All the players around 1900-2300 USCF I've been around suggest that hard work and enough time can get most players to a 2000 level but most don't for xyz reason. It makes sense that the higher you go the more time and work it takes, just like learning anything proficiently takes a lot of time and effort.
What does it take to get to a 2000-2200 rated player? Really.
Hey, now...blah...blah...blah...my ivory tower...blah...blah...
You just don't get it. All you and other low-level patzers who think you could be a 2200 or a GM just by putting in the effort simply have no clue as to what you are talking about.
Average people are average. Average chess players are average chess players. Have you no idea of what a bell-shaped curve is and distribution around it?
I know that to certain people, what I have said makes it sound pessimistic. You've been raised in the newer generation pap that anybody can do anything if they just set their mind to it and work hard. Everyone is equal in every way. Not true.
And I am roflmao when a 1200 or so player says: "I could be a GM if I wanted to put in more than 2 or 3 hours per week." Hilarious.
Fallacious reasoning/lack of reasoning.
Fact 1: Even assuming that the key to chess success is found in "hard-wiring" you have absolutely NO insight into the hard-wiring of anyone posting in this thread or on this site. You know zilcho about Woahprettyricky's chess talent. You are simply making outrageous assumptions about the talents of a person who just started getting interested in chess THIS WEEK. Where, pray-tell, do you think a person's rating ought to be after one week, if they are to have a chance at clearing 2000?
Fact 2: No one here is arguing that all people can attain any chess rating they want. What is being debated is the relative importance of mysterious talent vs. hard work in getting to a high rating.
Fact 3: 1200s becomes 2200s all the time. In fact, every single 2200 on the planet was once a 1200. Your outrageously arrogant attitude can only be based on the fallacious assumption that every single 1200 who thinks they can become a 2200 is wrong. Some, however, are right. What is more, the ones who rose up to become master players did so precisely by putting in a lot more time. As such, if you do indeed laugh at low rated players who think they can/could to better, it is a demonstrable fact that you have been wrong about at least some of these players.
How insecure does a person have to be to have a 2180 Chess.com rating and come around to mock lower rated players?
Bingo. 100% of high rated players were once low rated players. I may be low rated, and a beginner, but I certainly think that's a position that gives one a fine perspective on what it takes to improve: practice. I'll keep putting in my time and learning the game, and I'm confident that should I choose to pursue it, mastery at some minor level is well within my grasp. At the very least, I am incredibly confident that I could reach a rating of 2180 within the next however many years it may take me.
Bingo. 100% of high rated players were once low rated players. I may be low rated, and a beginner, but I certainly think that's a position that gives one a fine perspective on what it takes to improve: practice. I'll keep putting in my time and learning the game, and I'm confident that should I choose to pursue it, mastery at some minor level is well within my grasp. At the very least, I am incredibly confident that I could reach a rating of 2180 within the next however many years it may take me.
I think you're right to be confident that you have the required brain-power to do that. Honestly, if you can understand the commentary of a 2200, then you have the raw intelligence required to, theoretically, get there.
However, you may find after not too long that you don't have the passion to get there. I only say that because when I first took up chess again a couple of years ago, I was obsessed for a few weeks...then my interested fell off quite a bit. When that happened, I naturally played much more poorly, but then was frustrated with myself for my plummeting rating, plateauing skills, and all the rest.
After a while, though, I realized that I have lots of things I love in life, chess is just one, and all I really want is to be able to enjoy playing the game. So, I let myself spend much less time on chess, and go back to enjoying it more casually. I do try to improve, but I spend however much time I feel like spending on that. I don't want to feel pressure to be constantly working at chess.
Anyway, I'm only saying that so that if you do hit a wall (and maybe you won't) you don't beat up on yourself about it like I did. This is all supposed to be fun, even at a high level.
I don't think blitz has to hurt you as long as you just realize what goes for blitz may not go for classical. But in blitz you only have enough time to play ideas that you have already seen before, thus making it hard to come up with new, original (to you) ideas.
One could argue that it might help with opening theory, since in blitz, there are not too many stakes, so you can feel free to play weird lines you would be too afraid of in a tournament "just to see what it's like." The problem with this reasoning is that the way your opponent reacts in a blitz game may not be a very good reflection of how they would react in classical chess, so it's not clear how useful this "experience" is. Granted I never really tried it.
