How can an average joe get from 1800 to master level?

You are brilliant, thank you

Maybe in Laskers time, 2000 rated players were much weaker as there were no computers. So 200 hours with a GM would lead to a very good player

Study, study, study.

Play, play, play.

Review, review, review.

Repeat, repeat, repeat, until all you think about is chess, all you dream about is chess, all you live for is chess, chess, CHESS ...

Then you'll be firmly on the path to mastery. (Or at least, on the path to obsession.  )

Sounds great! I already am obsessed so that won't be a problem haha

It may be a small part of the reason, but more important reason is that he was probably 2 700+ material if he started early.

In any case, even though it is very difficult to get to 2 200, I am sure that at least some people can do it. Now of course, vast majority will not be able to.

work on eradicating your weaknesses.  🙂

That can arranged...for the right price.

You finally realize you are a woman, and things fall quickly into place.

Most people don't. But it could happen.

You could be an average Joe in terms of intelligence or chess background but you wouldn't possibly be able to do it if you were an average Joe in effort. 

instagram is not a good way to improve your chess, and neither is discord. I've been on both and they don't really help much. At least for beginners you can get help on discord but if you're looking to push for master level neither will help.

Ok, but 1800 OTB is about 300 (?) points stronger than the OP so... for 2 years OP's progress is not slow but it's not fast either.

And I only mention it because master is an OTB title. Essentially he's saying he got to something like 1500 in 2 years, and now wants to get to 2200 in another "couple of years," which is probably not enough time.

Some of my chess peers in the 80s become Masters by regularly studying Chess Informants. I suggest getting Chessbase as many young players become masters without a Coach by spending hours analysing thousands of games which include openings, tactics and endgames. As a free alternative, get SCID v PC and download a free database of few million games.

There was no rating system in Lasker's time.

tygxc isn't making sense.

And in general, anyone who claims "You can get to ____ easily with X, Y, Z" should let us know how many of their students are rated ____ (because most people who say this are just imaging things).

You should analyze both wins and losses as well. Just because you won a game doesn't mean your play was impeccable.

Yeah, only analyzing losses is silly advice. Like you said, sometimes you win games where you played badly... it's just... if I post something every time I disagree with him it will look like bullying or like I hate him or something... so I gotta pace myself lol.

When I was seriously trying to improve, I was pretty negative about 95% of my games. Games were I lost were disappointing for obvious reasons, but also games that I won were disappointing if I was ever behind or had made some mistakes. Also games that I won easily were disappointing because my opponent didn't put up a fight.

Sometimes I had to laugh at myself for disliking all the games I played that weekend

It depends. I've seen some 1 900 people Uscf around 1900 rapid here as well. I am beating 1 500+ FIDE players (found their ratings on FIDE website), and it is not really such a strange occurrence now, they are rated around 1 700 rapid here, while playing longer games. Perhaps there is a difference between rapid rating here achieved with long games (60|0 and 45|45 I usually play) and rapid rating in 10 minutes pool, but I have no basis to be sure.

So I think 500 points difference is an exaggeration, at least for most of the people. I think the average difference on this level , at least in the rapid pool I am playing is around 200 points, but it probably varies a bit from person to person.

This is the best comparison I know of, as it is based on a survey if I remember correctly. Of course, that +/- 135 and +/-220 is a pretty wide margin and it can vary a lot.

https://chessgoals.com/rating-comparison/

And sure, you are correct that 2-3 years will probably not be enough, but a couple of years may be like 5-6 as well (although I know a couple should mean around 2). In any case, it would be a great achievement.

I am pretty much negative about 95% of my games as well.

And I agree, I would analyze every game, there is always something to be discovered.

I edited that after I posted it. Yeah, 500 is too much.

I don't know much about rapid, I've hardly played it (not only on chess.com, but I've basically never played it online in general).

I've been impressed with exactly zero of the 1900s I've played in rapid so far (I don't think I've played anyone 2000 yet). But when I play a 2000 USCF player OTB it's really hard for me. IMO there's no comparison. Definitely multiple 100s of points difference... but how much I don't know.

I don't have any business commenting on this really, but I would hazard a guess that detailed analysis of one or more of those "grandmaster repertoire" books and creating files of prep for various circumstances could help you reach that level.

Oh, my record against 2000s in 10|0 rapid has been 2 wins out of 5 games, so I've played a few.

I was playing 2 or 3 game simuls though so... lol

But I guess I don't know what my OTB rating is either. I haven't played in something like... 2 years?