly put in a lot of time and effort - but they may be studying the wrong things, or putting effort into the wrong aspects of their game.

This is why it can be so beneficial to be coached or guided by a high-level, experienced player. They can help you identify what you need to work on in the game, and can teach you ways to build the skills you need to reach higher levels of play ...

If you're obsessed with chess (and start young) then 2000 online is easy... almost automatic (after a few years).

But if you enjoy playing a few games a week and are an adult then 2000 may be impossible

@ironsteam1
Yeah, learning how to learn is a big deal. That's one advantage adults have over kids (if they've already developed a skill).

@ultimate-trashtalker
For sure. If the local chess club had been full of masters, I'd probably have stopped improving at master level. Having strong competition is essential... and online is not fully a substitute with so many people testing out silly ideas, or just not being serious players in general.

This isn't really worth a new topic or blog or anything so I'll just dump it here...

Struggled to get to 2000 blitz last month, and struggled to get to 2000 rapid this month... playing once a month definitely making me rusty... I want to play some OTB chess this summer. I think I should start playing more often.

I think the better way at looking at it is to say certain people will never reach 2000.

Kind of difficult to judge your own natural skill set since your only reference is yourself.

I mean, if you've been around chess a long time (like me) you see a lot of kids and adults and you see their improvement.

Kids are more common, but I've also seen some adult beginners who were very serious about improving. You get to know how many hours a week / day they put in, and over the years you get to see how much they improve.

yes

Yes, I think the biggest barrier to 2000 is time. Most adults have other commitments, jobs, family, etc so by contrast, unlike kids, they can’t spend several hours per day, every day, playing the game. I assume that’s a larger factor why kids growth is insanely fast, and it’s not just because “kids brains are sponges” which may be true too, but I’ve seen evidence of fast adult growth when similar amounts of time are committed.

With serious focus on the right topics (there’s a lot of noise out there), most adults can definitely get to say, 1800 easily enough.
If you’re capable of reaching 1800, I’d say you’re capable of reaching 2000… it’s just a little bit more time again.

I’m 33. Only been playing chess since 2019. I didn’t know the rules in 2019. After a few weeks, I was 600. After 1 year I was 1600. After 2.5 years, I was 2000, and I’m now 2300 (rapid, at least… little lower in blitz ~ 2100). Reason for my slower growth over the last two years is simply due to me putting in less time tbh. I probably study at the rate of 1/6th now compared to the first two years.

Study is key. Coaching helps. Time is everything though, and more specifically, what you do with that time!

@Kraig Sadly, I have doubts about my ability to reach 2000 at this point. Went through a really rough tilt recently. Hit 1600 for a few days and then dropped like a rock. And that was by my two year mark so I definitely have my work cut out for me. I'm trying to change my approach and really nail down the art of analysis, but that is also hard for me, especially with lost games. I've had a hard time swallowing my pride and being able to look at lost games objectively. That's what I need to do or I fear i'll be stuck a while.

Funny, we are both 33. I started 2 years ago. I appreciate your feedback. I'm truly envious of your progress. Truly impressive.

This seems to be a classical philosophical debate of nature vs. nurture. There's already been a lot of research done on this, so I'm not going to go into much depth here. Most of the skills you need to play chess come from practicing and playing chess, not from a natural inborn ability. In fact you could argue that there is no such thing as natural inborn ability at all, just differences on how people spend their time.

I was 2000

I'm not saying it's easy to get 2000 Elo, yet I am trying to achieve 2300 Elo and have been back and forth from 2000 to 2200+

The large point gap between OTB players and Online is the amount of games played - it takes virtually no effort to start up a game of chess on chess.com compared to having to find a tournament you can go to within your time frame, and one that is also FIDE (or national) rated.

I know quite a few people who are very underrated OTB due to their lack of games, but have high (2200+) on chess.com. These cases are usually kids, who cannot drive themselves to tournaments (or even get a rating in some cases), and therefore play more games online.