How did you get to a 2000 rating?

I replied to your personal message. Actually, I am not sure if a player rated that high would reveal their training secrets here. It is like revealing your plans to your enemies so that they can adjust to it.

Do you mean OTB rating, correspondence rating, or live rating? And if non-correspondence rating, short or long time controls?

lol i guess you are right

Hey djd, I saw chessph's mean comment before it was deleted where he called this question stupid. Don't listen to him, it's not a stupid question, apparently he missed the part about being "helpful, constructive, and nice"

?

2000 (or greater) is where the silicone-people reside. :)

I will happily reveal my training "secrets."  Without several other things going for you though, it won't do any good :p

I've been training people at this game for some time now, and only a handful have become expert/master level.  Why do you think that is?

Only a certain ammount of people have the mind set for it.

My calculus teacher said that people who have more developed pattern recognition skills typically do better than people with less developed pattern recognition skills with the same ammount of exposure to the game.

Does your calculus teacher play chess? :)

(Alrhough is right pattern-recognition key-quality in succeeding at chess)

i agree. I am 2088 USCF and it is due to pattern recognition. 

Yes, and he played very well in highschool (second best kid at the state tournament) but he got busy in college and stopped playing for almost thirty years before playing the occasional game against me and some other students.  I have yet to win a game against him...  He does, however, say that chess and math are not related, but that there are some traits that are useful in both, and that is why some people think those that are good at math are good at chess.

Generally true.

Yet world-class chess players are very rarely mathematicians.

They have hard to define qualities sometimes thought of as imagination/inventiveness/strategy.

Maths seldom encounters 'strategy'. Is human-attribute and unquantifiable.

After I deleted my comment, did you read the private message I sent him? I don't think you did.

Don't hang stuff, mainly.

Though, to be honest, I do that a lot anyhow.

perhaps strategy is unquantifiable, but what about tactical vision?  Tactics are prominent in chess, and I've been told by many players that the threat of a tactic is stronger than the tactic itself, so perhaps there is a way to quantify tactical vision?

GM's automatically possess excellent tactical-skills before even acheiving that status.

Chess is difficult/challenging sport!

The players who 'told you' stuff'. Were they GM's?

Of course, but the beauty of it is that it can be enjoyed by players of all level, regardless of how many blunders you make.

The game is/can be enjoyable that is true. So is running or cycling. To compete at highest-level requires much more in terms of determination/dedication.

Nobody will learn chess over a couple of weekends.