How far can experience alone take you?

2400+

I don't believe it's possible for the average guy to never crack a book, never get a tutor and never analyze his games then expect to progress above 1500. Yes you can learn from your mistakes but not without good analysis.

Funny ... if you compared chess to learning a language (far removed from your own native tongue), I seriously doubt you'd be fluent unless you immersed yourself around native speakers.  Though you still have to form a "training feedback loop" of some sort and tweak what you're doing (or how you're saying something) until you feel you've got it right.

Which goes back to what I posted earlier ... in any field/sport/activity, getting significantly better REQUIRES you swim with the sharks and try to learn from them.

Ish loves Sharks .. they taste good with Catsup

2)  Average player or not, for anyone there is a point after which no progress can be made.  No one has no limit.  And I think it's reasonable to assume that players in a certain range (average) would have nearly the same threshold ... even if the definition itself is arbitrary the threshold exists.

The American club and occasional tournament player is what I'm familiar with and I think is a good model of a player who occasionally or rarely studies.  Looking at the average adult player we see a rating of around 1500 USCF.  This means with no study, no tournament play, no analysis, the rating would be lower. 

Some of the guys that drift through my local club, to play a few weeks and never show up again, are rated between U1000 and 1200.  The stories are usually similar, learned to play at an early age from a relative or friend, play a handful of games a year since then, and think they're not bad.  The better ones play online, and are more aware tactically, but don't quite break 1200-1300.  I think 1300 is a fair guess.

No one knows for sure, and you might be personally offended by the notion of someone setting up what is ultimately an arbitrary limit on what another is able to achieve, but as I said above the limits are there and exist for all of us.  It's correct if a bit too easy to say "no one knows" but it's not wrong to estimate with due reasoning either.

Yes, I assumed the OP meant average player... afterall it would be total guesswork if we were talking about the hordes of people that have never and will never play chess.  Would they raise or lower the average?  I don't think it's safe to say either way.  Skill isn't a function of how interested you are in the game, so it's curious to assume that the average person would necessarily be worse than the average player assuming they took up the game.

That chess and intelligence in general are related is also a bit laughable.  I would agree though that chess players enjoy trying to solve puzzles or perhaps enjoy learning itself... even if some of us are pretty bad at it afterall :)  (I'm no GM ;)

Communication does take certain skill.  And while I took my opportunity to be an ass earlier, please don't think I consider myself an expert by any means.  Language uses both what the words literally mean, as well as the intended meaning, and anyone who responds can trip themselves up by assuming too much in either category.

 I have some trouble with your numbers here.  What you are talking about is more like making a high level title, not breaking 1800.  1800 is what, the bottom of class A?  Basically, you are saying to play class A chess you need to start as a young child, have no other interests, and devote yourself totally to chess.  If one did those things, and only ended up peaking in the class A to Expert range, it would be a pathetic thing indeed.  I think Jeremy Silman has said than anyone of normal intelligence can make expert, and perhaps even national master, if they are willing to make the needed sacrifices in time and effort.  Much of chess, at least up to that level, is a matter or information and practice.  There is a point where you do hit a talent barrier, some people are going to simply be better at it than others.  That is what separates masters from IMs, IMs from GMs, but the idea that you have to be a chess monk to play a class A game is just goofy.  The guys who play class A are just smart, talented blokes who are willing to put in alot of time on their hobby.

Now, if you have your eyes set on a GM title, yes these are the guys who start young and do almost nothing else.  But they are virtuoso players, in musical terms they are the guys who get into Juillard.  Class A players by comparison just play in a pretty good bar band on the weekend.

BTW, on the original question-  trying to learn just by playing and never studing would be incredibly hard.  There have been generations of chess players who have figured all kinds of things out about this game that you can learn from.  Trying to improve only from a knowledge of the rules and game experience would be brutally slow going unless one had great talent.  Most people would give up in frustration, unable to figure out why they were getting beat all the time.

