Marvellous , u r the Jason Bourne of chess world , a natural talent of the magnitude of a natural disaster. I am lucky to have witnessed a chess phenomenon like your self and will now start studying your games
See you in one year's time when I get my master (probably FIDE CM) title 
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.
I played OTB only for years. I remember once in a tournament there was a new player, he just came out of the army and I don't think he'd really studied chess for more than a few months and he beat me. It was a close game, I probably underestimated him. I was a good player, maybe playing a bit below my best but the thing was, he continued to improve. And to improve very fast. Probably went up to about 2300 FIDE, like a rocket. And then, it seems, he died. I don't remember what happened to him and unfortunately, just at the moment I can't remember his name. He was a very unusual case. It may well be that you are ... well, I can tell by the way you write English that you're intelligent. I can tell by the way you have got into arguments with people here that there's something about you which must put some people on the defensive. That would explain what's happening here.
There's no reason why you shouldn't continue to improve. I don't need to know the truth in order to answer a simple question like yours and in my opinion, the answer is that it is perfectly possible that you will continue to improve to about 230 Old BCF, which is about 2450 FIDE. To get an IM title you have to play OTB and that's an entirely different kettle of fish. You may not be able to do it and maybe you will. I think you if you continue to improve the way you are, you should reach the verge of IM status. Then you might encounter resistance.
Courtesy of voice typing.
Thank you for not going along with the mob and actually answering my question! Your input is highly appreciated.
I agree with you that I regrettably have a pretty argumentative personality; even genuine questions or innocuous comments that I make often seem like arguments. In this case, though, I think one guy (PawnTsuanami) accused me of cheating and lying and everybody else just followed along ─ I think that because virtually nobody in the 200+ comment thread accused me of cheating before his comment.
I've actually talked to a friend of mine who has played chess ever since he was a kid, and he also expressed a similar sentiment: he thought I could make IM at some point in the future, but said it would be hard to progress from there unless I started trained full-time. Of course, even IM would be wildly impressive and it's still a very optimistic prediction! So I guess your username checks out!
I'm sorry but I completely missed your reply. I think it's probably to do with the problems they are having on chess.com. If you remember, I didn't think that you would definitely make IM status. In my experience, and I've known many players, similar people can shoot up to just about nearly IM. They get maybe one IM norm and, unless they're lucky, people look at the way they play and see if there are any omissions in their chess make up. That's where the resistance may primarily come from.
Don't be disheartened by PawnTsunami. He's just someone who likes to make a nice big splash by chucking his ego into a placid pool. No need to take him seriously. He would dislike me intensely if I were actually worth disliking because, according to him, I never ever made a good, useful or meaningful post here. Some poor souls take him seriously, just like some poor souls still take btickler seriously.
Don't worry. Yeah, of course I understand, but even if IM is just a possibility for me instead of a realistic goal just yet, that's still very encouraging. That's more what I was trying to say.
I don't mind PawnTsunami. I generally like other people to analyse things about me and share their findings (I'm very introspective), and PawnTsunami is doing just that. He was serious enough about this to have dug up all my ECF-rated games, for example. It's exciting to hear what my case sounds like to somebody who thinks I'm a cheater and a liar ─ the way he tried to tie my playing style in with the narrative of my being a cheater was especially fascinating. I'm more annoyed with everybody else who mindlessly jumped on PawnTsunami's laughably unconvincing bandwagon. Not a good look for the chess community. I thought chess players were supposed to be good at critical thinking.
The thing is, I know what he's talking about because to some extent I've experienced it. I took up chess age 36 and was a busy person at the time. Ten years in, one day I might be playing blitz and not seeing anything. Another week I might work out a positional pawn sac in an opening I hadn't played before, over the board or play an endgame otb with the precision of a GM. Rating depends completely on consistency and not on peak performance. Quality of play often depends on having perfect mental clarity which lasts the entire game. Making good arguments here also depends on mental clarity. Very often, those without mental clarity don't understand the arguments of others if they're a tiny bit complex. I assume that's your problem.
