When will I stop improving?

Lol. Yes it would.

Oh, it means exactly what I think it means. You can't accept that there are people out there that have progressed much faster than you, so you invent these ridiculously implausible narratives to cope. Yeah, that's textbook copium.

Yeah, because when I started playing OTB, I was around ~1900 FIDE strength, so my rating went down from 1952 (it only went as low as 1850 because I lost to two very underrated juniors). But it is going to either close to, or back over, 1900 depending on the result of my game tomorrow. So it is now increasing again, and as I said, it will probably keep increasing until around 2000, which appears to be my true strength atm (again, as evidenced by my ECF performance rating in the past few months being 2060).

I literally have screenshots, but as I said, whatever makes you sleep at night.

No, he was 10 years and 4 months old. He started playing chess when he was somewhere between exactly 8 years old and 8 years 6 months old. So he had only been playing chess for 2 years when he was 2060 FIDE rated. My FIDE rating was 1950 at the same point in my chess journey, so Magnus improved faster than me.

Lol. So I think I am cheating OTB AS WELL AS online? Wow, I'm quite the cheater, aren't I? Anyway, would you mind sharing which games you think I wasn't getting assistance in? Please. I'm genuinely very curious. 

As to your sources, please check what they are actually saying. 

"It is often assumed that children learn more efficiently than adults, although the scientific support for this assumption has, at best, been weak." A single study which only deals with visuo-perceptual learning won't change that.

And what would that change, exactly? I am not seeing your point.

First of all, if that were true, why would it be surprising? All of these are related disciplines with lots of inter-transferrable skills. Wouldn't make sense for someone who is a genius at chess to be more likely to also be a genius at maths? For my part, no, I am not a genius, but I do appear to have a natural talent for all of these disciplines.

However, even players who aren't as talented at chess could still improve rapidly and make significant rating gains if subjected to my coaching.

Not for my students, though, all of whom have already improved since they started taking lessons from me (despite having been stagnant previously).

this post just seems like an ego boost. Any criticism anyone gives you shrug it off lol.

Im struggling to understand the actual point of the question. "When will the natural improvement stop". You're basing your natural talent/improvement on a chess.com rating. This is just embarrassing. 

Also with hindsight, it seems you only gained 200 rating points between this post being made over a year and 3 months ago, and now, which is definitely signs that your rating increase has stagnated. 

You got your answer. 2400 in blitz on a chess website. Like someone else mentioned which you scoffed at, go play in real RATED organised OTB tournaments, and lets see if this "natural" talent and improvement shines there. 

Edit: just checked this guys profile, forget this post, his entire profile is just self glorification, no one should take this post seriously, ignore him. 

Most of all "when will I stop improving". Is totally dubious.

this post just seems like an ego boost. Any criticism anyone gives you shrug it off lol.

My personal opinion (I can't prove it) he's just a "smart" cheater. And the fate of his previous accounts agrees with me. I wondering when maxkho3 will come into play

He has very suspicios jumps in his ratings. Like the last one on lichess when he fell from 2450 to 2300. I think in these periods he's playing himself without an assistence. But then the rating jump follows when he's winning almost every game. 

I played a few bullet games against this "prodigy" in the past. And I had a feeling that the guy has no clue what chess is all about. I think he played without an assistance against me back then.

I'm glad you can admit you have been lying the whole time.

There are people all over the place who have improved faster than me.  I couldn't care less about that.  Hell, there is a 16-year-old kid at my local club who just earned his NM title that I play with frequently.  6 years ago, I was higher rated than he was.  He shot up over 1200 points in less than 4 years, which is an insanely impressive rate of growth.  You are claiming a virtually 2000 point growth in ~21 months - which is faster than literally anyone in history.  If you had made a less outlandish claim, this nonsense likely would have gone under the radar.  As it stands now, you are literally just the chess.com forum version of the Liver King and it is only a matter of time before your "stack" gets revealed.

You think that your actual playing strength is demonstrated by what you played in a few games to get your provisional rating?  Hilarious.