In any case, the correlation of strong blitz players with strong classical players is best explained by strong classical chess helping with blitz. It is not required that blitz helps your classical chess for strong blitz and strong classical players to correlate -- the causal relationship only needs to go in one direction.
Bingo. 100% of high rated players were once low rated players. I may be low rated, and a beginner, but I certainly think that's a position that gives one a fine perspective on what it takes to improve: practice. I'll keep putting in my time and learning the game, and I'm confident that should I choose to pursue it, mastery at some minor level is well within my grasp. At the very least, I am incredibly confident that I could reach a rating of 2180 within the next however many years it may take me.
I think you're right to be confident that you have the required brain-power to do that. Honestly, if you can understand the commentary of a 2200, then you have the raw intelligence required to, theoretically, get there.
However, you may find after not too long that you don't have the passion to get there. I only say that because when I first took up chess again a couple of years ago, I was obsessed for a few weeks...then my interested fell off quite a bit. When that happened, I naturally played much more poorly, but then was frustrated with myself for my plummeting rating, plateauing skills, and all the rest.
After a while, though, I realized that I have lots of things I love in life, chess is just one, and all I really want is to be able to enjoy playing the game. So, I let myself spend much less time on chess, and go back to enjoying it more casually. I do try to improve, but I spend however much time I feel like spending on that. I don't want to feel pressure to be constantly working at chess.
Anyway, I'm only saying that so that if you do hit a wall (and maybe you won't) you don't beat up on yourself about it like I did. This is all supposed to be fun, even at a high level.
Oh, absolutely. I may very well find myself at a place where I'm nearing 1800-2000 and just find that the effort I need to move past that barrier is more than I can exert, then that's where I'll be. Which is the whole point in the first place, right? Not talent, but the motive and ability to put in the work when the work gets harder.
I'm just in this for the fun of playing some chess, and a lot of that fun for me right now is getting better. :D
What have you people been smoking?
Incredible blather about essentially nothing, including massive number of keystrokes, and virtually nothing conveyed. Yikes.
It's unclear how far one can get in chess through sheer hard work, given the time constraints of an adult life, the fact that getting repeatedly beaten by stronger players doesn't bring much pleasure, that being a master-level chess player doesn't bring much social recognition, and...I mean, why work hard on your chess in the first place ? Very few people do.
My experience is that almost all strong (ie. 2100+) players I know haven't been hard chess workers at all, but have practiced chess for a very long time, with passion, and, dare I say it, some natural aptitudes for the game (fast understanding of new ideas, strong nervous system, resilience, patience on the chessboard...).
It looks like hard work is only required when you hit a wall, which may happen after a couple of years (5-10). Your rating at this moment may vary a lot from individual to individual, and I don't think it's related to the amount of work you put in. But it's certainly related to the amount of time you've spent playing chess.
The progress you make after you've hit your wall is probably related to your hard work.
My definition of hard work is what is commonly referred to as deliberate practice : doing some kind of active learning in weak areas at a challenging level.
And just to make it clear, I think people reaching 2100+ have some kind of talent for chess, at least some above average aptitudes that keep them from giving up the game (I would actually think the same of anyone above ~1800).
"My experience is that almost all strong (ie. 2100+) players I know haven't been hard chess workers at all, but have practiced chess for a very long time, with passion, and, dare I say it, some natural aptitudes for the game (fast understanding of new ideas, strong nervous system, resilience, patience on the chessboard...)."
I find it hard to believe that they hadn't worked hard, although I'm not sure this is actually your view since you are saying they practiced for a long time with passion, after all.
They may also have talent, simultaneously. Arguing for the necessity of hard work does not commit one to argue that it's sufficient.
Anyway it's hard to say. Because for example, one would think that the people who spend a lot of time on chess are the kinds of people who like abstract thinking, logic, etc. It's hard to imagine what would motivate a person to keep studying if they weren't into that kind of stuff at all. I'm not sure what all that implies, but it's an interesting observation.
"It looks like hard work is only required when you hit a wall, which may happen after a couple of years (5-10). Your rating at this moment may vary a lot from individual to individual, and I don't think it's related to the amount of work you put in. But it's certainly related to the amount of time you've spent playing chess."
Ok, so you have quite a subtle distinction between time and work here :)
Indeed it's not easy to see where to draw the line. Dicking around playing bullet for 3 hours is not work, but even casual longer time control games, plus a casual analysis, even that could be considered a decent amount of work. Deliberate practice even, because you're still looking for your weaknesses. But once again the hard part here seems to be distinguishing time from work, something I don't have a clear method for.
