One of the most common misconceptions that I see or hear about in chess is the idea that there is a direct relationship between time spent practicing and improvement in terms of rating. People think that if they practice an hour a day for a certain time, they will improve from 1200 to 1300, and if they practice three hours a day, they will improve to 1500 or 1600... This is very far from the truth. I'm a bit below 1700 in real life, and I have to accept that there are seven-year-olds who have only played seriously for a few months that have easily surpassed my rating despite the fact that I've been taking tournament chess pretty seriously for almost two years now.
There are people who work for decades at chess and just can't get past a certain level, whether it's 1200, 1600, or 1999. And there are whiz kids who break 2000 as easily as I walk into a grocery store. The point is that the OP's question has no answer. Sometimes it's a very short time, sometimes a player finally breaks 2000 after many years, and most people never make it to expert at all. I can do tactics trainer and review games until I'm exhausted every day for months or years and still get crushed by a first grader whose mom ties his shoes for him. That's just the way chess is.
Excellent post, I couldn't agree more. It's a bitter truth that mental acuity, natural talent and IQ play a gigantic role here. The fact is, an elementary school kid with genius level intellect and an interest for chess will beat everyone at my local chess club blindfolded, even if the players here have been at the game for decades.
Look at this player for example. http://www.chess.com/members/view/krstulov_alex
He is 7 years old and already a titled Fide Master. Most people in the world can study for a time longer than he has been alive, and they wont even break the 2000, barrier over the board or online.
The fact is, the mental properties of that kid surpass 99,999% of the population. That is what matters, not the fact that he is getting chess tutoring, reading chess books or studying the game for X hours a day.
I will,with great probability never be as skilled as Alex Krstulov in chess no matter how much I study or how many hours a day I do it. And we are talking about a kid here who is barely old enough to watch Pokemon.
One of the most common misconceptions that I see or hear about in chess is the idea that there is a direct relationship between time spent practicing and improvement in terms of rating. People think that if they practice an hour a day for a certain time, they will improve from 1200 to 1300, and if they practice three hours a day, they will improve to 1500 or 1600... This is very far from the truth. I'm a bit below 1700 in real life, and I have to accept that there are seven-year-olds who have only played seriously for a few months that have easily surpassed my rating despite the fact that I've been taking tournament chess pretty seriously for almost two years now.
There are people who work for decades at chess and just can't get past a certain level, whether it's 1200, 1600, or 1999. And there are whiz kids who break 2000 as easily as I walk into a grocery store. The point is that the OP's question has no answer. Sometimes it's a very short time, sometimes a player finally breaks 2000 after many years, and most people never make it to expert at all. I can do tactics trainer and review games until I'm exhausted every day for months or years and still get crushed by a first grader whose mom ties his shoes for him. That's just the way chess is.