FACT: You can't improve at chess

My USCF standard rating graph. I played in my first USCF event at age 35 in early 1996. I had been playing chess with a sense of purpose since 1975. In the late 1970s I studied chess constantly, focused on openings and reading tournament books. The players who inspired me at that time were Gligoric and Karpov. 

When I reached my peak rating, I was at the top of the local pool. Had I invested more resources in traveling to tournaments where I could face stronger opponents, my improvement would have continued. I know a lot more about chess than when I was at my rating peak, but I do not focus as well. Part of it is due to age; part due to motivation. My priorities shifted from self-improvement to helping the young players of my city reach and exceed my skills. Some have.

My overall record shows how rarely I’ve had opponents over 2000 in a quarter century of tournament play. In contrast, on chess.com I often face titled players in blitz and correspondence chess. I have dozens of wins over such players and my peak blitz rating was this month (2066).

No. And few opportunities. Not in rated play. I have won in casual play.

Three of my seven games against masters OTB were a single match against a FM for the city championship. I was 1750 at the time. He was 2250. I earned a draw in game three, and could have claimed a draw by repetition in game two but was uncertain it had occurred. At the time, I was unaware that I could have stopped the clocks and asked the TD to verify my hunch. I had six minutes left and my opponent had about half that.

My first game against a master was in my worst tournament ever. I lost in eight moves. That same tournament accounts for my failure to have a 100% score over players under 1200.

I got a draw with an IM and won against an NM in a simultaneous. I also beat an FM in bullet because he dropped a rook

This is not a controversial topic at all — rather one-sided against the original poster of the topic, and therefore I will unfollow it.

By studying an opponent's openings and previous games, I have managed to beat players rated 300 ELO points above me. Oftentimes it's all about preparation, and improvement will follow.

psylowade you are quite wrong.  Most players can improve over time.

Players who do not improve over time usually have the same characteristic.

They make the same mistakes over and over and over again.  This is what stops you.  This is what stops many players.

This problem can be solved.

[by the way this problem comes up in other games also]

I've risen from 1100 to 2200 over the course of a decade, and I'm continuing to rise.

There's so much more to learn, at whatever level you're at. If you aren't improving, it's because you aren't studying properly.

Yes, if one just plays and doesn't study, progress will likely stagnate. But real chess improvement comes from study.

Take a look at the Russians. Their huge number of strong players comes from the simple fact that they know chess skill is teachable.

I disagree. My rating is low on this website you could say that of course. However the main reason people dont improve is because they either focus on too many things instead of mastering one concept in chess or the way they are studying doesnt work. You could spend hours studying something and never master it because the way you are learning it is worth less than an eighth of the quality of dedicated studying.

This is the rating graph of someone who learned to play chess in 1968, and who learned to play better chess when he started reading chess books in 1975. He competed in tournaments in the late 1970s, but never had a USCF rating then. In 1990, he returned to active chess after ten years away. His first rated event was in 1995, which is where the graph begins. In 2006, he took lessons from a master.
When he joined this website in 2007, he had been playing chess approximately 39 years. He was near the top of active USCF members in his city. His blitz graph shows improvement through his fifties. He's getting old, but hit several peak ratings on websites at the age of sixty.

The point: @psylowade is not offering a controversial view, but rather spewing ignorance. 

I think that people can improve steady throughout a lifetime until they get old or have a medical reason not to. The reason it appears that improvement is not coming is related to two facts: 1) as your rating goes up it is harder to improve further because the people you play are better players...i.e. the law of diminishing returns....and 2) To break through a former personal ceiling it takes a lot more effort, more than most people are willing to spend on just a game, although a great game.

It sounds like you need to ask yourself, "What are the benefits and cons?"

Con: You're not improving, and you don't expect to improve.

Benefits: Chess is fun. Chess is mentally engaging, whether you improve or not. Chess is a good distraction from other problems in life. Fill in the blank.

If you don't consider those benefits, and can't think of your own benefits, then stop playing chess. It's really that simple.

Here is my take on things. I've found that doing as many puzzles sharpens me up. I was ten years off the game and came back to do ok. I finished about 5th in the National Chess Congress, but I was sick most of the year and finished flat in the Foxwoods Open. This was back in 2008-09. There's not much money in chess, once you reach the higher ratings. I would think its better to hover around one's division; moving up an down as you go. Many tournaments do not pay well. If you travel around to many tournaments, expenses like room rates, gas, tolls, food, as well as the entry fees, are staggering. When I played the circuit in 2008-09, I spent $9000 on tournaments. I got nothing in return, but the experience. However, focusing on the tournaments with the highest prize funds, limits the expenses. If players are going to remain in their ratings ranges, they can play in small Quads and Swiss tournaments to stay fit, play in only big tournaments that make it worth the expense.

If you're only a 1500 rated player at best, who cares about reaching 2000? Play your best and aim to be champ of you Section. You can be the best U1600 or U1800 or U1900 player in the country. If you take First place in the World Open every year in the U1600 section, thats $25000, I believe. I'd rather have a shot at that money every year, then struggle to reach 2000 or higher and never win a prize. I know some of you out there will think this is a senseless idea, but look at it this way. If you are trying a comeback and are around 1900 shooting for Expert or Master level, your competition will be stronger and the pressure increases. For many of us normal players, we work and have families. We have other things going on in life. We can only play so often,so why not just stay in your Section? If you are playing for fun, I'd suggest playing in the park or your local club. Why pay an entry fee just to bust out? Thats like throwing money away at the blackjack table with no intention of winning money? Does not make any sense at all.

You can make an easy comparison to bowling. I used to bowl in the leagues, three time a week, when I was young, but could never get past a 180 average. That didnt mean I couldn't bowl over 200 at any one time. I practiced, but I was no Pro. Pro's dedicated every waking moment to the game. I was told, if you want to be up there,you have to sacrifice everything. However, these same Pro's said, there is no shame being a 180 bowler. I won many a trophy and money. I played for fun and stayed within my competitive division and won money and trophies.

You can have fun in the tournament world. Winning money is more fun. So, I would say, keep playing and studying, but try to be the sharpest in your section. If you move up, God bless you. If you meet stiff competition in the higher division, and are back to wherever you came from, then know that you're competitive there. Strive to be the best U1600 or whatever you can be. I'd rather finish 1st, 2nd, 3rd in the World Open every year then out of the money at a 1900 rating.

@gerard02 Surely you know USCF rules well enough to know that a person cannot win the u1600 section at a big money tournament twice.

If you win a large enough prize in u1600, your rating floor is now 1600.

I do think that most of your post offered some sage advice, despite this error.

So, if I win first place in the World Open, and jump to lets say 1700, then, crash to 1500, I couldnt enter in U1600, again?

if your rating floor is 1600, you can't "crash to 1500"

I see. I've been out of action for over 12 years. I'm rusty on the rules. I guess, you my post would not make any sense, then.

The rule is based on a prize amount that the USCF specifies on its website, but the rule is that if you exceed that amount in a restricted rating section, your floor will be set high enough that you can never play in that section again. Hence, for example, you could win $10K in the u1600 section of the World Open and perhaps your rating rose only to 1598. Because you exceeded the prize limit, your rating will be adjusted up to 1600 and it will be your floor. If you find that you cannot compete at that level, you may petition the USCF to lower your floor, but that’s only gonna be after several years of failure. See p. 215 of the current USCF Official Rules of Chess.

This rule existed ten years ago, but the prize amount was much lower. It is not a new rule.

As I said, I've been out of action for 12 years. Thanks for the reminder. I'll have to review the rules again.