What rating is a good time to start focusing on getting a title?

I am sorry, I didn't mean to downtalk your victory like that. Please be proud of your win. I felt like you were bragging a lot and being a know-it-all and that is why I reacted kind of harsh to it. I apologize for calling your victory useless. I said that, because I would feel of it as unimportant if it was my own game. That is just my philosophy, it doesn't mean you shouldn't feel proud and happy!!! Please continue being happy with it and hang it on your wall if you like. At that point I didn't know anything about conditions and so on.

I have won games in a certain sicilian sideline. I first started to play that line without knowing that it is actually the best move. And for that reason, I know that line by my heart. I can understand certain goals and patterns of that sideline. But still, that is a stockfish line. So do you want to say the wonderful games I had with that line was actually false win just because I played the opening 'perfectly'?

LIsten. I know what a backwards pawn is. I know what a weak square is. I know all the stuff you're supposed to know. Except for a brief time in college, I've played chess for almost as long as I can remember. I've had coaches. I've done everything they told me to do. I am incapable of visualizing a board and calculation beyond a few moves turns my brain to mush. In slow games I had a checklist that included everything from looking for weak squares, searching for outposts.... everything you can think of. I lost because I got outcalculated. I won because I chose lesser-known openings that were still sound and often got winning advantages because I knew what I was doing and they were making it up as they went along.

To say that theory doesn't help is just patently false. Naroditsky has stated repeatedly that theory can help anyone at any level. It just makes sense. If I know what the best move is, and you don't, I'm going to have an advantage. It's not a winning advantage, but it's an advantage.

For me, getting to nearly 1500 OTB was a huge accomplishment. To others it would seem like nothing, but I used everything that I could to get that high and am perfectly fine in knowing that getting better isn't going to happen. Maybe if I were to study several hours a day for a few years, I could become a WCM. Yay. Not worth it.

No, there is no such thing as a "false" win, it is just a theory-aided win I'd say - and it depends a lot how long the theory goes you memorized and how much it decided the game to know it. Where there deviations, own ideas or literally anything from you? If yes, that is your victory. I was just talking about opening traps and exploits that pretty much decide the game solely by theory knowledge. Also please mind that this was just an expression of my personal opinion. Everybody is free to feel different about it!

Also I feel this whole discussion is getting pretty off-topic - I'm new here so I don't know how strict the moderators are here? Should we create a seperate topic for this?

Btw may I ask which sideline that is? I am pretty interested in opening knowledge, maybe to your surprise. I just view it as a fun thing to do to study them, but I try to not rely on them at all in a game, bcs from my experience it doesn't help me to get better. Also do you have the game still? I would love to take a look and can also say more to it when I see it. You can't really play the Sicilian without some theory knowledge to some degree (which btw is also the reason why I don't play it despite it being the best opening).

You need a proper fide rating before deciding what to do next for getting a title. There are lots of people with incredible high rating points here and nothing otb. What you have here is virtual unfortunately.

But i checked your other time controls, It's good to see your only high score isn't just bullet that's a promising start.

In short; i'd advise you to get your official fide rating first and decide your next step later.

I do not play sicilian. I am talking about against sicilian. It is pretty much main line theory of najdorf sicilian except I use that idea against all most everything. The main derivation happens after 10 moves. The problem is whatever you play against sicilian, it is often part of some sort of theory that has been playing for years

Oh it does help, certainly. The thing is that it can also harm and that there are lots and lots of things that help the average player better than memorizing lines. Every chess player said something at some time you could use now cherry-pick-style to prove your point. Most players are fully aware of the importance of endgame and middlegame understanding, of calculation, visualization and so on.

The next paragraph is just about you. I have nothing to say to this. It is your life. Just when commenting about general coaching advice you might sincerely consider that other people strive for far more than 1500 OTB. You don't have to take it personal that 1500 is average club player level - it is just a cold fact.

If you'd like to continue about this topic specifally, I suggest you create a seperate topic for it and invite me to it. Otherwise I think that all has been said. It was a pretty interesting conversation after all. My stand of view hasn't significantly changed, because it is oriented towards the mass and not specifically you.

I'd imagine a chess title is like being chess WC; it kind of sneaks up on you and the closer you get to that level, then the less you tend to think about it. 