😂 Yep, lack of intelligence and mental clarity is my problem here 🙄
I get that you are trying to pick a fight to make it all about you, but try elsewhere.
I'm not saying I agree with Optimissed's claims, but it's definitely brave for you to laugh at them given that it took you four tries to comprehend the phrase "my rating has been constantly improving SINCE I GOT MY FIRST NON-PROVISIONAL RATING", and that you still haven't understood my explanation that "the tools, not the wares" are what's transferrable between chess and areas like language and music after 2 attempts, among other things I said that you simply failed to understand correctly.
It's clear that you're intelligent, but mental clarity? Not sure you should laugh about this one.
There's no reason why you shouldn't continue to improve. I don't need to know the truth in order to answer a simple question like yours and in my opinion, the answer is that it is perfectly possible that you will continue to improve to about 230 Old BCF, which is about 2450 FIDE.
2450 FIDE is a pretty hard mark to hit, these days, especially if one is hoping to get there on minimal effort alone. The kids fighting for IM and GM spots nowadays are hungry, and their training is more rigorous and more precise than ever.
Even if someone came stomping on here with a 2800 blitz rating, and wondered aloud if they had International Master potential, I'd still wager a cautious: "Perhaps, but probably not ..."
Especially if they hadn't earned the lowest title yet (CM).
It seems a lot of players (especially the younger ones) are eager to ask about IM/GM potential, when they should, instead, be wondering about CM potential first, before anything else ...
As the old master in all those vintage Kung Fu movies would say, "Patience, young grasshopper ..."
I couldn't agree more with this comment. This is exactly how I feel. In the real world, IM just feels like a far, far-away fantasy land. Outside the context of this thread, I'm not even thinking about it. My only goal is CM/NM, and even that feels a little bit far-fetched to realistically consider at this point in time, although I'm certainly hoping that changes at some point this year.
However, in this thread, we're not talking about the real world; we're more so trying to think abstractly ─ if everything goes like it has been going so far, where do I end up in 10 years' time, for example? That's a question that is completely outside the scope of common intuition ─ we could literally be living in a post-singularity world in 10 years' time, for all we know ─ and ultimately has no bearing on how I view my goals in reality.
At this point, when I know that steady natural improvement has stalled at around 2400, it's much more of a "what if?" question than anything else.
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.
I played OTB only for years. I remember once in a tournament there was a new player, he just came out of the army and I don't think he'd really studied chess for more than a few months and he beat me. It was a close game, I probably underestimated him. I was a good player, maybe playing a bit below my best but the thing was, he continued to improve. And to improve very fast. Probably went up to about 2300 FIDE, like a rocket. And then, it seems, he died. I don't remember what happened to him and unfortunately, just at the moment I can't remember his name. He was a very unusual case. It may well be that you are ... well, I can tell by the way you write English that you're intelligent. I can tell by the way you have got into arguments with people here that there's something about you which must put some people on the defensive. That would explain what's happening here.
There's no reason why you shouldn't continue to improve. I don't need to know the truth in order to answer a simple question like yours and in my opinion, the answer is that it is perfectly possible that you will continue to improve to about 230 Old BCF, which is about 2450 FIDE. To get an IM title you have to play OTB and that's an entirely different kettle of fish. You may not be able to do it and maybe you will. I think you if you continue to improve the way you are, you should reach the verge of IM status. Then you might encounter resistance.
Courtesy of voice typing.
Thank you for not going along with the mob and actually answering my question! Your input is highly appreciated.
I agree with you that I regrettably have a pretty argumentative personality; even genuine questions or innocuous comments that I make often seem like arguments. In this case, though, I think one guy (PawnTsuanami) accused me of cheating and lying and everybody else just followed along ─ I think that because virtually nobody in the 200+ comment thread accused me of cheating before his comment.
I've actually talked to a friend of mine who has played chess ever since he was a kid, and he also expressed a similar sentiment: he thought I could make IM at some point in the future, but said it would be hard to progress from there unless I started trained full-time. Of course, even IM would be wildly impressive and it's still a very optimistic prediction! So I guess your username checks out!
