Rating goals?

Wow, really? I wish you luck, because you're going to need truckloads of it. If you set a goal that high, then you're not going anywhere, you'll get frustrated and play lousy, and not even remain at 1500. So, just for your benefit, I'd lower that by 7000 points if I were you.

At the start of the year, I stated my goal as getting my USCF rating as high as the year (2010) by the end of the year. Since then, my rating has dropped 60 points, from 1777 to 1717.

But that was also my "Aim high, and be happy if I get half way there" type of goal. Realistically, I'll be happy with breaking 1900 this year. I gained more than 200 points per year in 2008 and 2009, but I know improvement slows at around this level, so I'll probably be if I can get a 125 point increase this year.

I've played enough guys in the 1900's to know that they're only a little better than me, and I should be able to make up that gap with enough play and study of the right type.

Once I break 1900, I'll be playing 2000+ players more often, so I'll be better qualified to judge whether or not I think I can ever reach their level.

Since ratings are relative, there is at this point no way of getting a rating of as high as 9000. The best you can do is win EVERY SINGLE GAME you play, and then, in OTB chess, you'd still be "only" 800 pts or so higher than the next guy, so it might be 2800 + 800 = 3600.

And that's forgetting about the rating changes those guys and gals would have on your way up.

I totally agree about the ratings being relative

Ok so maybe I'm the biggest internet nerd for knowing this but "OVER NINE THOUSAAAAAND" is an internet meme said for lulz (or laughs), e.g. it wasn't serious guys

You can follow the links to find this -- but this pretty much sums it up:

Modern Usage

The phrase adopted from Dragon Ball Z is now used in place of saying "Tons!" or to otherwise express any relatively large amount.

Person one: How many people were at the dorm room party last night?
Person two: “Over NINE THOUSAAAAAAAND!”

I think it sounds like an inane phrase. over 9000 ok.   I don't like when certain "phrases" are coined in an attempt to be witty when they are quite the opposite.  I don't find it even slightly catchy. 

I'd settle for 4 more points here.... stopped at 2099 last time I had a good run.

More cowbell !  

--Cystem

I never thought that sketch was funny.

My bet's 2230 ;)

I know the highest so far is only 2800 something, but I'm going for a google!!!!!!  Or perhaps 900.

I aim to cross over 1900 USCF in 2010, and hope to achieve expert in the next four years. My life goal (in chess) is to achieve master by age 60. Trying to improve through my 50s is a race against dementia.

I set more modest goals at sites like this one along the way. Staying over 2000, and getting back over 2100 at one site; getting over 2200 here. These two are comparable to the 1900 USCF for me (others might find different results).

In blitz and bullet, I like to keep my rating above 1800, but I'm far below that right now as a consequence of scoring a mere 60% against the 1400-1700s that I play most often. Players rated above me in live are too few and far between. Fast time controls serve more as a fix for a junkie than an avenue for progressing towards my goals.

2000 KNSB (simular to FIDE) without falling back

How fast you improve depends on a lot of things - How much natural talent you have, how much time you are willing to put in, how hard you are willing to work, how much you are willing to invest in resources such as books, videos, etc  . . ., how EFFECTIVELY you use your time, and how old you are.

Let's face some reality.   First, most people will never be great chess players simply because they lack the apptitude or interest.  But if you love the game, are willing to put in time, and show steady improvement over time you've probably got some potential.   Second, as the brain ages we learn more slowly.  Kids have a huge advantage over adults.   I'm 50 and it's obvious that I learn far more slowly than I did at 10 or 15.  But that doesn't mean I can't learn, it just means I have to work much harder and longer.  I also have to accept that I'm way too old to become a top notch player, so the modest success I enjoy and the improvement I make must be a sufficent reward for the hard work.

That we need to invest our time and resources to improve is obvious to everyone.  No so obvious is that we need to use our time effectively.   Two hours of study may help a lot or it may not help at all.   To improve, we need to determine where our weaknesses are and focus our efforts there.  We need to play people better than us, and study materials and problems that are difficult.  Doing chess tactics problems helps, but we need to take the time to throughly understand each problem to make sure we nail for the right reasons, not by accident.  When we get it wrong, we need to figure out WHY we get it wrong, and work on improving that flaw, especially if we keep getting problems wrong for the same reasons.   Understanding the mistakes we make and figuring out how not to make them is a big part of improving.

All this having been said, keep in mind that for the vast majority of us the goal is to have fun.  It's better to have fun at a lower rating than to push yourself so hard so that you begin to hate the game.

But I'm special - I am so good that I get better by playing speed chess.

I started playing chess just over a year ago, and have never played OTB. My rating is around 1600 here. I have no time to study chess ATM, as I am in my final year in school and have exams. My lifetime aim would be to reach expert level (2000+) but I'm not sure if that is unrealistic for someone who has only reached this stage in a year (I am 17 years old). I would be quite happy with 1800+, which I think should definitely be attainable.

If you've made 1600 in a year(!), then I reckon 2000 lifetime should be fairly straightforward, maybe another two years (with some study).

I hope so. I plan on studying as much as I can this summer, after my exams, and hopefully joining a chess club so I can play OTB once I get to University.

So what you're saying is it's just as easy for say a 2500 player to improve as it is for a beginner? 

It doesn't work out that way because even the math is rooted in understanding that it is more than a hill of beans whether one is in the top 1% or the bottom 30%. It is a statistical system after all.

Then, as a practical matter, players rated 1000 lack fundamental understanding of elementary tactics, strategic principles, and so on. Minimal instruction is necessary to get a person of average intelligence from 1000 to 1400 or so. But moving from 2100 to 2500 requires learning to break down and overcome stubborn and resourceful defence that commits few and very slight tactical errors.

Despite any theory, however, my own improvement over the past few years convinced me that 1500 to 1600 is far harder than 1600 to 1700, and from 1700 to 1800 was almost a cake walk. Even so, the experience of a top junior in my club reveals a different experience. He made it to 1600 quickly (less than two years of play), struggled for a few years, and was frustrated, getting to 1700, and then stalled in the high 1700s.

My luck improved after I crossed 1700; his got worse.