Rating 2000

Which rating is in question here?uscf,fide,chess.com?2000 in all 3 is quite good,i reckon?

There is no Clear Definition of a "Good Player" a good player is basically someone who is on your skill level or better than you. its just a term thrown out there to be like at tourneys when your talking to friends and your spectacting a game and your all like," man the guy playing white is a good player he's countering every move that black is making. " in that sort of way 

a tad off topic but if you want to improve try playing 30minute games of chess or 45min with 5second intervals which is basically enough time to think about your moves and maybe get a full game out of it. all i can say is  before you move on to faster games start out slow and then gradually speed up 

*edit* also if you can maybe play against the chess.com computer it'll definitely challenge you. or if you have some time get the chessmaster game- Grandmaster edition

Why can't you ever give a sensible, thread specific reply?

It's always one of 3/4 copy and paste paragraphs you have.

Hypermodern vs Classical chess theory.

Hans Kmoch pawn structure chess recommendation.

This reply about memory of chess patterns.

'Professional gunslinger' terminology thrown in.

How are you over 2000? You've listed a bunch of your weaknesses, which seem to cover everything, but you must have some really strong strengths to compensate and push you over the 2000 mark.

Good is 200 points stronger than you.

Or you if that group is empty.

If you've got nobody 200 points stronger than you, then you are genuinely good.

You only need to watch the countless games you can find in databases with the top players squashing 2400-2500 like flies to realise what good really is.

Not at all. If you're horrible and you know it, and then see someone 200 pts higher make all forms of bad play, you know the other player isn't good.

Your definition of "good" is at a higher level than mine. I would say those are great players.  "Good" for me is a step above "above average."

Yeah, I'd agree. Good is a strong tournament player at club level.

Do we really have to start this again, you've already shown you don't know the meaning of the most basic words.

Yes, strong tournament player at club level does it for me.

I can imagine Kasparov saying of such a person, "S/he is a good player and may reach master strength/ but lacks the ability to reach master strength".

The fact that Judit Polgar was then a good player does not preclude others from being so also.

He got that one wrong then.

There's a convention that says if you quote a grandmaster about anything the point becomes fact.

Botvinnik on Karpov:

"The boy doesn't have a clue about chess, and there's no future at all for him in this profession."

You must not be talking about OTB. If you were over 2000 OTB you would not be regularly dropping "pieces, rooks, and occasionally even queens".

Pretty sure I read somewhere else that he is over 2000 over the board. And yes, even players that level drop pieces. We are all human, after all. :)

He must be just acting overly modest then. While 2000 players do drop pieces, they certainly don't with any regularity.

I agree. How would it be possible to maintain a rating of over 2000 while "regularly dropping pieces?" Maybe he's including sacrifices and/or bughouse games, but i don't consider sacrifices to be dropping pieces.

Would it be possible that the majority of opponents in his area just happen to be worse players? Could that possibly boost a person's rating above 2000 if the competition is subpar?

I think you'd be surprised at how often players at that level miss tactics and drop pieces. Also remember that players that level sometimes get into quite complex positions which could increase the chance to miss a tactic more easily. "reguarly" is a subjective term too, it could mean like once in 5-10 games for all we know. Maybe he could specify for us.