not everyone can reach 2000

lol when you say he's exaggerating.

This is how all players talk, don't you see you're doing it yourself?

"Anyone can get to [near or at my rating], but to get [one or two hundred points higher] you need [talent / proper coaching / proper environment / etc]"

Because once you are that rating, it doesn't feel that strong. You're aware of all your silly misunderstandings, and the knowledge you worked hard to gain long ago has become so automatic you're literally using it without being conscious of it anymore.

So GMs say 2400 is simple to reach, IMs say 2200, CMs say 2000... my 2000 friend told me 1800. I saw a video of 2650 player say 2550 is just knowing the basics, Carlsen a few years ago said So only has opening prep and tactics and that's enough to be low 2700 but not enough for top 10.

It's all a bunch of silliness.

There are entire countries that do not have a single player rated over 2200 .  Is it possible that none of that nation's chess addicts are willing to put in the time/effort  ?  Hard to believe for me .  

It's all relative to one's perspective, that's true. You make a good point. :)

But I also do believe that most players can reach master strength or higher. Look at the Polgars. They weren't born strong chess players. They studied and trained from a young age.

Nobody's born with the ability to play good chess. Everyone sucks at it when they're new to it.

Strong players become strong players from the right kind of practice and study, which is something most anyone can do—with enough time and motivation, of course! :D

Good point. Time+effort+resources might be a more accurate formula.

Yeah, maybe we should say "people in a similar situation to me can reach this rating."

Even though it's only 3 kids, I agree the Polgars are a good example. Although while it's true you're not born able to play chess, even geniuses are born with some kind of mental limitations. Even in the same environment, some people will have to work much harder than others to have the same success.

I believe all 3 Polgar sisters agreed that chess improvement came easiest to the youngest, Sofia (even though she quit before being GM, she had beaten GMs and won tournaments where GMs were playing).

This is to say, genetics do count for something.

I am hereby casting all into the Pit that do not believe " skill " exists !   May Caissa have mercy on your souls . 

I agree that some individuals have more of a natural aptitude for excelling at chess. Stronger memories, creative thinkers, stuff like that.

But I don't believe one needs a talented mind to reach 2200 (as in, "Unless you're brilliant, you will never reach 2200!"). I don't buy that. Perhaps to reach the much higher levels, definitely.

But 2200 (in my opinion) is attainable by most players, it just requires a lot of practice and diligent study.

Most NMs aren't at their level because they just picked up a chess set and played master-level chess the first time they saw a board. They're there because they put in the work. Because they earned it.

There are some problems with this line of reasoning though . It took me 11 years to get from 1200 ( beginner in 1973 ) to 2200 in 1984 and yes I put in the work . However some who didnt work as hard/long as I did made this milestone much faster and some who worked harder and all their lives never got beyond A or even B class level . Its quite obvious that some just take more naturally to chess than others . Some people just have a natural understanding of the game that others do not possess and its something that cannot be learned , you have it or you don't . 

It's not that you're either a genius or you're not. It's a continuum. IQ isn't intelligence, and intelligence isn't chess, but just as an example you have people who will score IQ of 95, 96, 97, etc. It's not that people are either 60, 100, or 140.

So some people will work very hard and after a few years they will be 2600. Some will be below 1600.

---

In any case, if you want to show "[somewhere around my rating] is possible for anyone" then take some students. It will take some time to learn the best ways to teach, but in the end if you're popping out 2200+ players with great consistency you'll be able to make a lot of money as the worlds best coach.

Haha, yeah, that's a pretty good observation.

Reaching 2000 Fide is a large project. It takes a lot time. In chess we add on some knowledge all the time, and we slowly build up. If enough time, and if we stay healthy, we will get to 2000 and further.

I think that players 100 points up is possible to beat , and when that is done several times, next 100 is possible, and so it goes.

Improvement doesnt come linear, the results stands still for a long time, and then there will be  a jump. If you put in a lot of work without results it can be demoralizing, and suddendly, boom!, You win more.

My top two goals in life are to jump to the moon under my own power, and to fly like a bird just by flapping my arms. One of these days I'll accomplish those goals.

I agree that people improve at different rates. And yes, I also believe that some have more of an aptitude for chess than others. Definitely! Look at Carlsen, for example. Or Morphy. Players with that mystical "it" factor.

But I also believe in the power of hard work and study (and, for those who can afford it and have the time: regular instruction from a quality, master-level coach).