Playing strength is determined by consistency, not by flashes of genius.  That is why Hans Niemann is barely rated 2700 instead of jumping to 2800+ when he beat Magnus a few months ago.  But keep playing OTB and time will tell.

You have screenshots of the emails they sent you?  Oh really?  Come on now - if you are going to lie, at least look up their process and make it feasible.

Oh, so you are trying to claim you are "almost" as good as Magnus, who was literally obsessed with chess at that point and studying/reading/playing constantly (all of which you said you were not doing).  Come off it now.  You are just being ridiculous here.

If your club takes cheating less seriously, that is certainly possible, but at this point, no, I do not think that.  I simply think you were stronger than you let on when you "started" in 2020.  In fact, you remind me of a kid that used to troll the forums ~8 years ago who was roughly 1200-level at the time.  But again, that is just speculation at this point as I have no intention of flying to London to see what is going on at that club.

You didn't read what I said after the links, did you?  I pointed that out - the problem is neuroplasticity and time are not on your side - not that you couldn't come up with an efficient study plan (which, you also said you didn't do).

You haven't been around the block enough to realize that us old guys have seen this kind of nonsense before and see through it like glass.  Extraordinary claims can be impressive.  Supernatural claims tend to be complete BS.  As I've stated before, the chess.com forum version of the Liver King.

When you are talking to someone who is not experienced in those fields, you can try to BS like this.  However, when you are talking to someone who has been in those fields for 20+ years, has graduate degrees in those fields, and as taught those fields at the university levels, you sound like a fool.

The type of thinking involved in chess and mathematics is similar, but both have different patterns you must know.  In chess, there is the time factor, so you MUST know the tactical patterns in order to recognize them quickly (if you have to calculate every move, you will run out of time).  Having a strong mathematical background does not help you learn those patterns.  In that regard, it is less akin to mathematics and more like learning a language or learning to play a musical instrument.  You see the pattern of symbols and instantly know what they mean.  The same goes with Chess patterns.  The problem is it takes time to learn and memorize those chess patterns.  That is not something you can do quickly while "coasting" through university, traveling around Europe, engaging in academic summer programs (that you do not get into while "coasting"), etc.

Again, a claim without any evidence.  The Liver King had a ton of followers of his "Ancestral Tenets" and they all thought he got his physique by following those tenets.  Imagine their shock when it was revealed that those of us who knew better were right all along and that not only was he not natural, but he also was on a really stupidly designed PED stack.

You appear to be strong enough that you could reasonably coach sub-1300 level players and they would likely improve (assuming that you are not following the ways of Borislav Ivanov).  Which is why I said I think it is highly likely that you were nowhere near as "new" as you claim to have been when you "started" in 2020.  But have you found some new method that willy magically allow people to go from complete beginner to expert level in 2 years as adults?  I can emphatically say that claim is complete BS.

The question he had was not the reason why OP made the topic. I think that's pretty obvious.

Oh my ADHD's on its way. An OCD that studies chess 10 hours a day would be an impressive try. ADHD that never read chess books is totally rubbish.

I meant lying would be a first for me, but I'll give you this one, my response was ambiguous.

Imagine how I must feel knowing that everything that I have said in this thread is true lol.

That's not what I said. I said that my performance rating SINCE I got my first non-provisional rating is 2060. I have played more than a dozen games since then. I think it's pretty reasonable to conclude from this that I am around 2050-2100 ECF strength currently.

Then why did you say my true strength was 1500-1800 ECF? How do you explain the fact that my actual ECF rating is so much higher than that and still rising? Did I just get lucky 25 games in a row? Or what do you think is happening?

That's not how it works lol. There is a dedicated page for appeals on Lichess on which you send them an explanation as to why you believe your ban should be lifted, and they get back to you shortly with the verdict. Their verdict was that they'd keep the ban despite the fact that, and I quote, "there is no way to determine whether you looked at the evaluation or not".

No, I am trying to claim that I progressed almost as fast as Magnus. That's different because, as I said, adults naturally grasp things faster than children. 

