FIDE rating, Masters

1. How do I get an FIDE/Elo rating?

2. What's the best way to get to Candidate Master level?  I'm pretty weak right now, and I'd like to do so within 2 years, if at all possible.

1. By playing enough games in FIDE ratified tournaments.

2. Forget it, the chances of a weak player making CM in two years is practically zero.

What's the difference between an FM and an IM? 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Master#International_Master_.28IM.29

1.  Thanks.  Is there a reliable estimator I can use without embarrassing myself?  ;)

2a.  I figured such.  

  b. How long does it usually take to get there?   5 yrs?

  c. How far could a player go in 2 yrs?

Once again, I really didn't think it was possible either, but that was my pipe dream, lol.

If you spent 8 hours a day, had a coach and nothing else going on in your life you might go to CM in 2 years... still unlikely but that would be your best shot.

There's no standard amount of time.  The method is about the same for everyone though, read books, take your games seriously (find the mistakes afterwards) and play in OTB real rated tournaments.  If you dedicate enough time to it, you'll probably eventually be a master.

If you have a family to take care of and a job then it might never happen.  You'd have to be dedicated to spending enough time with it. That said, even 5 years seems too short unless you're dumping considerable amounts of time into it.  It'd be more practical to shoot for 8-10 years.

What about four bottles of Champipple?

Thanks, orangehonda.  Fortunately, I'm still a student.  I just found an interview with GM Sune Berg Hansen, and he said it took about 10 yrs/10,000 hours to become a GM.  A lot of time!

The 10,000 hours number is a popular one to throw around, not everyone agrees but on the other hand it's not a bad estimate either.

Please elaborate about the dissent.

Also, is there as much dissent about the 10 yrs of intensive practice figure?

Please explain?

Edit: Explain what sounds like 100 monkeys, not the effect itself.

Well I'm not sure on the book or article, but 10,000 hours was proposed as sort of the magic mark to pass for mastery for any skill, not just chess.  It's been brought up in the forums here before, (artfizz is good at digging for these things) and maybe due to the high profile (but ultimately outliers) cases of teenage titled players or players who otherwise gain a lot of skill in a very short amount of time, some people argue that 10,000 is too rigid and it just depends. 

Also on the quality of time spent, some people say they've been playing for 20 years (or more) and they're not past 1500.  Well it's obvious they play casually or are counting all the years since the time they learned.  You could spend 10,000 hours on only endgames or openings and not come close to learning it all (and your unbalanced study would reflect in your low rating too).

The 10 year thing is interesting though, because that's also what I roughly guessed.  Supposedly there was an old USCF article about the learning curve for chess being about 8 years.  That is after 8 years of real study, a player will only make marginal improvement.  It made references to well known players (an older issue, I haven't read it myself).

The other bit of info I know -- if you had shown some talent for chess in Russia, say in the 50s and 60s, supposedly you'd be a first category player (~1900 or class A USCF) within 2 years (they'd throw you into chess school of course).  I've also seen an advertisement on here about a study program designed to take you from there to IM (~2400) in another two years (this is dubious at best IMO, unless you have a good amount of talent).  Of course this also requires chess to be your #1 through #7 priority in life, with eating sleeping and elimination filling the 8-10 slots.

Just throwing those out there for reference to see some ratings and times to consider, and what it takes to get there.  10,000 hours isn't a bad estimate IMO, but I don't think it's a magic number either.

Oh, that aspect of it.  Reminds me of the 1421 hypothesis, except most people don't believe it.

Orangehonda, that's rather interesting, especially the part about the USSR.

I wonder how long it would take me to break 2200 if I made a plan of it and took it seriously... that's the problem for most though, willingness to commit the time and energy.

Need to do like some titled players in NY.  Get a few guys together, we all rent an apartment and with all our free time study chess.  I think they hung some rating chart with their names on the fridge to track their progress over a year or two.  This ring a bell for anyone?  I've forgotten the names and such.

Sounds kind of depressing but hey if you're doing what you love...

My best advice is to set short term goals, and try to achieve them. I don't believe in long term goals like 2200 in 2 years...

The most important thing is to have fun with chess. Try to find the kinds of studying that you find most interesting. Allow yourself to fail every once in a while.

When I was 16, there was an opertunity (spelling??) to start at a chess high school. There would be 15 hours of learning chess by a GM a week, plus I would have stayed at a condo with other chess players. My mom didn't allow me to move away, so I didn't start. In stead I decided that I wanted to play as much as possible during those years, and just have fun with it. No strict plan to follow - just go with the flow and do what I wanted.

In those 3 years I gained more rating points than any of the students at the chess school. They all did well, but I did even better.

At some point you will feel stagnation. Then you will have to work much harder to get anywhere. You need to study all the phases of the game that you are weak on. But while you are on your way up, and don't feel stagnation, just play play and play! 

This may sound stupid, but I have the impression that if you give me just 3 months with nothing at all to do, serving me food on plates etc, I might be able to reach that level. Actually participating in rated games and reaching that rating would take much longer though.

I think playing a 60 min game every day, analyzing it, studying tactics for 3 hours, either opening or endgame training for 1 hour and reading a good book for the rest of the 10 hour study period per day would take me there in 90 days.

Thanks for all the advice and help.  I have a more definite idea of where to start and what to expect now.

Long term goals can be important, but more important is setting measurable milestones to get to that goal.

I don't know what it takes to get to that level, but a lot of things I have read seems to imply that 2200 is possible with enough effort and a modicum of talent.

Becoming a CM in the US (2000+) is probably easier, though still a lot of work if you aren't already that good to begin with. I know one person (a younger guy) that has gained 300 rating points in the last year and he had been a 1500-1600 the year before that. He is only 300 points from the 2200 level now. Of course he is studying chess and has trainer. If he keeps up the studying and tournament play, I see no reason he couldn't reach that level, though it may take more than another year to get to the 2200 point. But I wouldn't say it is impossible.

Another younger guy in our area has also climbed 300 points in a year with mostly self-study.

Now I just need to find the time to get there

I've seen several players jump 500, 600, 700 points in a single year. What seemed common is that they (1) stopped spending time playing significantly weaker players, (2) began solo study for 2+ hours a day and usually with some expert guidance as to what they spent their time on, (3) developed a concise set of preferred openings as White and Black (making their study time more efficient; one player I know reached Canada's top 30 after restricting himself to Alekhine/Gruenfeld/Catalan -- boring game after game, but with these it's not easy for your opponent to force you into something else), and (4) spent time analyzing their games with experts and masters.

But this means you may have to give up some other things in life, and perhaps a board game isn't worth that. I reached a point where I was winning against experts, but began to realize that (lacking the brilliance of a true chess genius) I was unwilling to do what was necessary to rise much further. Other priorities.