Of course, don't go by me though. If I ever get a chess title (not really a goal or dream of mine), then it will still probably take me a few years...if ever.

Good luck with your ambitions though

I made a post on the forums a while back about the average chess.com ratings of titled players. The median blitz and rapid ratings of candidate masters (CM) on chess.com seems to be around 2300. Some of those will be older players who aren't active anymore, so I would guess the average chess.com rating of an active candidate master who's currently 2200 Fide would be more like 2400+. Obviously OTB and online are different, but it should give you an idea of roughly what your skill level is relative to a Candidate master. 

For online, I'd say you need to be 2500+ in all time controls minimum. OTB, you should be at least 2000 before you think about obtaining a title.

Don't you people think if you want a title you should just start "focusing" on it as soon as possible? If I had my heart set on a title, I'd just start playing rated OTB tournaments and see how that goes and find out if it's something I really wanted. After all, playing games at a board for 1-4 hours (usually) at a time is nothing like playing online

You may find out that  you don't like tournaments. There's nothing glamorous about them. Mostly it's a bunch of poorly-dressed dudes (with maybe a couple of women) sitting around some random-looking place, arguing about the same sorts of things we argue about here.

Go. Start focusing now. If you get addicted you've got a goal and can double-down; otherwise, you can just decide to treat it as a hobby.

2000-2100 FIDE is a good ballpark. doubly so if you reached that level without too much effort or countless books/coaches to get there. Online ratings mean very little. 

someone earlier mentioned a natural ceiling somewhere between 2200 and 2300 but honestly i think this is just a result of the fact this is usually where dedicated but not fully committed chess veterans end up. 

I will give you an example (although strength wise im probably only about 2150 FIDE). Until very recently I stopped playing as hard as i needed to improve and only for fun  or to preserve my strength  because i realized the non-stop commitment of a few years needed to take my chess to the next level simply wasnt there.  It;s a very serious time commitment to go to big events on a monthly basis and train the required hours daily with no pause to that routine. I estimated that it would take me at least 2 years to be FM and with lots of luck is on my side and a coach at least 2 more for IM strength.

That's a huge opportunity cost, in time money and even family obligations. so what you see is most veterans plateauing at the higher levels you can reach without actively giving it your all to improve. There is also the fact that in that rating range you are already in the 99th percentile and finding players even higher becomes all the more elusive

Is his name Ivanov?  Because I know that guy was looking for work.

On a more serious note:

Titles are the byproduct, not the true goal.

...and there are raftloads of CMs and FMs that never went further because they focused on the title, and then Fischered-out after getting it.  Never seek acclaim, seek excellence.  The acclaim comes along with it.  This is not just good advice for chess, but all walks of life.

Having milestones is fine, as long they do not become the primary goal.

The reason they didn't care enough to go on past the title is because their goals were skewed from the get-go .

Chess is a game.  It's not really a viable career path, or a vocation.  So ultimately the only real goal is to play it well and enjoy yourself.  Compete with your own understanding, and play beautiful and elegant games.  Beating other people to say you won, and having titles they do not, is not really playing a game, it's more for shoring up insecurities.

Perhaps you need to start a topic, then, where you can control who posts .  This topic is not really for your sole enjoyment, so saying what there is too much of or too little of for you personally doesn't really seem applicable.

*Playing* chess (that is, earning a living purely with tournament winnings) is a viable career path for only dozens or perhaps a few hundred people worldwide.  So unless you enjoy being a chess coach or running a chess club or scholastic program (which is fine) and/or a chess content generator of some kind (author, streamer, etc.), you might want to consider this a very speculative career move.  Some of these chess-adjacent careers are viable, but they do not pay all that much, either.  So, if your statement "I don't play for fun" is real, then you might be consigning yourself to an unhappy and financially unrewarding career.

Oh no, if I see a potential sacrifice on the board that even has a small chance of working, I feel compelled to do it. A little devil standing over my shoulder says "do it! do it! just do it!" It usually fails spectacularly, but that's one of my best skills!

And to think I was going to invite you to my next party....

Lol...no.  I'm already retired with a comfortable income, thanks.  And I do play chess, which I do about as well as can be done without devoting any study time to it and while having "100% fun".

Career in chess... good one!! I'll have to remember that.