not everyone can reach 2000

Another simple statistic -- 50 percent of all U.S. OTB tournament games are played by the 10 percent of USCF players rated 1800 and above.  Very Busy Guys.

That (largely) explains the difficulty of getting a USCF 2000+ rating.

It's nice to see a "thousand weeds bloom" in the posts above.  But it doesn't become you guys.  Sorry to inform.

Maybe it's time to start a new mindless thread?  Go For It.

Unless of course, you like "this shite," and "haha" in big capital letters ??

True

If someone were willing, had the right tools, and were able, they could do it.

Not much of a thought... this is true for everything.

"I want to explore different galaxies"

"Well little Timmy, if you're willing, and you have the right tools, and you're able, then you can do it!"

"Yay!"

lol

^Timmy doesn't even know what the right tools are. This is an extreme case that doesn't represent chess improvement at all, as many ppl have already reached 2000+, simply through sheer hard work, little talent (me for example), and no one has ever landed in another galaxy. Terrible analogy.

Reaching 2000+ is nothing compared to discovering a new planet... just some hard work and sacrifice lol

When I was a little kid, FM Ray Kaufman estimated my playing strength to be around 1000 USCF.

I only wanted to play blitz and solve tactics puzzles, read chess books for fun, and just enjoy chess mainly, but still get better and win. I thought it would come through experience.

I didn't want to focus on carefully dissecting my thinking process, painfully improving my visualization skills through drills, and playing slow chess (didn't wanna sit down for that long)

Basically, many years passed, and after my first official USCF tourney, my rating was 1300 provisionally.... I had hardly improved a tiny bit... (sounds a lot like those "plateaued" ppl)

But since I was determined to improve, I did what I had to. It wasn't fun sometimes, and sometimes, after weeks of training for 2 hrs+/day, I would feel no improvement.

But in the end, I did end up breaking this "plateau" through hard work, and a few monthly sessions with a very good coach who knew what he was doing.

(At one point, I was stuck in the low 1900s, and even after hard work, there was no good result. I just kept going, doing the same effective training techniques that weren't the most fun, despite the discouragement; the next tourney, I broke through 2000 easily.)

Now although I still want to improve my chess, I enjoy it a lot more.

If someone is stuck at a relatively low rating [under 2000] for a period of years--he is not really trying to improve his rating.

This is fine, many players play just for fun and are not interested in winning most of their games.

Exactly.

These people hence should not spread the rumor that "most ppl can't get 2000"

Correct. Even extreme cases are easily achievable if the only thing required is being willing, prepared, and able to do it.

And because willingness and preparedness are not so hard, the main debate becomes whether or not some people are unable, and if so, why.

Saying "most people are able because... uh, because I said so" sidesteps the the question completely.

Begging the question fallacy.

No circular reasoning; this is clearly not my entire argument (which is included in various posts, and based on many observations).

Willingness and preparedness are difficult for some people, due to many factors involving psychology and conditioning. I trust this is clear. Claiming them not to be "because I said so" is much worse than my claim.

Based on MY OBSERVATIONS, which you can ofc ignore, these players are just not studying correctly. The best ways of training involve active learning, many slow games, and actively trying to hardwire your thinking process, incorporating your superficial knowledge. It's difficult and frustrating, but rewarding in the long run.

Most players would rather read books, watch videos, do tactical puzzles, play blitz, etc., which are much less effective, but much more comfortable. It's about willingness to seek out and follow the best route of training.

I am now done with this thread. After re-entering the chess world for a few weeks, I am now aiming for 2200+ USCF as my new rating. And I believe I, like many other people, have the ability to do it. It won't be easy or quick though, and even harder than the road to 2000+.

Good luck to everyone who wishes to reach 2000, or even higher. I'm telling you right now that you can do it, and you should convince yourself that you can too. But it won't necessarily be easy and smooth. It's ultimately up to you. You are the judge of what is worth pursuing in life.

Heine-borel, congratulations on breaking 2000!

I have known many extremely intelligent people, people with advanced degrees, businessmen and women, and others who have taken time off work to study chess and strive to break 2000. One Ukrainian I know with Ph.Ds in language and statistics (not such a strange combination when you think about it) told me that even in Russia (he studied in Moscow), it is recognised that not everyone can break 2000. 

The fact that you broke 2000 does not show that "anybody" can do it. It demonstrates that you have accomplished something that is rare, even with proper training. You have done what almost 90% of competitive tournament chess players never accomplish, despite their best efforts.

Congratulations again! 

Let's keep 2000 FIDE and 2000 USCF seperated

我是中国人

一步杀

Although I said I was done... this is interesting @ Smyslov.

You guys may be right after all... maybe not everyone can achieve 2000.

However, during my entire career of learning chess, it was a core, unquestioned assumption that anything <2200 was achievable thru hard work by just about any average person.