How many here actually believe?

 Play in a tourney, and see.

Yeah, I think the people who have never played in an OTB tournament are in for a big surprise if they ever play in one, despite what the ratings conversions often say. I know I was.

So how did it turn out? 

Nah. Maybe IM

Much more difficult.

Players rated 1000 OTB were a tough match for me, and I'm currently about 1500 ICC standard. When I was playing on chess.com, I was around 1300 here and 1100 at ICC standard. 

I know that's a small sample size and we're creating quite the daisy chain, but the lower levels OTB are *much* harder than the lower levels online.

 A lot of people on here say same.

Hmm, I wasn't aware of that.  I mean, I went to an OTB tourney after playing in a club for a while so I guess I knew where I stood before hand.  The main difference may be something as simple as being comfortable with the tournament environment (guy sitting across from you, hitting the clock, writing the moves) or may be that tournament players would have a more serious mindset (they're giving up their weekend and spending money to play).

It surprises me to hear that as a 1500 on ICC standard time control you had trouble with a 1000 rated tourney player.  Was it a kid (they're notoriously underrated), did you actually lose?  Sometimes a really low rated kid will make you sweat for 15 moves as they trot out some memorized line and seem to be playing really tough... but if they're rated 1000 usually after they're out of any memorized openings (if they know any) they'll fall apart pretty quick and you'll pick up some material fairly quickly.

 Sure, a 1000 player would fall apart against somebody with your rating.

orange: Part of it was the environment. I'd practiced at home with a board, but you can't replicate the pressure. But I honestly think the players were just better. They played differently than online players. They were more likely to move themselves into a blunder, but far less likely to miss a saving move if there were only one available, no matter how hard to find.

My results in my first OTB were:

Draw with 1257, loss to 1311, loss to 1184, defeated 897 but was in a dead lost position and about to resign when she blundered her queen, fairly easy win against a 1054, loss to a 1229.

I didn't see a lot of difference between the 900 and the 1257 (the 1311 I made a really dumb mistake in the opening and never had a chance to get into the game). Maybe I'm overstating things, and maybe the sample size is too small, but I really think most online players in the low to mid classes underestimate tournament strength.

I am a 2000 USCF rated player right now, 27 years old. If I am able to train regularly with GM coaches and spend a lot of time in Europe over the next several years, then why not?

Becoming a Grandmaster is more about having the time to do it (train as required, play in serious 9-round tournaments as required to gain experience and eventually norms), and the money to make all of this happen. A player "only" needs to hit 2500 FIDE at some point, and norms now do not expire.

A lot of people, I think, confuse Grandmaster with world-class player. The vast majority of Grandmasters are NOT world-class players (say Top 25). I believe that to become world-class, a player needs to have some special gift: not genius necessarily, but good talent...if not that, they need to be well-coached starting in the womb (and some players seemingly are). I DON'T think becoming a GM requires a special gift, only a great deal of dedication (time), and also money/other favorable circumstances to play/train regularly (for instance, being a young kid in a good chessplaying country).

Remember this: a lot of Grandmasters are not ranked even in the Top 1000 in the world by rating. If you don't believe it, check the FIDE rating lists. Now, every player has in their FIDE profile, their National, Continental, and World rank, so it's very clear to see.

I still think it takes talent, Andre.

In one of my first tourney's I was (correctly) rated in the 1300s and I was playing this 1000 rated kid in the first round.  I was thinking, ok, no sweat, but for about 20 moves it was completely equal and I was getting nervous :)  Then, all of a sudden, he drops a knight to a simple 1 mover.  This was my experience with most kids.

The other type of kid is rated around 1400 and plays like a 2000 lol.  You look up their rating at the end of the year and see they gain about 300 points a year for 4 years straight.

 Honestly, I think it is a war of attrition at a certain point (say, IM level). How many players at that level stopping pursuing the GM title seriously (for whatever reasons)?

I personally know dozens of titled players (I live in NYC...). And I know MANY IM-level players who have just as much talent as some GMs I know, but didn't make the GM title happen (again, for whatever reasons).

I can believe a large part of the difference between IM and GM is attrition. 100 rating points is a lot at that level, but the norms are a matter of three great days.

But the difference between IM and 2000, or even IM and 2200, is a ton.

 I used to agree with this statement, but now I no longer do. The gap is closing year by year. Tournament opportunities and training resources are simply too numerous.

Well, mathematically, don't you have to score 75% against 2200s to maintain a 2400 rating?

 Yes, that is one way to maintain 2400. But the hugely increased playing and training opportunities over the past 5-10 years (and they will only grow over time) make this a possibility for the dedicated.

Most people stop working seriously to reach new levels because of family/job commitments and the like. It's not because they are lacking the ability to improve.

insha' Allah i will make 2000 this year and be the champion of Egypt and the world champion in chess , if you dont knew me , that is your time to seek .

I don't even see myself making Master, but I'd be happy to maintain what appears to be a pretty inflated rating of 1889 for now