Whats the point of playing chess if 1800 still cant be considered master

Been spending a year well 2 but I took a break for a year and am not able to get past 1050 for some reason been trying for the past week been able to beat bots at 1300 but not anymore for some reason and now whats even the point looking around online and here tells me that even when you get to 1800 your trash and there not even that good I dont know anymore a waste of years and money trying to get better if that is the case is 1800 really crap and also how long will it take me to get there my rating right now is 1047

a long time. years probably

how long did it take for you to reach your rating in rapid

When I was stuck around 1500-1600 I read online some people saying how 1700 was so easy and they did it so quickly and 1700 is so bad anyway and blah blah blah.

It was really discouraging.

Why did I keep playing and trying to improve? I guess because I like chess

If your only reason to play is a rating, you'll probably get frustrated and give up. Play and learn because you enjoy it, and you can probably get to 1800.

---

1000 to 1800 depends on what you're doing to improve. In any case it takes most people a few years at least.

so how good is a 1800 player

Or you can sign up again and choose to start of at 1800 and never play

This gets asked often enough, and I've answered a number of them.

My favorite answer that I've given is:

"1800 is strong to the noob, and a noob to the strong" 

First of all, I looked at some of your games, and I remember when I was new, so I'm not trying to be mean when I say that right now a 1300 OTB player will seem like an invincible chess machine to you. They will seem to make zero mistakes and win easily.

In other words when YOU become 1300, others will see YOU as an invincible chess machine.

So how good is 1300, 1800, or any rating? It just depends. I guarantee you, if you make it to 1300, most of your family and friends will think you're basically a grandmaster

And in general people respect the time you've put in. Meaning even a 2500 player will respect that a 1500 player has studied and plays and enjoys chess. They'll see you as a member of the larger chess family so to speak.

@lovenlies is a returning troll by the way. I'll be shocked if that account lasts more than a few days.

Play chess to enjoy it, everyone is surrounded by people better them. If you're 1800, then you'll think that your chess knowledge is primitive compared to that of masters. If you're a 2300+ FM. then you'll think that you'd never have the dedication and understanding to become a GM. If you're a 2700+ GM, then you'd be disappointed at how impossible it would be to become world chess champion. 

Think about how good at chess you would seem to yourself 2 years ago if you could go back in time and play yourself, he'd probably think "I can't wait to be that good."

Btw, i'm an 1800 player (give or take) on chess.com. Rapid and blitz anyway. How good am i? I still blunder away on a bad day.

I'm stuck around 1400, for sometime. I dont know what to do  i think i keep playing the same 

I guess in more concrete terms, if you're 1800 OTB and you go to a small local tournament, you'll be one of the stronger players. There will probably be some 2000s and maybe even 1 or 2 masters, but most people will be be 1000 through 1600. You'll be better than average

okay so I am assuming that by what you lovely people are all saying thanks I feel a little better is that a 1800 is a strong player relative to where he is compared to people and can teach chess and basically be considered a master to those around him.

For most people, an 1800 rating would be considered very good, and probably not obtainable for a good chunk of chess players.

Thank you so much this makes me feel better one more thing um what can I do to guarantee my improvement

Thanks be seein yall

IMO the basic activities are: playing (long games), studying (from books), and doing drills (like solving puzzles).

IMO the basic areas to study are: openings, strategy, tactics, endgames, and annotated game collection.

To start pick something like tactics + endgames or tactics + strategy.

Look for a local club and go to OTB (over the board) tournaments. You can learn a lot by talking to others, especially after the tournament game when you analyze with them.

@llama44 I'm studying your games  trying to understand why and when you do what. Is it right what i do now? or should i study grandmaster games? or am i completely doing something stupid

I don't deserve to have someone study my games, I'm not nearly good enough, but I appreciate it

It's not completely stupid, but I'd recommend looking at annotated Morphy or Capablanca games.

Or you can even google "best attacking games" or "famous world championship games" or something like that.

One of my favorites was this game

Black sacrifices ALL of his minor pieces, then checkmates with a pawn!

Lots of people, including professional coaches and professional players (like Kramnik) recommend starting with the old masters.

Modern players use historical players as their foundation. Older games tend to be more logical.

If you want to troll that's fine, but when you use your troll account to give advice, sometimes bad advice, that's pretty degenerate.