What's the highest rating one can achieve without seriously studying?

I used to think like that in my 20's. But I liked to win. I won my share of games against other dabblers, but felt embarrassed when losing. I finally looked at a book which was aimed at people my level. It suggested one opening as white, and two defenses as black. With minimal effort, my game improved.

While I didn't stick with these openings (tough to do against significantly better players), they taught me a lot about strategy and planning, development and piece coordination. It opened up a whole new world of appreciation for the game.

While "figuring it out on (one's) own" has some appeal, when trying to re-invent the wagon, it's helpful if someone takes you aside and says, "Pssst ... buddy .... Make the wheels round, put 'em on the bottom, and, oh, yeah ... the horses go in the front.

Yeah, it does depend on how you define "study" -- and of course, if you are a chess genius or not.

As for the idea of figuring it out on your own --

The re-inventing the wheel analogy is a good one.

I also used to think like that (and still do in some cases, which is fine).
But I have come to realize that in order to be efficient with our limited time and power as humans, there needs to be a good balance of invention and study. I mean -- why not scour the theory that has been developed by thousands of great players over hundreds of years?

Still, do what you want to do, but consider both options.

If you want to make a pact with a friend and say, "no studying, we'll get better on our own devices and play against each other for competition and improvement" -- go ahead. That could be really fun. But if you're gonna play other competitive chess players, they are going to be studying, and you'll likely be at a huge disadvantage.

Most nominally educated people can reach USCF 1600 OTB with work.  That's about the 80th percentile for registered OTB players in the U.S.

After that, all bets are off.

This topic has been flogged to death by dozens of threads on this site.  Don't expect any new insight with this thread.  Sorry.

I never understood nietzche and his theory about eternal repetition, but perhaps he played on chess.com

Scintillating thread topics abound.

Phelon wrote:

Achievement without effort is far less rewarding.

-------------------

It's still fun.

Capablanca was a player famed for being "lazy" in his study look how far he got to even stand in his shadow i must study what he found effortless as no matter how hard i wish i just dont have his prowess 

Well if the average person can reach 1500 with a bit of work, I'd imagine I could get a few hundred points higher than that without a huge effort (although I'm sure it would take a while). Although to be honest I tend to side with the more conservative estimates in here, so I'd even be happy if I got to 1500 or 1600. My goal when I started was just to beat my friend and people who don't know chess well, and to have some fun. If I get better, well I guess it will become even more fun as I gain a deeper understanding

edit - I also apologize if this thread has been done before... as you can see I'm quite new here. Although I can't help but wonder why some people (zborg) don't just ignore the thread and refrain from posting multiple times

Such a lack of historical context! Has no one on chess.com ever heard of a man by the name of capablance - the man was reputed of never opening a chess book yet that didn't stop him from being an unstoppable force(from 1914 to 1924) he lost only one game)!

Ok how did you reach NM? wow, if it took me 4 years to reach NM level i would be thrilled, it must partly be natural skills

I played for a year and here i am on the verge of crossing 1600(online Correspondence chess) rating and over 1500 in standard. i had a knowledge of the game (how the pieces move most rules, ect) and in one year probably jumped 300 points. For me to get to 1900 would be much harder but is something i want to try

You could get to 1900 or maybe 2000 playing, on average, one serious game per week/fortnight.

That said, as you focus on rating I don't think your interest is going to last.

I think it's very impressive, and it certainly may be a mix of work and natural talent, but remember to read carefully when chess players talk about their rating and progress.  He didn't go from zero to NM in 4 years, he says he went from 1500 to NM in 4 years.

So his "dabbled with chess in highschool" = a few years of non-tournament play + a few years of playing in tournaments at the end of which he was a stronger player then than you are now, so your analogous 4 year count doesn't even start yet (first play a few years and get to 1500).

And if going to 3 tournaments a year is dabbling, then I've barely even been dabbling In the future expect a post from me:

"Yeah I didn't really start playing chess until 2014, and after that it only took 1 year to get to [insert absurdly high 1 year rating here].

I've never stuided anything besides chess videos on youtube, some tactics and played lots of games. I started playing when I was 22, that was 4 years ago. I havent improved in the last year, possibly because I dont study, possibly because I've reached my limit

What seems to be most chess players:

"Other than [books, videos, magazines, and/or websites] I never studied.  And [discounting tournaments I went to] I didn't play any serious games.  And mostly I really only [other than clubs I attended weekly] played online.  In fact even online I [other than the long games] never really played serious games, only 1/0 games.

And other than [strong players and friends I analyzed with] I never REALLY had a coach or mentor of any kind.

Considering how I've [pretty much] never studied, played a serous game, analyzed my games, or been coached I think my rating is very good!  And discounting all those years I did all or some of those things it only took me a very short time too."

The only way to play chess without studying or practice is to play your very first game of chess with no previous knowledge of it. So I'd guess that'd be a rating of 300 max.

Nobody has every won their first 50 games.

So at some time you lost. When you lost you had to figure why you lost. So bla bla bla you seriously studied. Now if your played you and do not give me no friend played you in a game ok a family member then cut the cheese. Sure they pulled out all those quick mates and traps beginners do not know. And naturally they did not tell you how to stop it at first. Bla bla bla you studied seriously not to have it happen again.

If you know the name of openings, famaliar with GM's history, have a good understanding of mobility of pieces, tactics and etc then you seriously studied the game of chess to be good at it.

Hey when they have an interface directly with the brain ....

..... well it be possible to be instantly a GM. 

INFINITY AND BEYOND!!!