Anyone can reach 2000 if they try their best. You just have to work hard.
not everyone can reach 2000
Sort:
"the point is not to ruin the vibe with unneccesary emotional limitations."
Yeah, I really agree with that. Well put.
It seems like everyone here has a scheme for getting above 2000 rating that will not work... :P
Русски есть?
Apr 28, 2016
0
#246
It is a threshold that not everyone is willing to put in the effort to achieve it. It is the entry point of having Chess as a profession. Can everyone be a professional Chess player?
Apr 28, 2016
0
#248
On the contrary. We have a saying " If one is willing, there are many ways. If one is not there are many excuses."
Harish73 wrote:
This thread is of course, discouraging low rated players.
why?
I don't understand that. expert is very, very good.
when your begin any other hobby, do you often begin by assuming that you will be be incredibly good- better than many thousands of enthusiasts?
Apr 28, 2016
0
#250
thegreat_patzer wrote:
Harish73 wrote:
This thread is of course, discouraging low rated players.
why?
I don't understand that. expert is very, very good.
when your begin any other hobby, do you often begin by assuming that you will be be incredibly good- better than many thousands of enthusiasts?
"Not everyone can reach 2000"
I said LOW rated players will be discourged not encouraged. An expert is atleast 2100 USCF rated player.
I don't say I am BEST, there are a trillon of people far better than me.
the OP WAS discouraged. and FWIW lots of persons have disagreed with the OP.
besides if all it takes for you to doubt you most earnest hopes is a Thread on the chess.com forums-
well- what can I say?
thats not very passionate or determined. I'm interested in what I read on the forums, but I'm not going to let it discourage me.
Apr 28, 2016
0
#252
thegreat_patzer wrote:
the OP WAS discouraged. and FWIW lots of persons have disagreed with the OP.
besides if all it takes for you to doubt you most earnest hopes is a Thread on the chess.com forums-
well- what can I say?
thats not very passionate or determined. I'm interested in what I read on the forums, but I'm not going to let it discourage me.
+1
Apr 28, 2016
0
#253
As a coach, I encourage every student to be the best they can be.
As a player, I have run across many opponents who decided to play chess full time (after retirement, or during a sabbatical, or after high school). Very few of those ever broke 2000.
Of course, people will say they just didn't train right. But the Soviet Union had an excellent training program in place and more than 90% of those players never broke 2000 either.
Apr 28, 2016
0
#254
SmyslovFan wrote:
As a coach, I encourage every student to be the best they can be.
As a player, I have run across many opponents who decided to play chess full time (after retirement, or during a sabbatical, or after high school). Very few of those ever broke 2000.
Of course, people will say they just didn't train right. But the Soviet Union had an excellent training program in place and more than 90% of those players never broke 2000 either.
Very reasonable, as usual.
Apr 28, 2016
0
#255
SmyslovFan wrote:
. . . the Soviet Union had an excellent training program in place and more than 90% of those players never broke 2000 either.
Where did you find this statistic? (Just curious.)
Apr 28, 2016
0
#256
BlunderLots escribió:
SmyslovFan wrote:
. . . the Soviet Union had an excellent training program in place and more than 90% of those players never broke 2000 either.
Where did you find this statistic? (Just curious.)
Did you know that 90% of the statistics are invented?
Probably this one too.
Here is an interesting chart that shows how very few reach 2000 and above : http://archive.uschess.org/ratings/ratedist.php
Its abundantly clear that NOT everyone can reach 2000 . 
They are not called experts for no reason...
Very often there will be a post that asks what one has to do to reach a certain chess rating level, often it is above 2000, maybe even a grandmaster. My view is even reaching 2000 is an impossible task for the vast majority of players (myself included). I believe that at this level or above you have to be born with a very good memory (as well as unusual self-discipline). The % of players who reach this level is quite small and its my view that there is good reason for this. Any comments???
4 years late to the party (as usual). But I really disagree with this. The reason most players never reach this level is because they don't put in the time to get there. While I certainly feel chess involves way too much memorization these days, most of the game is still built on tactics, position, strategy, etc. Grandmasters dedicate their lives to get to that point. They study hours a day. If anyone put that much effort and time into mastering chess, they could definitely reach 2000 and beyond. To be a super GM and compete at a professional level is a different story.