How long did it take you to get "good"

       Um, I beg to differ.  I would say that 2000+ in a classical, legitimate time control would be considered "good" as a 2000 USCF Standard rating would be roughly at the 95th %ile and that 2200+ would be considered "great" as a 2200 USCF Standard rating would be roughly at the 99th %ile.

To: Sloop John B

I think it is when you can still beat a WC player when they give you a knight odd....that's hard to do.

                                                                                 ______________________

Focus on changing the 3 perspectives of how you play chess.  Concentrate on accumulating visualization pattern memory banks in your brain.  I guarantee that within 1 month your play will be extremely stronger.

USCF 1000 = Beginner (P.S. all scholastic ratings are BS)

USCF 1400 = Good Enough (that's around the the 60th to 80th percentile) meaning "Good Enough for Most People, but not good enough for most eccentric chess players.

USCF 1800 = Roughly the 90th percentile.  That's Good.  Pure and Simple.

Nuff said?

I went from Unrated to 1804 USCF in 9 months of obsessive competitive OTB play.  So What.  There's lots of (stronger) eccentric chess players rated way above me.  So What.

I haven't (ever) broken USCF 1900 OTB, but for me, the game is lots more fun at higher speeds.  Having the knowledge to appreciate (and be amazed) while watching the GMs play Game in 3/0 on this site makes it all worthwhile.  

And the same rings true for enjoying playing through great chess books -- by any number of authors, such as GM John Nunn.

I think everybody knows that the more patterns you learn the better you get in chess.  I don't want to be disrespectful, but I don't understand why you keep saying this as it would be something completely new. 

I'm nowhere near good.....was much better 35yrs ago.  

                                                                         ___________________________

If you can spell out in your next post the process, I will stop emphasizing the importance that needs to be repeated.  For example what are the 3 strategies that you need to employ under the new perspective?

Played for about 10 months in 1970. Took it up again last year in September. Not there yet - likely never will be. I'm ok with that.

working on that. 

I mean, just say what do you want to say, you don't have to ask me about things that you think you know the answer. I think it was you once that wrote that the middle game begins with the first pawn break. This is something we can talk about (although I am not sure that most players will agree with this).

When you get to 1800 you'll think most of the 1800/1900 category players suck and you will hate yourself for not being 2000+. 

                                                                                ________________________

you don't have to ask me about things that you think you know the answer. I think it was you once that wrote that the middle game begins with the first pawn break. This is something we can talk about (although I am not sure that most players will agree with this).

First of all I don't think i know the answer.  Concerning the first move of the middlegame, I know the correct answer in almost all cases is executing the pawn break.  For your information most GMs agree with this.  Don't believe me, I checked with my personal friend GM Ron Henley.  He agrees.

Concerning the 3 changes in perspective.  The first one is that chess is Siege Warfare in the form of a game.  In the times of King Arthur, Knights would surround a castle and not permit food or water into thee castle.  Eventually the people inside the castle would come out seeking food and water. 

In chess you use restrain,blockade and execute the enemy position in order to extract the enemy King in order to deliver checkmate.

I will clarify further only if you have questions.  And, believe me there is alot to explain, detail and clarify.

"Good" is a relative term. I once gave a 20 board simul at a college and a +2500 rated friend of mine said that nobody would be able to tell the difference between me giving a simul and him. The difference between a 2100 (at the time) and a 2500 is enormous to the 2100, but most people couldn't tell the difference without outside assistance. 

To Magnus, a 2500 is a virtual fish. 

As players get better, they see more and more how good the players ahead of them really are. 

I'm good enough to coach, and to give simuls to the public, including small blindfold simuls. I've won city and state titles. In the 19th Century, a player of my strength would be considered a master by acclamation. But I'm not good enough to play in a closed Masters' tournament today.

"Good" is relative. 

I'd say a couple years after I first discovered competitive chess in my 20's.  I'm not as good now as age 67 when younger: my USCF correspondence rating from the pre-home-computer 1970's is 2116 and I don't play fast games well at all anymore.

BUT, with some of today's very-well written books and online tactics trainers, I'm recognizing patterns better so maybe improvement's on the way!

Statistically, most players are within 200 points of their all time best within 7 years of their first taking the game seriously. Whether their best is "good" is a matter of opinion.

Yeah, it's relative.

Plus, no matter how good you get, you're always aware of various shortcomings. There are gaps in your knowledge, there are mistakes in your play.

I guess in my head, I think of "good" as someone who doesn't play hope chess (no, not that kind, Dan Heisman's kind) and has taken the time to study the main aspects. Maybe some would call such a player eccentric (like zborg a page or two ago) because it's true that most players don't bother. They like chess, they play often, and they study some things, but that's it.

i now what you mean by hope chess, but i wonder where the line is drawn. some strong players like diving in head deep into mind boggling complications thinking he has a better chance coming off it alive. is that a form of hope chess?