What does it take to get to a 2000-2200 rated player? Really.

You can't run at 4 minute mile at 52 though.

That's exactly me. Love blitz. Played chess for 1 year. Got a 1550 rating. Will never get to 2000...

I hope you're talking about pounds and not kilograms?

 This may be true all i am saying is don't buy into the it can't be done thing, If i would have listened to all the people telling me i can't then i would still be benching 200 pounds and never get any farther

Well, at least I know it'll take you AT LEAST 3 years. Most likely 4-5.

I would say benching 250 pounds is the equivalent of a rating of about 975 

Nobody who ever posted one of these threads on chess.com became a master.

Dedication and consistency can't always get you to where you want to go but it sure can get you on the way there.

agreed with every comment on the second page and would like to add that the "spark" you speak of with Jordan and fischer is their natural ability combined with an odd obsession for their respective hobbies.

Jordan's parents were quite worried about his ability to make a living, Im sure people thought bobby was spending to much time on a game that didn't have enough monetary payoff. Sometimes these weird people with odd priority's hit it big.

Neither of them would have made a thread about what it takes had it existed at that time. They simply keept doing what they were compelled to do.

The right answer to your question is: it depends.

Yes, it depends of many factors, some of them have been already mentioned above. But Taunting_Troll is right, if you don't start playing chess before your teens it will be really hard, almost impossible, to be a strong player.

Also happens that what is a worth study material for somebody can be completely useless for another player.

I never knew Bobby Fischer personally, but from what I've read and seen about his life, his "spark" was basically a pathological obsession with chess.  The man was not mentally healthy--in his prime he was able to channel his madness and turn it into absolute mastery of a board game.  Later in life, the results were much sadder to see.

I would warrant that if anyone put the amount of time into chess that Fischer did during the decades before his championship, they would certainly be a master player at least, if not a champion--assuming normal intelligence and learning ability.

Very similar things can be said about athletes like Jordan, Gretzky and other Greats of various pursuits.  The spark is usually a passion for the thing they are doing that goes way beyond most people.  This is a kind of special ability in its own right, but it's not like they pop out of the womb just "knowing" how to do this thing better than anyone.

BUT--here's the thing.  If you don't have that passionate obsession, fat chance you'll be a chess master.  I've realized of late that I like chess, but I don't like it nearly enough to prioritize it sufficiently to actually get really good.  So, now I can just take it easy and put whatever time into the game I want.  I'll never be any good, but so what?

Fischer was not crazy. He just lived through bad experiences that made him suspicious and angry.

                        How long have you been on that donkey??

From this comment it seems you have never worked out before just about anyone can get a rating of 975 soon after learning the moves  Benching 250 and beyond is a whole different ballgame. You may not realize just how heavy that is until you slide your butt under it and try

Agree. Benching 250 is maybe 1800. Depends on your size.

Interesting question. Since I *was* over 2200 I can speak from my experience. I started at an early age and had a burning desire to win. So I studied, studied and studied some more. I particularly enjoyed studying endgames, where the pieces were limited and I could feel confident I could win or draw in the basic positions (rook + pawn v rook, for example). I studied opening theory at length so I might have an advantage going into the middle game. I played, played and played some more. That is, OTB with slower time controls (e.g. 45/2).

I was never good at 5 minute chess but used it to familiarize myself with my opening repertoire. I only played against stronger opponents. Winning blitz games is ultimately useless. You really only learn from your mistakes. It is important to be comfortable in the positions you play so a certain amount of speed chess is good. Unfortunately, internet chess is addictive but I don't think it is a good training tool.

Lastly, I do think innate talent is necessary. I have no idea how far study alone can take a player nor can it ever be quantified. I do know the ability to calculate ahead and accurately assess the positions cannot be underestimated. I also know that if you study with purpose it will take you much further in chess. But you have to enjoy that study as much or even more than playing in games.

It is impossible to compare playing chess to an athletic challenge in this context. Age has a limited effect on the strength of a chess player. No middle schooler can run a mile in less than 4 and a half, due to limits in physical developement. However, a middle schooler/adult/senior can reach master strength if he puts in time and work.

Every time I see a posting " How I can  become a expert or master? I wonder do you really want to become one? There is a lot hard work and if you don't know what materials to study, you really don't want to be a master. The first is tactics and a lot tactical studies, endgame study, middlegame studies and finally building an sound opening repertoire with black and white side. Going over Morphy's game is essential for any player below expert level and choose your favorite GM's with annotation to over their games. If really want to become an master then work hard and buy the books to help you get there; forget videos and you-tube they are worthless, I never see a player become an expert or master studying videos and watching you-tube.

You're off by a foot, big dog. I present to you, Muggsy Bogues, 5'3" NBA star. And yes, he could dunk.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOGj8qM6hQ0

Fact is, training is innately tied in to success in every field. Alison brought up both Fischer and Jordan, and they are both great examples of people who trained to be the best, while being given only a modest amount of natural talent.

In Fischer's case, he spent hours a day, every day from the time he was a child on chess. Of course he became great. His brilliance only made the training easier. The obsession and training developed the skill. Jordan famously spent about 8-10 hours a day from the point of early highschool onward in gyms and on basketball courts, every single day, to become the greatest of all time. In comparison, a guy like Lebron James who is 4 inches taller, and significantly stronger and faster, will never achieve the same greatness despite being a freak athlete, simply because the work changes everything.

Carlsen wasn't born a 2900. He worked at it. Obviously training is more difficult as you get older. We have responsibilities as adults, and most of us can't devote 10 hours a day to improving a skill we're unlikely to find a steady career in, not to mention how much longer it takes for an adult mind to absorb and retain information compared to a child's. Starting young helps, and natural talent is certainly the difference between an IM and a 2800+ SuperGM, but really: that 10,000 hours to becoming an expert number is actually a pretty fair benchmark. You may not be a GM but putting in that kind of time, you'd be a fool to believe you couldn't at least hit the 2000 mark.

I starting going to tournaments at age 21 as a ~1300 rated player.  In the near future I want to try for 2200.  I wonder if people would be interested if I made a blog about trying for 2200.  e.g. brief summaries of what I'm doing and progress reports... and hopefully there is progress to report ;)