If you all spend your time playing chess instead of writing all these very loooong posts, you all might be slightly better players by now.
Including me, so bye.
"My experience is that almost all strong (ie. 2100+) players I know haven't been hard chess workers at all, but have practiced chess for a very long time, with passion, and, dare I say it, some natural aptitudes for the game (fast understanding of new ideas, strong nervous system, resilience, patience on the chessboard...)."
I find it hard to believe that they hadn't worked hard, although I'm not sure this is actually your view since you are saying they practiced for a long time with passion, after all.
They may also have talent, simultaneously. Arguing for the necessity of hard work does not commit one to argue that it's sufficient.
Anyway it's hard to say. Because for example, one would think that the people who spend a lot of time on chess are the kinds of people who like abstract thinking, logic, etc. It's hard to imagine what would motivate a person to keep studying if they weren't into that kind of stuff at all. I'm not sure what all that implies, but it's an interesting observation.
I agree we need some definitions here, especially about what working on your chess is
I offer a simple one : let's say working on your chess is any activity where you're trying to actively learn something about chess. That would include analysis of your games, analysis of other games, solving puzzles, learning opening lines. I would simply observe that for many strong players, this is sheer pleasure and enjoyment. They can do that for hours without feeling bored. So it doesn't exactly fit in with the common definition of work, and that's why...
...I define hard work when you do one of the above, but don't really enjoy it Now, this is necessary to get to the next level, which could be 1600, 1800, 2000, 2200 or 2400/2600 for the most talented people (yeah, well, I said it )
I'm not playing with words, because this is really my experience : some people just prefer going over a couple of Rubinstein's games than watching football, but some other don't fancy doing a couple tactical exercises every day.
That's why I say strong players don't really work hard in the first place. But there's something that pushes them to learn more about chess and develop their chess muscles, without it being a chore. They're not working as students work for exams. There's something else at play here.
When it comes to overcome real walls, that's another story...
"It looks like hard work is only required when you hit a wall, which may happen after a couple of years (5-10). Your rating at this moment may vary a lot from individual to individual, and I don't think it's related to the amount of work you put in. But it's certainly related to the amount of time you've spent playing chess."
Ok, so you have quite a subtle distinction between time and work here :)
Indeed it's not easy to see where to draw the line. Dicking around playing bullet for 3 hours is not work, but even casual longer time control games, plus a casual analysis, even that could be considered a decent amount of work. Deliberate practice even, because you're still looking for your weaknesses. But once again the hard part here seems to be distinguishing time from work, something I don't have a clear method for.
Your distinction is fine and I agree with it.
But given the same amount of time spent on the same activities, some people just develop their chess skills better and faster.
I have in mind the example of two children (two brothers) who attended the same lesson on smothered mates. After two examples, the younger one was able to spot these combos in a couple of seconds in the next puzzles, while his older brother was still struggling with them. The young fellow happened to score 12-0 in young competition games that year. Same lessons, same time spent on chess every week. One was 10, the other 8.
How are we supposed to call it ?
That's why I say strong players don't really work hard in the first place. But there's something that pushes them to learn more about chess and develop their chess muscles, without it being a chore. They're not working as students work for exams. There's something else at play here.
When it comes to overcome real walls, that's another story...
I think your distinction between work and time is a very good one.
I think you're exactly right that the top players are those who can spend tons of time on chess and have it not be work. Other people, like me, can only spend a little time on chess before it's work.
I have in mind the example of two children (two brothers) who attended the same lesson on smothered mates. After two examples, the younger one was able to spot these combos in a couple of seconds in the next puzzles, while his older brother was still struggling with them. The young fellow happened to score 12-0 in young competition games that year. Same lessons, same time spent on chess every week. One was 10, the other 8.
How are we supposed to call it ?
You mean that we aren't all created equal, in all respects?
Who'd a thunk it?
I checked it on the FIDE list. The first player who has a rating of 2200 is the 10183rd player on the list. So it is not possible and definitely not a lifetime.
You mostly confirmed my assertion.
@10,000 players in all of FIDE are above 2200. That's probably 1 or 2 percent, at most.
It (typically) takes a lifetime of chess obsession to get there.
End of story. Yet again?