Chess is pattern recognition.  Some of you make it sound like 2200+ players are geniuses or something.  Reality is they just recognize patterns alot faster than most people because they've been practicing much longer and harder.  Michael De La Maza showcased this by going from 1321 to 2041 USCF in 2 years on just tactics and pattern recognition alone.  Before he did this, ask anyone if that was possible, especially for someone who was 29-30 at the time.  People will laugh in your face.  He proved by simply practicing tactics and pattern recognition you can get atleast 2000+.

Why can GM's recite entire games in their head?  Because they've played certain positions so often when a new position arises it puts a "blip" in their positional pattern song that's remembered.  GM's are not special people intellectually, as much as they would like you to think they are. 

There was a scientific study on Chess where a few GM's memory were tested against normal players in certain positions, GM's were able to recite the position much more accurately than normal players.  Impressive?  Yes, but read on:  For the next test the chess pieces were arranged in completely random positions.  The GM's could not recite the board any better than normal players!  This is a good indication that GM's and "stronger" players alike are able to better recognize patterns on the board and hence use that as an aid to their memory.  They do not have a "photographic" memory.

Why do GM's play the opening extremely quickly?  Pattern recognition

Why do GM's rarely blunder pieces?  Pattern recognition

Why is practicing mating patterns good?  Pattern recognition

Math question, what is 5 x 5?   Yes, 25.  Thanks to your memory, you didn't have to calculate.  Calculating is error prone, but memory and pattern recognition is much faster and reliable.

Why do few players regardless of strength fall for scholars mate?  Pattern recognition

Memory, pattern recognition that's the key to chess.

@fyy0r: Excellent post. Though based on the OP's question on "experience" alone and not picking up a book / software : Where are your gajillion patterns going to come from? MDLM invested heavily on training software ... the GMs played over thousands of Master games ... and I'm sure they drilled through a ton of tactics and endgame problems.  All of these efforts result in the pattern recognition "nirvana" that you very correctly pointed out.

Though the OP wouldn't want to do that ... cos that involves this whole "putting in effort besides playing" now, wouldn't it?

Also...

Yes, I agree pattern recognition is very important. Yet, I wouldn't boil it down to rote alone.

Now, some people have a far better memory than I. Bobby Fischer had a phenomenal memory about games that he played, games others played, games he read about...

Yet the rational thinking is there as well. If a, then b...if b...could be c or d...if c, then... Not too far off from logic trees or, when I first taught logic circuitry, back in the early 70ies..and gates, or gates, nand gates, etc.

The question was posed concerning an average person who played only and didn't study or analyze. Well maybe if they had a tremendous memory capability...database-like, maybe if they didn't quit out of frustration after losing the first several hundred games...maybe...maybe...maybe...

No...chess requires a rational thinking brain, as well as pattern recognition, as well as discipline, willingness to learn...much more than simply pattern recognition alone.

The OP is hopeful that someone who is lazy and has a 100 IQ can just play...nothing more...and be highly competent. IMO...this is generation Y fantasy.

To Sofademon:

Yes that is exactly what I'm saying. Do you know any GM and have you read anything meaning their biographies.

Up to 1500 is one level.

1500 to 1800 another - let's call it good chess player but average chess player for above that level.

Everything above that is just different chess.

Everyone can tell you anything. Chess is just brutal in order to play it with pros. Those people have no life.

If you start late let's say 13 or 16. In those years (puberty) you can't get kids to sit down and learn chess. They are interested more in sports, girls, going out etc. Now 19-23 you're in college - no time for chess either. Even more time you have to study, you do things others do.

24 is already too late for serious chess. That is like women who decide to have kids at 40 something. There is just no time to catch up to those guys who started at 7 or 10 years old.

With 35 your best life regarding chess is over.

Now YOU DO NOT NEED to start early, live like Bobby Fisher, have great assistants but dude less you do it less you will achieve.

Talent is overrated. See my previous posts. All those untalented kids that went with me in high scholl finished playing for our local soccer team, one guy went to play basketball for national team and in Italy. Absolutely none of them were playing either for A or even B team of our class in junior high - they were so bad.

I'm saying with normal life and living regular life you won't get far in chess. Well you will be playing with me here online on chess.com but nowhere in real life with others who are real chess players.

Amen to that.

To dannyhume:

Best results in chess you'll achieve between 25-35 years of age - scientificaly proven. After 35 your chess ability goes down proportionally. After that age you just can't play at top level any more.

