FACT: You can't improve at chess

High-rated players know, from experience, that chess improvement comes from study, practice, and persistence.

On the other end of scale, you have the players who think that one's chess rating is a magical number that's somehow predetermined at one's birth . . .

here's my lichess rating over the last 3 years. I'm not sure why it's completely linear

psy  Sorry but I started chess at age 8 and my ability gradually improved over time from losing the first 100 games I ever played to over 2500.  It only came to a stop in May 2020 when I also most died from pneumonia.  I am age 80.  

One can improve and learn over time.

How one improves at chess depends entirely upon how you study and train.

If you study and train poorly, or not at all, then your results will reflect that.

If you study and train properly, though, and persistently, then your playing strength will steadily rise.

What an original concept from the OP!

Everybody’s rating plateaus … some sooner some later. 
It’s rather all to simple it seems- the obvious

some people continue to play for a lifetime, having achieved a maximum rating years ago / when perhaps time and energy were more abundant.

In other words - some prefer to play than study.

Such players may possess enough chess skills on a given day to win or lose vs players +/- 400. Ain’t chess grand?

Seems quite the prevalent attitude. I don’t know if it’s all entirely good - the pervasive atmosphere that constant improvement of rating is of top priority. That something is wrong when ratings aren’t climbing uphill. That after all … isn’t that what chess is all about - the winning at any cost?

     I learned the moves as a child but didn't start playing until I was 20. For 3 or 4 years I played once in a while with a couple of friends and an occasional afternoon of speed chess at the UC Berkeley student union along with reading a few books. Then (mid-1970s) I discovered the Berkeley Chess Club, the USCF, and rated games. I played every Friday and an occasional local tournament. First rating was around 1400, but I slowly and steadily improved my game, getting to about 2100 by the late 1980s. No long stretches stuck at a certain level, no sudden jumps to a higher class. Naturally, sometimes I had a bad tournament and lost a few (or quite a few) rating points and sometimes I played very well and had a nice gain, but overall a gradual rise.

     When my new job involved working many nights and weekends (when chess clubs and tournaments occur) I slowly got a bit rusty and fell to about 2000, when I quit because I almost never had a chance to play (early 1990s). I returned to chess five years ago--retirement--but as you might expect a 25-year layoff had taken its toll and now have fallen to near my rating floor. (I also play less and don't take chess as seriously.)

     The point is that as long as I played regularly and learned more about the game, the stronger my game became. At my peak I felt I could play fairly evenly vs masters (senior masters and IMs, GMs not so well) and felt I should eventually become a master. So yes, continued improvement is possible. Having your weak pointed out painfully otb and learning a bit more in those areas is what did it for me.

     I do agree that there are some inborn talents that determine the maximum which a person can achieve in chess, but some players make rapid progress to that level, some take a lot longer, and some don't have the study and practice time it takes to get there, remaining stuck at the same level.

I like how neutral and bold your comments are. I think also chess can be more fun when it's about messing with your opponent, like Hikaru's openings or Dubov's playing style. maybe it's easy to stagnate without the connection to something, and maybe what some people've been missing is looking outside of the board to let your unconscious know if it's worth the effort. All the rapid improvers I've seen have had support.

Alekhine was the first one to say your chess plateau is decided at birth (genetics/talent etc) They actually have a recording of him saying it. His voice is weird too 🤔 Like he sucks on helium all day.

psylow   I play duplicate bridge and hearts and chess.  In all 3  games a large number of people reach a plateau as you say.

Where you are wrong is that it does not apply to all people.  [it does not apply to me and it does not apply to TCSPlayer above]

Here is something else you don't understand and to be fair most people do not understand.

Most people who reach a plateau cannot make progress because they are making the same mistakes  over and over again. This can be fixed.  They don't have to stay in  a plateau!.

Here is my pats 30 days status: +400 improvement 

I hope I can hit 2500 in the next year

You won't be able to reach 2500 in a year, sorry to say.

But if you keep at it and continue to learn in a rigorous manner, you can eventually reach 2500. Just don't expect it to happen so soon. A more likely timeframe is 5 to 10 years.

Fact: I have improved at chess and most people do immediately after learning the rules.

People play casually online. Most players don't play a lot of games and that's why they don't improve over the years. Because they play like 1 blitz game per week. Also, at some point you have to study chess (not just opening theory, but study the middlegame, endgame, just like you would study physics) in order to improve. Practice can only lead you up to a certain point. If you want to find serious players who have steady improvement over the course of, let's say 4 or 5 years, then look at OTB players. They are (generally speaking) way more serious about chess than people who play online (online players may play like 5 blitz games per week and they play them while on the toilet, they are not trying to improve and they aren't playing a lot of chess).

There's also training correctly. You will plateau if you continue to train the same way, but maybe if you switch your training you will start improving.

yes

Every GM was once a beginner