not everyone can reach 2000

I agree,First I found out about my openings' problems then middle games and now I'm working on both with end games plus tactics...the only thing you need to know is that I'm talented but I need to have a tidy game through those three aspecs and the only barrier to reach 2ooo is my connection (and matter of time)

Everyone CAN, but you must love the game enough to study so hard (exess money can be VERRY usefull) and put so much dedication into chess to get to such a level.

Yesterday everyone could be a super gm, I'm confused?

Strange to see that some players can not reach 2000 elo otb because of their bad connection. Are they talking about the bus ride to the club?

I meant live games,I'm working on OTB and it  needs a little time to start over again, If you meant me...!

Sure, i understand and that is why I made the silly remark. There is only one meaningful score and that is an OTB one. Face to face.

As soon as everyone starts trying to to get to 2000 seriously, 2000 becomes harder to get to.  It is a mathematical certainty that not everyone can reach 2000.  Someone has to lose these games, you know.

Agreed.  Turn based chess is all very well but it is merely a distraction.  You get opening books, time to study and plan, the opportunity to check you have not blundered by using the analysis board to try every line repeatedly.  Over the board is another matter.  I have inched my rating up OTB each year, it is now 1774 - nowhere near 2000.  My only target is 1800 lol.  Sure, there are reasons - I play after work and travel to clubs in Glasgow League and Ayrshire League; I do not play apart from that; I do not study or train - having said all that, would I have gotten to 2000 anyway if I had - I don't think so.  Am I enjoying my chess as it is?  Yes.  Do I like the balance in my life with chess being just one facet of it?  Yes.  So I will keep on the way I am and maybe reach 1800 OTB.  2000?  Nah.  Does not bother me one bit.  Even people who get to 2500 have to live with the fact there are wildly more talented people out there than them.  A rating is useful to measure your progress relative to a previous year, to help assign roughly matched players in competition, even to planning your goals and deciding what level of texts you should study if you want to improve.  It is not an end in itself, there is no golden glow I would gain from reaching 2000 that would make life complete.  By all means strive for the rating; I only ask that you think why you want to reach it.  Meanwhile I, like many others, will just enjoy my chess and the journey.

Well OTB you start "Unrated".  Online you start at a baseline 1200 which is modified by more initially than later, due to the mechanics they use.  If a talented player came to Scotland for example, having played in England which uses the 3 digit BCF rating, he would be assessed on his results and not from any baseline so it is not based on a statistical curve like a top 1% only.  I think the way it goes initially is that you do not have a substantive rating till you have played 30 games although one can be given for less.  Once you have a rating it can be dismissed once you have played 30 games in that season.  That is to say if you start one year with a 1600 rating and play 18 games at 1900 level, they will calculate your new rating as (1900x18)/30+(1600x12)/30, whereas if you play a full 30 games or more you will be assessed over that season's results alone.

I just hope Sir Richard's translations are coming along well...

my top rating otb was 1980 , im geting weaker as i grow older so that was my limit , geting to 2k its as far from me as its the moon.

Looks like someone is a little eager, perhaps a bit too eager, to shed his thoughts on what people can't achieve. It's a valid opinion OP, I just wonder how positive or negative your intentions are with this.

Not everyone can reach 2000 but I can! :)

Fianchetto (1900 USCF)

Yeah, and I'm sure you would be very happy with your BS rating gained by playing players even weaker than you. 

Please consider that the previous post was delivered in a tone that you perhaps did not catch. The rude behavior on the other hand you have no excuse for and it would be better for the forums if you were more civil in the future.

Ja, ve have vays to make you more civil!...

With no health issues getting in the way, anyone can reach a 2000 level. Memory and calculation can be trained. Most dont know how and the rest just dont want to do the work. Most players i've met get to 1500-1600 USCF and never go past that point. I am convinced this is because they focus on studying books and memorizing positions rather than fixing the main hole in their game which is blunders. No more blunders=2000!

You need appropriate books to weed out said bad thinking habits.  Well, maybe not "need" per se but it helps the process along nicely!  Heisman's Improving Chess Thinker is a big help.  Also working on where you're weakest.  If you don't know how to compose a plan in critical positions then you're probably not going far past 1500 USCF. 

The rest of your post aside, I agree completely that there is way too much emphasis on chess books. You can easily develop thought process and playing habits by reading comments and articles online, talking with other players, with a coach, thinking about it on your own, and most importantly PLAYING GAMES and practicing habits of concentration. I believe for most people under 2000, books are more of a distraction than very helpful. There are so many other, quicker ways to improve nowadays, but instead many chess players get stuck with 100 books and a 1500 rating.

accidental double post