Rating 2000

-kenpo- wrote:

no, I wouldn't expect that because chess takes all their time. 

If carlsen stopped playing chess today and took up physics or something, I'd bet a substantial sum that he would become a leading researcher in the field.

So if the top rated chess players stopped playing chess, they'd all be receiving Nobel prizes? ... not sure about that, personally.


Your stats give the false impression because it includes 1900-2000.

The average rated player can be expected to reach around the 2000 pts. Some might surpass it, while others won't.

bTmb86 wrote:

If skill at chess correlates so well with intelligence, wouldn't you expect the highest rated chess players to be high achievers in other (dare I say, more important) realms?

Ken Rogoff -- GM + Harvard Professor + former Chief Economist of the IMF.

About 30 years ago, he changed the direction of research on current account deficits and exchange rate determination (along with his colleague, Richard Meese).  Both of whom were with the Federal Reserve Board (Board of Governors) at that time.

But he's an outlier, to say the least.

He was interviewed, a few months back, in the Weekender Section of the Financial Times.


P.S. Ratings of @2000 are "chump change."

Every 400 rating points is a MASSIVE leap in Chess prowess.  Only 1 percent of the active players in the U.S. are above 2200.

GMs only "START" around 2500-2600, and every single point higher is VERY VERY difficult to acquire.

What planet do you guys hail from?


Well, the title of this thread set the mark at 2000. That's also the defining mark that separates the Class A player from the expert.


Well maybe you're right... hey if you are, we should probably ban chess and get world hunger sorted Tongue Out

-kenpo- wrote:
no, most of them aren't young enough anymore. but the young ones? yeah, they'd end up somewhere near the top of whichever field they chose.

I think this is a fairly reasonable assumption ... you not only have high intelligence but you also have strong work-ethic and dedication to success. These traits together are what sets these guys apart.


Is it that most people who get FIDE rated will reach on the average 2000?


Or is it that strong players have stronger tendencies to become FIDE rated in the first place than non-strong players?


the 50,000 people rated 2000 and higher represent, at a guess, around 3% to 4% of the competitive chess population - this is true for the Israeli rating, and probably for the American one as well. I guess it should apply in chess websites too (although the actual number representing that skill level will be different from website to website, of course). 

So, anybody with a bit of study can reach 2000?

I've seen people who study and study and study and never make it - not stupid people by any means. 

To other people it seems to come quite easily (to others still, 1850 comes easy, and they never get to 2000 after that...)

I think that it's really cool to play at the 2000 level - but I'm a bad example, because I also felt wonderful playing as an 1850, 1700, 1500, 1200 and when I was still lower than that... I just love chess :-)


Banning chess isn't going to solve world hunger - it will rather create further hunger for chess. 


solskytz - I suspect those who study and study and study and play and never make 2000 are lacking in effective study or have some serious psychological issues with tournament chess. More likely the first one.I think I could take any reasonably intelligent person with good work ethic and turn them into a 2000.

kenpo - Please take into account the recent changes with FIDE. Not too long ago, 1800 was the absolute minimum FIDE rating. Also, most countries do not have regular FIDE-rated tournaments. I am lucky enough to live in an area where about half of our tournaments are FIDE-rated but  most other chess players in my country only play USCF. We have plenty of masters who are not FIDE-rated at all.

One of the local tournament directors here (Sevan Muradian) runs events where all players will earn FIDE ratings. They are 9RR with 10 players, I think 3 of whom must be FIDE-rated and everyone must score one point.


I'd venture a theory that many who "study study study" for years and never make it to 2000 rating are probably studying wrong or not playing competitively enough, possibly both. I've been growing in my chess understanding by leaps and bounds in the past two months with a more regular, focused study, and I'd wager I'm of average intelligence. To me it would seem likely one could become a good player if you spent 3 years consistently studying chess with a good study program and played competitively reguarly. I'd be surprised to see more than a few exceptions to that.


@Ponz111, former U.S. CC Champion suggested (in another thread) about 4 hours per day for 5-6 years to make USCF 2000.

Sounds about right to me.

P.S.  I belive he presumed you were already close to USCF B Class to start.

