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

Goals of gaining 900 rating points in the near future always work out well, so sure, make the blog.

I'm 30 years old with a rating in the 1800s and of course it will take at least a few years to go from that to 2200 if it's even possible for me.

By near future I meant when I begin going to tournaments and studying on a schedule.

In my imagination it wouldn't be very interesting as I'm doing it, but maybe someone could dig it up some day after I stop and say look, this guy only gained a few hundred points by doing ____ for ____ long, and it would be something for adult players to ponder instead of speculation... e.g. "no one can be rated _____ unless they start by 9 years old"

For example.

I remember some blog I found in the past of a motivated adult beginner studying and playing seriously, and for many hours a day, with the goal of 2200.  IIRC he stopped after a few years at a 1900 rating citing that life got in the way, and it wasn't practical for him to try to improve anymore.

I feel the most sorry for players like Mamedyarov - people who DID put in the work and who ARE genuinely great but never seem to get above an invisible line hanging above them.....

As for the talent-plus-work combo, it is a must. I've met tons of talented people who will never make anything of it because they refuse to work. 'Talent' is when a kid manages to bang out 'twinkle twinkle little star' on a piano without any help - but a kid with ten piano lessons is still better...because drive > talent

I really felt a connection with what Kramink said in that interview I recently found on this site here.

He said (paraphrasing) when he looks at himself and his peers, he doesn't seen genius, and the only talent he consistently sees is the talent to learn.  This of course means you must work (learn).  The talent just means you get more out of your work than others.

Just do it.

I don't see any threads from Sevian asking how he can get to GM.

Yeah, like players in the top 10 who will (IMO) never have a legitimate chance at beating Carlsen... you were a perfect storm of nature and nurture, with all the drive in the world... but you were born into an era where one guy had just a little bit more, and you'll never be better than that person.

Kinda sad lol

Good advice :)  Doesn't hurt anyone to put myself out there.

Sorry though, didn't catch the Sevian reference.

Playing OTB games and subsequent analysis, ideally with stronger players is the generic answer and there is a lot of truth in it. 

One thing that helped me to get a deeper understanding was watching as many Alex Yermolinsky shows as possible. 

A player needs reasonable goals and work ethic to reach their goals.

 I am 2011 and my highest rating was at 2110 USCF.

 A reasonable goal is to set at 2100 and break it to reachable goals; my goals is 2050 at chess club level and go for 2100 later.

 I figure at my level it will take two years of hard work to become a master. Can you imagine below expert, it probably will take four to five years of hard work to reach master level.

I'd agree that most top players start young, but this doesn't prove for sure that that is because of a "hard-wiring" issue.  I took up chess seriously only in the last couple of years, as an adult.  I have no idea how well "wired" I am for top-level chess...but one thing is certain, I will never be top level, even if I was perfectly "wired."

The reason?  I have a life, a career, a family, and I'm not willing to give those things up for chess.

If you start young, and you find you're good and really like chess, you can organize your life decisions to become a professional.  Few adults can do that.  So "wiring" and the problem of being an adult are not necessarily the same.

From what I hear of chess masters and other people who have become good at anything, it's all aobut the love....if you think "I'm going to be 2200 rated by 2020", that's a goal, and it sounds very concrete, but it's actually as concrete as saying "I'm going to get checkmate" when the pieces are on their starting squares - you have to create the means for mate first....  

Rather than imagining a path to 2200, just play a lot of chess, do a lot of puzzles, and enjoy yourself......I personally love sitting at the board for 8 hours at a time going through master games or working out the weaknesses in my repertoire. My rating is low, but I don't care....my rating is what it is, and I love chess. If I get to 2200, I'll get a title and bragging rights, but I think my actual prize will be knowing that I have invested in a skill that is fulfilling to me as a person......if I never get to 2200, that's fine too - it's a mark of the fact that I don't love chess as much as a master should.

It's a relationship - take her out to dinner before you worry about what your grandkids will look like =P

Thanks for your insight, very well put.  This is very close to a topic with one of my friends who is speculating on what it takes to play and become a 1800 chess player.  My response was similar to yours, play, enjoy, wanting to be better is 1/2 of being better, the rest is means and methods.  Were I able to spend as much time as I'd like devoted to chess, there is little doubt I would be playing at a higher level.

Your point is valid, I won't get to 2000 by disliking where I'm at right now. I need a little better motive than that..

play blindfold until you kill yourself or reach the mark. all or nothing man!!! i believe that we will win

That's complete garbage. Anybody can become a master with hard work.

No they can't. Some people can't even spell their own name.

@ Scottrf: lol. True.

I just want to be able to play well (which I currently do not).

Anybody can become a master with hard work.

It's mostly weak players who peddle this twaddle.

Then if it needs "natural talent" to obtain any title, then most players are hopless?

I don't know about most but some players I don't even understand their moves. I doubt they can ever be very good.