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

Such a riot seeing posts like these skid off the rails into oblivion.

Making above assumption and quality study, ie not being high, working 2 hours a day every day of the year: it would take roughly 13 years. :)

We are also assuming just as much progress can be made every day. I'm sure learning master level chess play takes more time than learning beginning play.

True to cum carl

X-rating, is that adult-rating, or higher rating than all under 18? 18 is in many countries the agelimit for adult entertainment.

Then you have to come above 2716 Fide, And how long time will it take? For most of us: It will never happen.

http://ratings.fide.com/top.phtml?list=juniors

bump. 29 years old and i'll be world class in 2 years or my brainpeepee isn't a foot long.

Here's a shocker. 50% of people won't ever get much past 1200. And everyone finds their level.

It's a strange thing. Why do a million people stabilise at, say 1200, and one at 2800? Different brain wiring?

#68
It is about doing the right thing and abstaining from the wrong things.
"Having spent 200 hours on the above, the young player, even if he possesses no special talent for chess, is likely to be among those two or three thousand chessplayers [who play on a par with a master]. There are, however, a quarter of a million chessplayers who annually spend no fewer than 200 hours on chess without making any progress." - Lasker
200 hours of doing the right thing is enough to get to 2000 strength
Getting at 1500 is just a matter of blunder checking so as not to hang pieces or pawns.
Getting to 2500 is 7 years of hard work. Cf. The 15 year-old grandmasters.
Getting to 2800 is many years of work 7 days/week, 10 hours/day. Cf. Kramnik interview.

Nonsense. 2000 is a rating requiring unusual natural ability. Even if you restrict yourself to those who choose to play chess (who I am sure are more talented than those who don't, by self-selection), most do not get to 2000 in a lifetime.

Of course, it is important to be clear what type of chess we are talking about. Typical amateur OTB time controls would be reasonable (so games of a few hours).

The suggestion that most people could get to 2500 is even more absurd. It is unclear what the differences are, but to suggest no difference in natural propensity is absurd.

The same is true of sports of all kinds, including fitness sports. Most people could never run a 5 minute mile, IMHO, never mind a 4 minute one. Most people could never win a local club tennis tournament.

#70
"I have only one talent: a talent for hard work" - Kasparov
There is no natural ability for chess.
"geniuses are made, not born" - Polgar, who kind of proved it with his 3 daughters

Physical sports are different.

Quotes prove nothing except that someone said something. People exaggerate, lie and make mistakes.

Geniuses cannot be manufactured at will. If they could, they would be a heck of a lot more common.  The belief that Judit Polgar did not possess unusual natural ability when she could beat her father at chess at the age of five is not tenable. The fact that the other Polgar sisters peaked over 2500 is good evidence for common advantage (rather than individual fluke). But some of it can be genetic as well as environmental. It is known that general intelligence has a large genetic component (and a large environmental component) and there is no reason not to believe this is not true of what is required for chess.

Quotes prove something if they come from a credible source: a professional pedagogue who successfully conducted a remarkable experiment with his own three daughters as publicly announced before their conception, a world champion by many considered the greatest player of all time.
Polgar said he could make any child excel at either chess, mathematics, or classical music.

so what rating do you think most willing human beings can get to then instead of 2000?

the polgar experiment proved that women could compete at the highest level, not that nurture > nature in chess. the fact the 3 sisters reached different chess peaks with only one being world class and the fact they are all genetically related from a presumably above average intelligence father who was an academic pretty much muddy up the whole experiment for that argument.

The academic background of Polgar parents allowed them to provide a specific (highly favorable with respect to the goal set) environment to their children. It doesn't really prove anything about genetics either. Many pushy parents fail but do they know what to actually do in the first place?

you are missing the point, the genetic similarity i mention is not to prove that genetics is the cause of their success but that this variable makes the argument that its nurture inconclusive since the success of the 3 cannot eliminate the possibility of a strong genetic component.

arguing for x =/=  refuting or showing the inadequacy of an argument that attempts to show not X

#76
Dad Polgar also planned to repeat his experiment by adopting a third world child. The adoption did not go through for ethical reasons. That would have proven that genetics plays no role and it is only the environment as Polgar claimed.

#74
I think any willing human can reach 2000. In 200 h as Lasker claimed.
How far above 2000 a willing human can get depends on the age he starts at.
Polgar required a young age, when the brain is malleable.
Also Lasker spoke about a 'young' player.

It is also curious that people are more willing to admit they are dumb than lazy.
I cannot reach 2000, I am too stupid.
I cannot reach 2000, I am too lazy to spend 200 hours of the right work.

69 obviously