I was born good at Chess. 
How long did it take you to get "good"
Sort:
Mar 1, 2010
0
#23
i stopped playing when i was about 1500uscf. when i started playing after twenty years i entered 4 tournaments, found my rating had increased over 300 pts to 1800+. this without having played one game or picked up a chess book in twenty years. i figure if i had kept away for 30 years i could have become master strength.
I feel ya zankfrappa, I is 49 an' I plannin' on goin' back into tournaments - usin' this stuff to grease the wheels 
I is a very different animal across the board, but I bin out of the game for some time now I has more time on my hands an' don't gotta worry about puttin' bread on shelf
Mar 1, 2010
0
#25
thedecider wrote:
I know "good" is subjective so just tell me bout your progression, where you started and how long it took you to get where you are now.
I played for a few months when i was 18 and then not again for ten years. I've found a new appreciation for the game and realize just how much nuance is involved. How long have you guys been playing? Months? Years? Tell me bout your progression.
Well it took me some time to learn and study before i got so good, just be patient and never give up.
4 years
Mar 1, 2010
0
#27
Perhaps "Good" can be equated to to NM Dan Heisman's definition of "Real chess" (as opposed to "Hope Chess") players who exhibit this behavior =>
"You select candidate moves and, for each, you anticipate and evaluate all your opponent's main candidate moves (especially all checks, captures, and threats). If you see a threat you cannot meet, you almost undoubtedly cannot play that candidate move; instead, you must choose a candidate move that allows you to meet all threats next move."
If there's a player has conditioned/trained himself to do this consistently (100% of his moves) in every game, I would say he's good. Not an expert or a Master, but a good chess player.
With that being said => been playing for 6+ years and I'm not good yet :)
Schachgeek wrote:
I joined USCF in 1981. In 1983, I drew with GM Reshevsky in a correspondence game.
Wow, I hadn't heard that before :o
"Schachgeek", I'm sure you are very proud of that...I would be too.
meh, I've been playing properly for a year and a half now( on the internet only, mind.) I'm still sh** and will continue to be until I can be bothered to do three hours of study and one hour of playing a day( as opposed to five hours of study one day, six days rest), and join a chess club and start doing tourneys. My live rating on this website is 1430-1460. Quagmire is the word that comes to mind.
I was 15 when I started going to the local chess club. At 14 I was still just a schoolboy player, but I studied books and got my first rating at 15 as a USCF class C player. Before I was 16 I had won my first tournament (class C) and advanced to class B. I continued to study off and on, but I didn't play in a class B tournament until I was 23. I finished second, which put me into class A. There in class A I have remainied for almost 40 years, despite sporadic studies. All I have done is rise from low class A to high class A level of play. Still, I have had my moments, beating 3 masters a total of 5 games in my life and finding much enjoyment. The important thing for me was getting good enough at chess to be able to understand and appreciate the great games of grandmasters. I derive a lot of entertainment from playing over a game of Capablanca or Alekhine, Fischer or Bronstein, Keres or Tal, Petrosian or Rubinstein, just to name some of my favorites.
Post above is what some on here consider good.
Mar 1, 2010
0
#35
I played for a long time on "talent" thinking I was good (about your average 1400 player) and then got the game of chesss by tarrasch and my game improved a little. I started looking at openings on the internet and my game improved a little more.
I started playing, and studying, far too much and my game improved even more(probably about 1600 strength at that time). I started playing against better players and even occasionally got a life master that I played with. I then realized I actually have some talent. On my good days I can play with most players. On my bad days I can lose to your average player
Shivsky wrote:
Perhaps "Good" can be equated to to NM Dan Heisman's definition of "Real chess" (as opposed to "Hope Chess") players who exhibit this behavior =>
"You select candidate moves and, for each, you anticipate and evaluate all your opponent's main candidate moves (especially all checks, captures, and threats). If you see a threat you cannot meet, you almost undoubtedly cannot play that candidate move; instead, you must choose a candidate move that allows you to meet all threats next move."
If there's a player has conditioned/trained himself to do this consistently (100% of his moves) in every game, I would say he's good. Not an expert or a Master, but a good chess player.
With that being said => been playing for 6+ years and I'm not good yet :)
That's a pretty good definition. As others have said there are so many ranks it's hard to say, but if I had to pick a definition this would be a good one.
If good means above 1800 level then it really depends on the player, some players play their whole lives but never get good, others play for a few years and reach 2000. It's down to how much work you put in and how naturally inclined you are. It's not like a sport where it's more to do with the physical training, it's mental.
In some ways sport is even harder to get at and takes more talent and longer hours to get 'good'. Same applies with music, particularly classical music.
Jun 6, 2018
0
#39
took me 3 years of going from scholastic player who moved pieces to about 1800 strength (my rating never kept up with my improvement,i won a u.s junior open in 2007 with a 2000+ performance and i was still only rated formally 1500-1600).
then i took a long break in highschool barely playing at all, and only improving ever so slowly. it was mostly not losing my strength. i was too busy doing college at the same time. i kind of regret that. then when i was doing my remaining college after dropping out of high school, it took me a good 4-5 years to reach 2200.
moral of the story, dont take a break in your chess. the game is unforgiving like that.
DON'T GIVE AWAY YOUR PAWNS OR PIECES. Once you can hold on to your "cookies" you can start making progress. :))
This is what I am saying all the time but with no effect.
I was good when I was 4 and I learned to move pieces and castle.
I was good when I was 5 and I could manage not to lose to fools mate every single time.
I was good when I was 8, and when I learned "fried liver" and beat my grandpa for the first time.
I was king of the world when I was 9 and found about en passant.
I was good when I was 10 and found out that there are other openings than can be played after 1.e4 and that are not 1...e5
I was good when I was 12 and learned that 1.d4 is actually good opening.
I was good when I realized that you can't just move pieces cuz its your turn. I found about planing in chess.
I was better when I sit down and tried every single opening in book just to take a look what position they give.
I was good when I learned that other players too dont move just like that. When I started thinking that he move cuz he wants to do something and tried to figure out what I improved.
When I learned traps I was best player I know.
When I got internet I realized that I am complete idiot at chess.
When I stopped giving PIECES FOR FREE my win % went crazy, and I was good.
When I stopped playing openings just because they are popular or because I know few lines, and when I started to pick openings that work for my style of play I was good.
When I stopped playing openings that would get me in position I had no idea what to do, and started to learn not the book moves, but the idea behind moves in each opening, and WHY you play Nf3 or Nc3 I was good.
When I stopped thinking that gambits are stupid and start playing it my attack skill were better, and I was good.
Now, when I learn to evaluate positions better, when I improve my end game that is laugh right now, when I manage to learn something without forgetting something I knew before that I will be good once again.
When I am not lazy, and when I use EVERYTHING I know in single game, I feel good.