I'm sorry but I completely missed your reply. I think it's probably to do with the problems they are having on chess.com. If you remember, I didn't think that you would definitely make IM status. In my experience, and I've known many players, similar people can shoot up to just about nearly IM. They get maybe one IM norm and, unless they're lucky, people look at the way they play and see if there are any omissions in their chess make up. That's where the resistance may primarily come from.
Don't be disheartened by PawnTsunami. He's just someone who likes to make a nice big splash by chucking his ego into a placid pool. No need to take him seriously. He would dislike me intensely if I were actually worth disliking because, according to him, I never ever made a good, useful or meaningful post here. Some poor souls take him seriously, just like some poor souls still take btickler seriously.
Don't worry. Yeah, of course I understand, but even if IM is just a possibility for me instead of a realistic goal just yet, that's still very encouraging. That's more what I was trying to say.
I don't mind PawnTsunami. I generally like other people to analyse things about me and share their findings (I'm very introspective), and PawnTsunami is doing just that. He was serious enough about this to have dug up all my ECF-rated games, for example. It's exciting to hear what my case sounds like to somebody who thinks I'm a cheater and a liar ─ the way he tried to tie my playing style in with the narrative of my being a cheater was especially fascinating. I'm more annoyed with everybody else who mindlessly jumped on PawnTsunami's laughably unconvincing bandwagon. Not a good look for the chess community. I thought chess players were supposed to be good at critical thinking.
No, you should see the threads I get involved with. Don't get me wrong, because I don't take myself seriously but I do think I'm brilliant and of course, that makes me a target, because although in some cultures, that kind of confidence is accepted, in others, it really irritates the great critical thinkers .... I mean, the really magnificent ones who are taken seriously by others. You're supposed to resort to tricks to get yourself taken seriously, which generally involve saying what others want to hear and then you're accepted here as a great critical thinker. Of course, I can't compete with that; and so my only recourse is to tell the truth. It isn't popular with those whose version of the truth as they see it is somewhat different and the reason for that is morality. I've found here that it's actually immoral to think differently from others. I expect it's because if they thought they had to think about anything that caused them dissonance, their brains would hurt and so it would be immoral to cause that. But whatever the reason, there's a fair bit of polarity, sitting in camps and allying with others.
Of course, I normally am either sober or I've had a smallish drink of malt whisky. On this occasion, I just drank rather a lot of Port wine and ate some salmon sushi. Quite a nice Port wine too.
I don't have to worry about this happening to me. I have sooo much improving I need to do it will take 2 lifetimes.
This is the worst pandering bottom-barrel-tier crypto-"buy my coaching service" I've seen on here in a long while.
When GM Finegold says "if you have a coach, your coach is bad", this is definitely one part of the sort of thing he had in mind.
Also your improvement is implausible, and I'll leave it at that without diving into statistics, because of forum fascism.
I will stop in 17 years that's when i will pass away . . .
I'll be 102 years old. . . .
want me to teach you chess, im sure you can cough something up from the coughers, since youre so bad at it
Aliens , pls come and take away this specimen of intelligence extraordinaire , research on his brain tissue may prove useful to your evolution otherwise he is improving nonstop here and causing our ratings system to malfunction
this ultimate trash talker is so weak, he is scared of his rating points, LOLOLOLOLLIPOP, and they arent even real, thats like me being afraid of the dark.
when its just photons without light or however the F that tesla wannabe put it
Real question is when will I start
U sac like u don't gaf
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.
Make a new account. Your lies should be--" An OCD that has 100 chess books and studies chess 10 hours a day". It will be believable. Trust me. Your claims that never had a deliberate study of chess will get you burned all the time.
Someone once said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." There is a lot of the former, and none of the latter coming from Max.
"None of the latter". Yeah, the fact that I have dozens of games played 3 years ago in which I play like a 300-level player, the fact that I literally have an OTB rating which is in line with my online strength (given that I only started playing OTB recently), and the fact that I'm a successful coach aren't evidence to you. Mhm, sure. No evidence at all.