Lol. This is actually pretty funny to read knowing that all my claims are true. You're not making a good case for "old guys".

I did, but that doesn't change the fact that, literally as per the very links that you shared, there is practically no scientific evidence to support the hypothesis that children learn faster than adults, especially in areas such as chess.

I know, but I didn't ever claim that. I said that being naturally good at maths makes you more likely to be naturally good at chess ─ something which you seem to be implicitly agreeing with. And yeah, I don't disagree with your point that learning chess is a lot like learning a language; in fact, I have always been quick to pick up languages as well, and I'm sure the skills that enabled me to do that were also in large part responsible for my chess progress.

You can literally check my students' accounts. I haven't been coaching for very long, but my lessons with them have already borne fruit. As I said, not everyone will go from complete beginner to expert in 2 years like I did, but I'm still adamant that most people who are willing to listen will progress faster than they otherwise would through traditional means. You can disagree with that all that you want, but you're not going to change my mind about it.

That would simply make you pathological.  See Bill Clinton lying under oath before you were born as a good example of the same mentality.

According to the ECF, you have played a total of 22 classical rated games.  The way the ELO system works, that is still effectively a provisional rating (even if ECF doesn't consider it as such).  That is why the USCF considers your rating provisional until you have at least 25 games in a given time control.  More on that in a moment.

First off, your ECF is not "rising".  Your initial provisional rating was 2162 ECF as you had 2 wins over ~1900 rated players.  They bumped you into the 2000+ league following those games, and you proceeded to lose 3 of your next 5 games (including one to a 1700).  Your rating continued to decline to ~1950 where you have been bouncing around for the last few games.  So your assertion that your rating "is still rising" is provably false.

Second, I have looked at your games, both here and on LiChess.  Your tactical skills are terrible (I have seen 1200s with better tactical vision!).  Your openings are horrible.  Your endgames are bad.  Your time management is decent.  So where are you scoring, you might ask?  Well, that is what is interesting:  your advantage capitalization score is off the charts (higher than that of Magnus, Hikaru, and Fabiano) - basically, if you get even the smallest winning advantage (~1.5) you are converting almost 90% of the time against roughly equally rated opposition, and when you are losing, you find a way to win or draw 35-52% of the time (35% when you are down 3+ pawns, and 52% when you are down 1.5 pawns - once again, much higher than even the best super GMs).  So, how is it someone who misses simple tactics left and right in the opening and early middlegame can suddenly find extremely difficult resources and close out games with almost perfect technique?  The readers can come to their own conclusions on that.  That is just with your online games - as I said, I'm not in the UK to see what is going on there (it would be interesting to have some of your OTB opponents chime in).

So, why did I estimate your strength to be ~1500-1800?  Simple:  I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are just doing nefarious things online and that you actually have some basic skills.

LOL.  Again, that is not how their process works.  Then communicate via email on those appeals.  But giving you the benefit of the doubt that was their exact wording, they are not admitting you were cleared - they were saying "we understand you dispute this, but we stand by our analysis that you cheated".  As I've stated, I'm not a fan of their process (nor chess.com's for that matter), but it is clear they think you were cheating and stated as much, which is why your appeal was rejected.

Flying in the face of 100 years of chess education.  Hell, flying in the face of 150 years of educational philosophy.  But you can keep taking the quote from the Psychology Today article out of context and miss the whole meaning of the article (your display of reading comprehension ability, or lack thereof, is not boding well for your ability to "learn more efficiently than kids").

"My claims are true because I said so ... ignore the fact that the contradict everything everyone has done for the last couple hundred years ... I found something they didn't" - every charlatan ever.

From the article I posted (which is a summary of the actual paper, so it makes it easy for your to understand):  https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-athletes-way/202211/one-reason-kids-learn-faster-adults

The latest study by Watanabe and colleagues used state-of-the-art functional MRS neuroimaging to compare GABA concentrations in the visual cortex of children (8-11 years old) and adults (18-35 years old) before, during, and after a visual process learning task.