Where is now Kasparov, where is Karpov?

If you won't accept that Capa did it, perhaps Philidor?

For the vast majority of players, all they will accomplish is making the same mistakes over and over again.

Here are chess titles by Wikipedia:

Chess titles are lifetime titles for the best players specific by the world chess organization FIDE:

Over board chess

• Grandmaster (shortened as GM, sometimes International Grandmaster or IGM is used) is awarded to world-class chess masters. Apart from World Champion, Grandmaster is the highest title a chess player can attain. Before FIDE will confer the title on a player, the player must have an Elo chess rating (see below) of at least 2500 at one time and three favorable results (called norms) in tournaments involving other Grandmasters, including some from countries other than the applicant's. There are also other milestones a player can achieve to attain the title, such as winning the World Junior Championship.
• International Master (shortened as IM). The conditions are similar to GM, but less demanding. The minimum rating for the IM title is 2400.
• FIDE Master (shortened as FM). The usual way for a player to qualify for the FIDE Master title is by achieving a FIDE Rating of 2300 or more.
• Candidate Master (shortened as CM). Similar to FM, but with a FIDE Rating of at least 2200.

So if you're below 2200 you're not assumed by FIDE that you play chess good enough.

Link is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_titles

Now just tell me you'll make all the way to 2200 just by playing chess with others.

To wwwpirate- you seem to be equating 1800 otb chess with "the pros".  Its not.  Its the bottom end of class A.  Not that 1800 isn't a significant achievement, but the 1800 player is a talented amateur who has done some hard work, not someone who has become a chess  monk at the age of 7.  I am not objecting to the idea that to reach the upper levels of the game requires great disciple and probably a young start, I am just objecting to setting that bar for "the upper levels" as low as 1800.  Amateur, indeed "casual" players are rated that high and higher.  There isn't a drop of money in the game at that level, and not a chance to make living at it for hundreds of elo points yet to come even if one could somehow skip the dayjob and just do chess.  1800 is basically a strong club player.  You don't have to give up your life and start at 7 to be  a strong club player.

To Sofademon:

No I do not.

SEE PREVIOUS POSTS.

For Fide you're not even good enough player until 2200 - SEE POST ABOVE.

For average guys though like most guys playing here online on chess.com and this post is about them  I say most guys can get up to 1500 only by playing games. 1500-1800 you have to start consulting books and analyze games. Now 1800+ you just have to work even more including some sacrifices like less going out etc. Really don't think you can go 2000-2200 without someone who really knows chess to give you instructions and sacrifice of your private life even more.

1500-1800 you're not beginner level any more but not serious player either and you can win 1200-1500 easily.

1800-2200 is kind of you play much better than average guy but still not good enough to be FIDE chess player meaning serious player.

Now again depends what level you're and with whom you play with. For me yes 1500 already is much better playing guy. He does not understand game fundamentally better than I do but makes less mistakes. For CM that guy is joke.

Yes for me here 1800 is what GM is for 1800 - he just understands chess game so much better. 1800 just has whole concept of the game differently than me. That is difference between 1500 and 1800 player. At 1800+ guys just think different way. 1500-1800 guys just make less mistakes than below 1500.

I mean I am always surprised how you guys think chess is a joke. Let me tell you something:

When Fisher played Spaski in Reykjavik, Iceland I watched each single commentary of that match on TV. Behind each move there is whole history behind that. Analyst would say like that move was first used in that and that match in New York in 1932 and now he can do that and that move used in that and that match. I mean you can write whole book of history like 300 pages during just one match and analysts were doing it straight from the head - no notes nothing - they were GMs of course - they knew that deep each freaking move.

It is just amazing. And you want to be it just by playing games with others - it is just insane.

As you can see above everything below 2200 is not good enough for FIDE meaning real chess.

There is no money in chess. I know that only maybe top 20 chess players make real money. I know GM who has full time job on TV as analyst. He wouldn't do it if he was able to make great living as GM.

An average person would probably sit around 1300 after a few thousand games, however most chess players have above average intelligence, so I'm going to say about class C (1500 rating).