My nearest tough competition would be in the Dallas area, which is roughly 100 miles from where I live...
What does it take to get to 2000 USCF?
Sort:
Aug 10, 2018
0
#82
@ChessinBlackandWhite, that’s an interesting observation. Since I broke 1800 fifteen rated games ago, my opponent average rating was roughly between 1500-1550, which has not helped my rating much.
My nearest tough competition would be in the Dallas area, which is roughly 100 miles from where I live...
My nearest tough competition would be in the Dallas area, which is roughly 100 miles from where I live...
Aug 10, 2018
0
#83
superchessmachine wrote:
here I am wondering how to get to 1400
It always made me mad, going online, all these jerks talking about, oh 1700, 1800, 2000, etc is so easy. But I'd been playing for years and I couldn't imagine ever being as good as 1600.
It just takes time. Learn stuff, play, and try not to repeat your mistakes, and improvement happens on its own... but it doesn't happen fast.
Aug 10, 2018
0
#84
SmyslovFan wrote:
cjxchess17 wrote:
checkmateeerree wrote:
cellomaster8 wrote:
1955 USCF from what rating? If it’s from unrated, then you must be a liar
I was at 700, just playing casually. My parents wanted me to improve so I joined a chess school. From then on, I rapidly increased until I became 1882. Then, I dropped to 1829. I struggled a while in 1800 so I switched coaches. Then, after about 2 months, I reached the 1900s.
do you have a USCF profile? I need proof
The players is under age, so I don't want to publish his name.
Here it is:
That's 3 years, not 1 year
Aug 10, 2018
0
#87
In response to @checkmateeerree
See, that's how chess players trick you. They don't count most of their work as work.
Usually because they find it fun. You know... like they analyzed some WCC match 4 hours a day for a month but it wasn't work or study to them, they were just interested and wanted to do it on their own, so they never mention it. Stuff like that.
I've told this story before... I analyzed an endgame with this one NM. Earlier he'd told me he'd only studied tactics, never endgames, so I'm expecting him to be pretty bad... but no, he knew more than me, and preformed better too.
I asked how he was so good if he'd never studied it, and he said he'd spent many hours going over endgames like this so of course he's good... see, that's how they get ya 
Aug 10, 2018
0
#88
What does it take to get to 2000 USCF?
More work than i am willing to put in. So I have a lot of respect for those that make it.
Aug 10, 2018
0
#89
Preggo_Basashi wrote:
In response to @checkmateeerree
See, that's how chess players trick you. They don't count most of their work as work.
Usually because they find it fun. You know... like they analyzed some WCC match 4 hours a day for a month but it wasn't work or study to them, they were just interested and wanted to do it on their own, so they never mention it. Stuff like that.
I've told this story before... I analyzed an endgame with this one NM. Earlier he'd told me he'd only studied tactics, never endgames, so I'm expecting him to be pretty bad... but no, he knew more than me, and preformed better too.
I asked how he was so good if he'd never studied it, and he said he'd spent many hours going over endgames like this so of course he's good... see, that's how they get ya
If that's the case, I don't think I have studied any chess on my way to 2000, I never read a book cover to cover, never reviewed any lessons by my coach, never studied any grandmaster's games move by move, and never studied an opening move-by-move. All I did was to play, play, and play like I do in pvz.
Aug 10, 2018
0
#90
Yes yes, you had a coach and played in tournaments, but you never studied 
That's another example of how chess players aren't honest about it.
Aug 10, 2018
0
#91
Preggo_Basashi wrote:
Yes yes, you had a coach and played in tournaments, but you never studied
That's another example of how chess players aren't honest about it.
Well, I actually have 5 total (two right now). One of them is a world class trainer, the other two are top players and the remaining two are just casuals
Aug 10, 2018
0
#92
checkmateeerree wrote:
Preggo_Basashi wrote:
Yes yes, you had a coach and played in tournaments, but you never studied
That's another example of how chess players aren't honest about it.
I think there's is a misunderstanding about how we view "studying." When I say studying, I mean rigorous work like reading many books extremely attentively, studying grandmaster games, and self-analysis of your own games.
I have done none of that in my career
Aug 10, 2018
0
#93
And that's my point, people use the word "study" differently.
And having a GM talk to you, and analyze your games, for example, can be better than reading their book, or analyzing a game on your own.
Or having a GM show you a relevant historical game can be better than looking at random GM games on your own.
And it doesn't have to be a coach of course. If you have friends (or family members) who are very good, they can be giving you advice all the time.
Aug 10, 2018
0
#94
if you define studying as self analysis of every game you play with an engine, then i always study/
if you define studying by reading books, analyzing deeply all recent GM games or past historical games, or having a coach, then no i didnt study until i reached 2100, and BARELY any study to reach 2200.
Aug 10, 2018
0
#95
Ronen Har Zvi became a GM after a few years of tournaments. I think he said only a few 100 games total.
But guess what part of the story he's leaving out
Aug 10, 2018
0
#96
checkmateeerree wrote:
To be fair, you have played for more than 10 years
you referring to me?
its true. having said that, they were easily 2 or 3 big breaks in that period of time that really slowed down my development. For example, i went from a kid player to 1800 strength in 3 years, then didnt play much at all, for the next 3 years.
Aug 10, 2018
0
#97
Yeah, check out his chessgames.com page. Only 81 games ?!
http://www.chessgames.com/player/ronen_har-zvi
Can we find a GM with less games than that?
Aug 10, 2018
0
#98
Studies have shown that some players can achieve mastery after only a few hundred hours while others never reach 2200 even with much more than 10,000 hours. The 10k hours to mastery is just a convenient myth.
Players who reach 2200 and beyond often do not recognize that they are talented. But most coaches know when they have a special student.
Aug 10, 2018
0
#99
There are adults who have made comments in this thread who have never made 2000. It's not easy for most people.
Aug 22, 2018
0
#100
IMBacon wrote:
What does it take to get to 2000 USCF?
More work than i am willing to put in. So I have a lot of respect for those that make it.
This is short but straight to the point,I am the same way,it will take too much "work" to get there and I do other things then Chess with my free time. I wouldn't rule out studying Chess "full time",as in all of my free time at some point but right now that's just not happening. Chess is a real time eater,it takes me a ton of time just to go over one master game,let alone all the books and other study materials I'd have to go through. As you said though,I respect the ones who legitimately put in the work and do get there. Kudos to them!
here I am wondering how to get to 1400