GABA is an inhibitory neurotransmitter that reduces brain noise and has a calming effect. During visual perceptual learning, less brain noise makes learning easier. Previous research has established that robust GABAergic inhibitory activity stabilizes learning as the brain retains new knowledge.

As mentioned, the researchers found that GABA levels spiked in children during the learning process and stayed elevated afterward. However, adults did not experience significant rapid GABA boosting during or after a visual perceptual learning task.

Notably, GABAergic inhibitory activity persisted in kids' brains for a few minutes after learning something new, which created stabilization in the brain. "This novel finding predicted that training on new items rapidly increases the concentration of GABA in children and allows the learning to be rapidly stabilized," Frank et al. explain in their open-access paper.

You stopped reading when the researching noted:

"It is often assumed that children learn more efficiently than adults, although the scientific support for this assumption has, at best, been weak, and, if it is true, the neuronal mechanisms responsible for more efficient learning in children [have been] unclear," senior author Takeo Watanabe added.

That was the lead researcher for the study explaining why they were doing the study, not his conclusion.

Being good at math does not mean you will "naturally" be good at chess.  There is crossover in how the brain works, but as I mentioned, there are patterns that must be memorized (just like in math) in order to play efficiently and effectively.  In math, you do not calculate trigonometric values each time, just like in chess you cannot calculate simple tactics every move.  You have to train your brain to recognize (memorize) the patterns so you see them instantly.  That takes time - and there is no crossover from math, music, or language for that.  Similarly, you do not look at a word in a new language and instantly know how to pronounce it and what it means - you have to build up the language pattern for that (which is why learning a language takes time).  Saying you did it all in next to no time at all is nonsense.

As the saying goes, if something is too good to be true, ....  The Soviets spent almost 100 years perfecting the study of chess and came up with a systematic method for doing it.  Here you are claiming that you stumbled upon a better way and progressed faster than any of the best players in history.  See my previous statement about things being too good to be true ...

It's interesting how people have already made so many negative assumptions about me ─ I'm a liar, a cheater, a weak chess player, and a narcissist ─ but why? Honestly, what have I done to warrant all these assumptions being made ─ and unanimously agreed upon ─ about me? 

Guys, consider the possibility that what I'm saying is true. Let's say that I actually posted this question because I wanted to know how far I can go, and then simply shared my experience when prompted. In that case, don't you guys think it would be a little unfair to confidently, aggressively, and unanimously accuse me of all of those things?

I feel like people here are just being toxic. I literally just asked a question without any ill intent, and this is the response I get. Not very nice.

Ever since I picked up chess, it didn't take much for my playing strength to increase. All I had to do was play some games, watch some YouTube, and wait for a set amount of time... and then whoosh! I'm suddenly stronger by 100 elo points. I never even knew what it was that got better in my game ─ I just started beating opponents I struggled with previously and that's it. The improvement just... happened. And it still does! The only thing that changed from my beginner days is the amount of time that it takes for my rating to jump by 100 points ─ it used to take only a few days, then a week, then a couple of weeks, and now it takes about 1-2 months. But the process is exactly the same ─ I don't need to do much to get better.

The problem is, it can't go on like this forever. For example, I'm pretty sure there are no or close to no grandmasters who started playing chess as adults, and I started playing at age 20, which means that I will probably never get to grandmaster-strength. So my question to higher-rated players for whom this process of natural improvement has stopped is: when did it stop for you? When can I realistically expect it to stop for me? And once it has stopped, what will I have to do to get even better? Furthermore, what do you think the absolute upper bound is on when I will reach my equilibrium point, and what will it take to have a chance of reaching that upper bound?

For reference, at the time of posting, my rating is 2200 on chess.com, and I have never played rated OTB.

you guys stop arguing you are wasting your time (unless this is fun for you then idc)

Well the joke is on us. 

OP goes onto get his NM or FM title or even IM, and we get so say “It all started here!”.

Good luck OP.