What does it take to get to 2000 USCF?

Yeah, there are always 1200-1300 guys telling how to train to be a GM.

69 years

First thing it takes is an insane 100 dollar yearly membership fee which I ain't paying anymore. I'm still waiting for my USCF data to lapse.

Huh? Where are you getting $100 per year from? It's less than half that even with the magazine.  If you don't take the magazine it's like $40 for adults.

Being a member of the USCF is not going to get your rating to 2000 or better!  But if you do like to play in rated oTB games, then you save on the entry fee!  As a learning tool it never really did anything for me, but buying good chess books and videos, helped me the most but not very high, just enough toget enjoyment out of the game, and that's all I really wanted.

A ton of work (studying etc.) and play will get you to 2000,probably more time then most of us are willing to invest to up our game.  I speak for myself though? Maybe,I play other things so lol xD 

I speak from personal experience. I have been playing 20 years and I am still not 2000. Some people (like me) are just too stupid.

Nobody is stupid,just takes alot of work that's all,understanding is a big part of Chess,if you don't understand a position you won't play it well.  

Depends on who you are playing your rated OTB games against.  If you are playing in your local chess club tournaments, and the players play at lower strength than what their rating is, it could take you less time to get to 2000 rated uscf, otherwise it could take you longer depending on how fast you can improve at chess.

Understanding is not critical in the way you might think.

You'll have to prove that to me,I don't agree with,it's not as critical as I may think? Alright then what is?  I've read that A.J Goldsby went over some of the examples in Fred Reinfeld's book,I think it's called the complete Chess course several times until he finally understood them, and that's not critical???.  Hmm alright then,well please do enlighten me as to what is critical in Chess and don't tell me Pattern recognition because pattern recognition would mean nothing at all if one didn't understand the patterns,hence my original premise being correct that understanding is key in Chess from start to finish! 

I don't have to do a thing.

You must be a seasoned adult chess player in a major chess federation.

Beyond your example, working with GM coaches who improved as kids, but who have not performed deep decomposition of chess positions and elements, I can say that there are GMs who understand the game deeply, and then there are ones who don't, and they have been rated within 50 points of one another.  Comparing Adrian Mikhalchishin's understanding of the game to 2600+ GM explanations for what's going on in positions, it is clear that significantly weaker players can make excellent coaches and analysts.  Isn't Dvoretsky a great example?  Excellent trainer, and some claim he was really GM strength, but I don't know about that... he was an IM.  There is no shame in being an IM and coaching GMs.  I believe people try to legitimize lower rated top trainers, when they really need no added legitimacy.  They understand the game better than stronger players.  I have found the best coaches, in fact, are deep decomposers of the game, like Yudasin, Mikhalchishin, and Marin.  In fact, I think one of these top analysts said they only began to gain true understanding of chess when they reduced/stopped their competitive play.  Conscious knowing is a thin margin, whereas the soul is in the unconscious intuition and raw calculation power combined.  It's how Magnus can play beautiful chess in games that last a minute or two.

All you nubs not even 2000 smh

You're right you don't,so why even bother answering to tell me that?  I don't get it,you must not know what you're talking about,I'll just assume you don't,k bye

I don't fully agree with this,if you're saying that Chess is more unconscious then it is conscious right? Well basically you're saying your understanding is unconscious,that I would agree with,meaning that there are things in your subconscious that you DO in fact understand,those would probably be what we call Chess patterns,which is what enables so and so to calculate any type of variation.  I think maybe you're confusing Chess knowledge with Understanding but it's all understanding,nothing in Chess,well not good players is made from random moves void of any understanding,even a beginner knows how to castle and that's even Chess understanding,even though one can file that under Chess knowledge as well,help bring the king to safety and activate the rook.  I don't see how ya'll saying that Chess is not primarily understanding.  If you're playing or well calculating for a tactic is that not understanding,you may not think about it because you know it so well but you did have to learn about what a discovered attack was or w/e tactic you're trying to pull off,it's ALL understanding if you really think about it and that's probably all Chess knowledge as well,meaning the Chess knowledge that you have is understood.   

I mean it's really simple the more Chess knowledge and Patterns you know,the stronger player you'll be,come on now I thought this was common knowledge I'm js!  

Also before someone goes oh but it's all patterns,correct it IS all patterns BUT the KEY is that those patterns must be understood,otherwise we're all just playing a picture matching game from our nursery schools,void of any meaning,without any understanding needed,those aren't just "patterns",those configurations of pieces MEAN something and you understand the meaning of them whether you're conscious of it or not,how else would you be able to calculate variations that lead to favorable outcomes.   

I'm sorry but to say or even imply that understanding in Chess is not crucial and/or even primary is just ludicrous and dare I say asinine! 

I don't agree with this so we'll have to agree to disagree on it and yeah I kind of don't understand what you're saying there but I stand by what I said,you can read my comment above so I don't have to repeat myself.  

If you're too lazy to do so,I am guilty of saying too much some times but the "gist" of what I am saying is Understanding is present at all levels and phases of Chess and if I may quote you " Not understanding that is just stupid and I dare to say,IDIOTIC,oh my bad you say "moronic" but both apply kk .   

Oh and it is NOT impossible,it's simply Chess patterns but you don't understand that I guess,one sees that a certain pattern is possible and then one calculates to reach said pattern,how is that so hard to cross reference .....all the other stuff you said? It's not that hard to understand I don't think so but maybe for you,hmm.  

It's not a British thing.

I feel like I'm pretty good at parsing English language.

But this guy is unique. More than almost any other poster I've encountered on chess.com (and I've been here 8+ years) I have to read his posts very slowly and carefully to get anything more than a very vague sense of what he's trying to say.

For example this

 Just... wow.

I admire your willingness to read through his word salad posts and try make sense of them. Seems he's too lazy to even bother putting a space between a comma and the word that follows.