The reason I don't buy the whole, "Some people simply can't reach master-class" argument is because I was once the 1300 player. I spent years at that level, and thought I could never get better.

But I eventually learned that it wasn't a lack of "talent" that was stopping me from improving—it was a result of me not knowing how to think at the board.

What do masters posess that struggling amateurs don't? Is it mojo? Some sort of divine magic? Or is it simply that they know which squares to fight for, and know the thematic struggles of their openings, and know where to put their rooks, and what to do against IQPs, and how to identify a weakness and maneuever against it? These are things that I believe nobody (or very few individuals, at least) gets "naturally"—but rather, are things that are learned from experience and study, or absorbed from instruction.

And those (in my opinion) are really the only the things that separate the 2200 from the 1200—tactical knowledge and strategic concepts and positional ideas, things that most anyone can attain with the right effort and guidance.

So, to me, 2200 is certainly attainable for most players, or at least very close to it. Because I don't believe any sort of brilliant thinking or creative wizardry is required to reach it—just a solid, learned grasp of how to think at the board.

Just my perspective, though! :D

this topic is as Old as the Hills and as futile as spitting in the wind.

obviously not everyone WILL put forth the effort.  In chess.com groups what I observed over and over is people that are interested in joining and starting.  so I think its very common, espacially amoung us internet warriors to "improve chess on a whim" and

NOT to follow up with serious, sustained chess improvement activities.

....  I absolutely CAN predict what will happen to someone skill in rating (espacially if they are an adult), if they DO not study.  there is little to no chance of chess improvement.

regarding the old argument between those that think

"anything is possible " and "NO anything is Not possible, you idiot".

I think this is false choice, because they are both in a way True.   the Realist will Now get all worked up.   My Point is , You don't Know what is possible and what is Not.  and assuming that a given mark or goal is NOT possible is bad for morale.   Rather than strain to figure out What is possible and what is not- keep you mind closer to the battle.

and TRY.  try really hard, and if your not now trying hard, try harder in the days to come.

who can say what is possible if you give your all?  

The ways people gather, organize, conceptualize, apply, and recall information is different. It's not magically knowing where to place pieces, that's just a skill anyone can learn to some degree as you point out. It's how they think that allows them to learn this quickly. And the more you know, the more you're able to learn, so it snowballs.

To use a somewhat childish example, this is the main trope in Sherlock Holmes stories. He sees what everyone else sees, but he's able to get more out of it.

As a chess example take development in the opening. Some beginners will follow the advice without understanding the logic behind it. Some people will immediately realize the logic of it, and not only apply it to the opening, but all through the game (the idea of piece activity for example). When some people learn, they can apply the knowledge in many different ways.

Skill still requires work, and knowledge doesn't come from nowhere, but some people have a high coefficient for this work. This is the main mechanism that allows people to be titled players after only a few years of learning and playing.

the point is,

if someone work harder than most people

and finds it easier to understand and apply the Laws of chess

they are dramatically, even exponentially better than all the rabble rousing patzers- that then go on the chess.com forums and write stuff like,

"a GM is a pretty awful patzer of a chess player, cuz my 3000 rated chess engine finds lots of flaws in their game"

or

" Its surely Easy to become a master cause you should see how easily my chess engine beat them"

Yeah, this is fun. I came up with a similar thing in the 1300 vs 2700 topic.

You might say there's at least a very small, non-zero chance that any individual can reach 2000.

But you might also say there's a very small, non-zero chance that any individual cannot reach 2000 haha

Basically when we don't have much information, our assumptions aren't worth much.

As you point out, on a practical level it's useful to be positive.

"Players with that mystical "it" factor."

Be careful with the word "mystical." It can quickly lead to irrationality.

"To use a somewhat childish example, this is the main trope in Sherlock Holmes stories. He sees what everyone else sees, but he's able to get more out of it.

As a chess example take development in the opening. Some beginners will follow the advice without understanding the logic behind it. Some people will immediately realize the logic of it, and not only apply it to the opening, but all through the game (the idea of piece activity for example). When some people learn, they can apply the knowledge in many different ways.

Skill still requires work, and knowledge doesn't come from nowhere, but some people have a high coefficient for this work. This is the main mechanism that allows people to be titled players after only a few years of learning and playing."

That's a very sensible theory, binary, but it's still just a theory on your part, isn't it?