"Anyone" can (perhaps) make USCF 1600.  After that, you're on your own.

Only 10 percent of active tournament players (yes, ACTIVE) get above USCF 1800.

There's a lesson here, if you're willing to LOOK.


Someone said here that 2000 FIDE isn't a goal worth pursuing, as it's garbage, but 2300 FM is. 

I want to strongly counter that idea. 

Please, anybody rated far below 2000, please disregard this idea, as it will do nothing to your self esteem and pleasure in improving. 

Do look up to your local 2000, or 1800 player. Try to see what he does, get him to explain stuff to you. His level is way more accessible to you than the remote FM level. 

What's wrong with setting an achievable goal? When you do get to 2000, you'll have enough time to strive for the FM standard. Until there, getting up to that next level is certainly good enough and isn't self-evident or automatic. 

For someone who's used to lose to 1400 players, getting to play them on equal grounds is a HUGE achievement. 

A 2000 player or a 2100 player who then looks DOWN at this guy and making nothing of his achievement is acting unwisely. If the 1400 is smart, he'll just ignore that person as having personal self-confidence issues he's trying to solve through simply being better at chess. If the 1400 is more sensitive he may pull away from that club, maybe even from chess. 

People who say that only 2600 players are worth anything simply want to get others to quit. 

Chess is a pleasure. Your true competition is only with yourself. What could I do yesterday? Can I do better today? Can I grow?

Ask every player who made 2600, or 2700, or 2800. I'm sure that they will tell you about the times when they were 2000 or less. I'm sure they didn't feel worthless or weak back then, and I'm sure that they had enthusiasm for the game and wanted to get better. This is what brought them ahead - not the thought that you're 'average' or 'a chump' until you make 2600. 


"What is the minimum rating to be considered a good player?" - Depends on who you want to consider you to be a good player. I remember Kasparov addressing certain 2700+ guys as "chess tourists" Laughing



I said about 2300 being a good goal. I probably phrased that badly. I completely agree that for, say, a 1700, 2000 is a good goal to aim for and they should be pleased to reach it.

Similarly for a 1000 player, 1400 would be a reasonale goal and they should also be happy to reach it.

When I said about reaching 2300, I meant 2300 is needed to be a good player overall. FMs sometimes draw with GMs and they rarely make serious errors. Whereas a 2000 player will make errors much more often.

I agree that whatever level you are, gaining rating is an achievement.

but what I meant about FM being "good" is that they can compete with top players. 2000 can't.

But still relative to a 1200, 2000 is very good. And you are correct that it would be very silly for a 1400 to set a goal of FM thinking anything less is bad. If they reach 2000 then they can start thinking about higher. 

Natalia_Pogonina wrote:

"What is the minimum rating to be considered a good player?" - Depends on who you want to consider you to be a good player. I remember Kasparov addressing certain 2700+ guys as "chess tourists"

Vladimir Akopian 2713
Kasparov had apparently recently referred to Akopian (+GMs Nisipeanu and Movsesian) as nothing more than chess tourists.

Natalia_Pogonina wrote:

"What is the minimum rating to be considered a good player?" - Depends on who you want to consider you to be a good player. I remember Kasparov addressing certain 2700+ guys as "chess tourists"

Yes, but he is like the Mozart of chess. There is just one.


But Pogonina makes a good point.  2200 for a professional is an embarrassment, but for an amateur is a life long achievement :)


For a professional it also isn't an embarrassment as he may not be a professional chess player who gains his bread, but a professional manager, coach, writer (who can help people improve up to expert, for example) - Dan Heisman comes to mind, who is only NM and certainly not way above 2200 FIDE level. Where's the embarrassment? I find him very valuable, even brilliant. 

Someone who's 2200 won't make big money out of tournament chess. If he still manages to make a reasonable living from chess that's quite something. 

Making a living off of what you love is great in any case. Not everybody does that. 

waffllemaster wrote:

But Pogonina makes a good point.  2200 for a professional is an embarrassment, but for an amateur is a life long achievement :)

I agree but I stick to my point. There is just one Mozart, one beethoven and one Liszt. You can fill the names in yourself ;)