How long would it take an average person to go from beginner to x rating?

In Scotland we have to start at 180 IQ so the constant drinking doesnt take us too far below 100.

The average time is infinity.

The reason for this is that for any rating (except the very lowest) there is a percentage of players who would never reach it. The idea that every player can become a strong player given effort is similar to the idea that everyone can become a good football player. Many people just aren't equipped for it.

Of course, I assume "average" meant "mean average", which is the usual semantic convention. If the median average is used, my above statement only applies to ratings significantly above the average rating (rather than ratings significantly above the lowest ratings, as for the mean).

Elroch, I have a million monkeys sitting here with something for you to read and they all disagree with you.

I see your point, but the finite lifetime of humans stops it being relevant!

It's like the question of how many games someone who only knows the rules of chess would take to beat Carlsen. As a combinatorics problem, I estimate the answer is somewhere around 20^40 games (order of log magnitude estimate). This is a number with 53 digits.

At one game a minute, this would take about 10^33 times the age of the Universe.

I would estimate it more as someone would take 3 games to beat him since Carlsen would say to himself "My super hot girlfriend is waiting for me and I can end this now by losing."

@ Elroch: i think you have a point, whether the question should be "if", not "when". Though your calculations seem flawed at the least.

As for IQ and potential in chess: I think it's exaggerated heavily. Does better lung capacity give you a better chance of being a top athlete? Does the placement of your bicep connected to your bone in the lower arm define whether you are good at arm-wrestling?

Assuming our genius Kevin is going all-in becoming a chess master, he might have better potential by a bit. A higher IQ doesn't give you better or worse odds at the ladies/guys, neither does it ensure a bright future or an excellent job. Why would chess be any different? we are all human, genius or not.

Bigger lung capacity definitely gives you a better chance of becoming a top athlete.

I recieved an x-rating once.

Nothing to do with my chess, however.

We can't give Kev a girlfriend name Tracie. Playing and studying chess 6 hours a day = no girlfriend.

It's like asking how many times can I run a mile before running at the speed of light? Well, assuming I never run the same speed twice, I will eventually run at the speed of light.

I think IQ and Chess Grandmaster are two concepts not clearly defined enough for there to be a clear, correct, specific answer to the original question about the Kevins.  Kevins are very high-dimensional systems, and IQ is only 1 dimension, and reaching Grandmaster is a binary operator, so a very large number of dimensions are missing between the input to the system and the result that you're inquiring about.  To figure out an exact answer you'd have to ask all kinds of questions like: did the Kevins eat blueberries, and at which times? Did he exercise a lot or not enough? was he too warm or at a cooler room temperature? (Metabolism and nutrition are important for biological aging & health.) And there are ridiculous coaches and coaches who actually know how to interact with a young chess-learning student (mine showed me the rules, and then just let me play, but it was only for half a year or so at most, not very often that I remember.) (Afterthought: I think a few sardines make Kevins smarter, but they can be too salty, and they can contain mercury or even radioactive matter from the Fukushima disaster. And it matters if his mom is real nice, and if he is an only child etc.)

This is a bad analogy. If you have a computer program that picks a completely random move out of the set of all legal moves in the position for every turn, there is a small chance the computer will pick the best possible move. (I assume that's how Elroch arrived at his number: 20 is an estimate of the average total moves in all positions and 53 is an estimate of the number of moves in an average game. This number is probably a good bit higher than the actual odds, though, because it assumes you'll have to play a perfect game to beat Magnus.) However, there's no chance that you will be traveling at the speed of light at any instant in time.

Any analogy is bad if you miss the point.

The point is if you simplify a problem in a nonsense way, you get a nonsense answer.

I understood what you were saying. I realize that the analogy was meant to highlight a flaw in his logic. I was explaining why your satirical analogy was not relevant.

"May you live to be 100 years old, with an extra year to repent."

As soon as the clothes are removed.

I don't understand your criticism. Mass can't move that fast. This is a point in favor of the analogy.

Beginners can't choose random moves. Moreover, a beginner isn't simply characterized by what they don't know. All beginners know more than nothing, and apply thinking to choose moves. By its nature, such a system will not beat Carlsen. Time is irrelevant just as in the speed of light scenario.

I don't think a beginner was really what the initial post was aiming at, but a random move generator.

Not something that actively chooses bad moves, just can't distinguish one legal move from another.

Random moves could beat Carlsen. You couldn't move at the speed of light.

Well anyway, it all depends of course.

Carlsen would read whole books without a board (playing the variations in his head) as a young child, apparently remembering almost everything. Is that hard work? Sure, he worked hard. Is that also talent? Absolutely.

And not just work, but the right work. Carlsen had a GM coach. Do you need one? Probably not. But there is the chance you'll study 4-6 hours a day of useless stuff.

So in my imagination, studying useful things, 4-6 hours a day, avg intelligence (did I mention in my imagination?) you'd gain a few hundred points a year until 1600 then stall for a bit.  Then 100-200 a year until 1800 or 2000. Stall for a bit again, and gain ~100 points every 1-2 years after that until you reach a sufficiently difficult plateau / your limit.

Most people don't (or can't) work that hard, or work on the wrong things, so subtract a few hundred points to all of that. Others are talented, start young, work hard, have a coach, etc, so add a few hundred to all, and in some cases as much as 500-600.

Oh, and when I say study, I guess I was imagining all chess related stuff. Tournaments, clubs, online, analysis with a friend. Not just book study.

If you go to tournaments and do lots of analysis AND squeeze in 4-6 hours of study from a book / memorization then you'd improve faster.

You'd also have to be underage or win the lottery for that much free time