Rating 2000


  • 4 years ago · Quote · #101

    zborg

    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?

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #102

    Sunshiny

    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.

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #103

    Tmb86

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

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #104

    DalaiLuke

    -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.

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #105

    solskytz

    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 :-)

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #106

    solskytz

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

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #107

    Expertise87

    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.

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #108

    APawnCanDream

    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.

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #109

    zborg

    @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.

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #110

    solskytz

    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. 

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #112

    piphilologist

    @solskytz

    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. 

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #113

    bobbyDK

    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
    http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1254316
    Kasparov had apparently recently referred to Akopian (+GMs Nisipeanu and Movsesian) as nothing more than chess tourists.

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #114

    red-lady

    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.

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #115

    waffllemaster

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

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #116

    solskytz

    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. 

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #117

    red-lady

    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 ;)

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #118

    solskytz

    <Piphilogist>

    Thanks for your comment :-) 

    Maybe there's something wrong with me... I'm probably worth around 2050 FIDE (although I don't have the rating - I have just three FIDE rated games from several years ago where I scored two wins and one loss against opposition which averages at 1994) and still feel like a good player... :-) 

    I guess there is... as I've been feeling that way also when I was way worse...

    As long as I keep enjoying chess and learn new stuff I guess my problem isn't that big though...

    (btw I have some friends who are FIDE masters and up. One FIDE master in particular, who comes to mind - he doesn't think that he can compete against the top level, and I think he's right. I also hand him a more-than-occasional defeat... often when we analyze together I see moves and ideas before he does - of course less than 50% of the time... he's the master and is really much stronger than me)

    Levels are relative. If I didn't feel like a strong and deep player (and we all do, you can do nothing against it) I would never make it from around 1200 to my current level - it's the fuel that drives me up. I'm good - and then I want to get better. 

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #119

    waffllemaster

    solskytz wrote:

    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. 

    In the strictest sense, yes, those who make money off of their ability are pros, and personally I have a lot of respect for those masters who I've gotten a lot of good advice (Heisman, chess.com, youtube people, etc).  They're very good players who could certainly beat me.


    But on the subject of rating goals and achievements, a professional player, with professional goals as a player (not a teacher or commentator, or anything else), would hopefully only be rated 2200 once (on his way up).

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #120

    Expertise87

    I agree with the statement that your next goal should be dependent on your current level. As an Expert, my next reasonable goal is to make Master. As a class A player, I wanted to make Expert. As a class B player, I wanted to stay at class B and win some money. Once I did that, I wanted to become a class A player, etc. It's hard for even an underrated class A player to make money in a chess tournament, although the same cannot be said for the lower levels.

    I also agree with Natalia Pogonina that it depends on who you want to think of you as good. If you want the guys at the office to think you are a good chess player, 1200 is a reasonable goal. If you want to impress the people at your local chess club, 1800-2000 might be more reasonable. If you want Kasparov to think you are good, change your name to Magnus and move to Norway. If you want me to think you are good, get to 2300, etc. I don't think of myself as a good player by my own standards, but this is motivation for me to get better, not something I would get upset about and quit over.


Back to Top

Post your reply: