Why doesn't chess.com award Candidate Master (CM) for USCF???

I didn't mean for that part to sound like I didn't believe him, just that I couldn't relate.  I realize different highschools and different parents can really vary the workload.  I also didn't know schools are giving more work now-a-days.

that is very funny even though i ofc respect all stronger then me players

Everybody's hero JW,  said it took him 3 years to get from expert to master.

+1-It's been a lot of bouncing around for me in the 2000-2100 range.

And yet, some kids blow right past 2100 straight to 2400 and beyond.

And some get stuck at 1600.

I don't think it has anything to do with your opponents you guys

But I may be wrong.  Maybe you switched the types of tournaments you go to or maybe you were "luckly" to hardly ever get paired with improving players before now or something.

But wafflemaster, you yourself said that it's possible to work hard and still not get the results. So how do you know whether someone is at the limit of their talent or not? It's possible that those who improve very quickly might not have more talent but just have an environment that speeds up their level of talent being realized. For example, if a person's "limit" is 2200, they might achieve it faster than someone with the same limit, because of their environment.

Now, for me the things that constitute limits are not just cognitive abilities, but more so the attitude. Anyone who amasses lots of patterns can be good at chess without having to be extremely intelligent since drawing from those patterns clues them in on the right idea. The paradox is that you probably have to be in a very strong state of mind to be able to take the time to do this in an effective way, e.g., you probably have to be passionate about the thinking process so that the patterns stick in your head, although this may be easier with a coach.

I'm not sure if this is in response to something I said specifically or not, and if so, which thing I said (?)

What I was hearing from Shadowknight was more or less:  "I gained ~150 points in 4 tournaments but now I've stopped for a while because I'm always paired with underrated people"

Which is a bit silly.

Obviously he (like all quickly improving players) was underrated for a long time.  And now that his rating has caught up (or is much closer anyway) with his ability he has to wait awhile until he improves again.  I certainly don't think he's at his "limit" if that's what you were suggesting.

I pointed out some kids blow past 2100 because I think he's misinterpreting his plateau as something that's happening outside of himself.  But all players experience this.  The kid that went straight to 2300 gets stuck there for a few years for example.  Not because either of them have reached a limit, but because this is how normal improvement works.

Also after being underrated for so long (I'm guessing) he never had to take players rated below him seriously.  With more accurate ratings he's discovering players only 100-200 points below you actually do get chances.  So part of it may be fixing his psychology as he says.

In the long run though, I think you guys will help each other's play (especially if you hang out with each other).  A big factor in my improvement was the camaraderie (and rivalry) I had with others at my high school.

There isn't a "real" one, just that the USCF and FIDE use the same words to describe different achievements. You could call yourself a USCF candidate master, or you could just say you got a bunch of hard earned norms. It's up to you.

Congrats! Just press on for USCF NM-title or FIDE accreditation if preferred. Good chess-progress without doubt.

Congratulations!

Yes, you are now officially a USCF Candidate Master!

Aside from the fact that this USCF "candidate master" moniker applies to people rated only over 2000 in their own rating system, and not 2200 as in the case of a bona fide FIDE CM, there is also the point that USCF ratings are inflated at least 100 to 200 points beyond FIDE ratings, so that 2000 USCF is likely equivalent to 1800-1900 FIDE. Acknowledging a title for that, when the lowest title currently recognized by this site (other than the odd inclusion of NM) refers to a level of play about 400 points above that, would seem really odd to me.

But I don't care ... acknowledge them all; they're all stronger than I am; a candidate master of any variety would probably give me a thumping all day long at my current ability. I still have issues with high class B players and class As of all kinds.

Well, there exist NM and CM titles in other countries too. Here in Austria we have NM (National Master) and MK (Candidate Master). Rating needs to be 2200 and 2100. Plus 3 norms.

We even have female versions of that title, too. Women need 200 points fewer to get their female version title.

And a big factor in my lack of improvement was that I was the #1 or #2 player in my high school league after just having learned to play, with no pro coaches in sight.

I agree completely. Any players with any skill and even a tiny competitive streak will rise to the level of their opposition.

I also think that 2000 USCF is a laudable achievement, whether it comes with a title or not. In fact, every 100 point rise after 1800 is a big deal in my mind, because dang is there a difference between an experienced 1900 and a perpetual 1800, and that difference only exists in the 1800's favor when compared to 1500-1600. At least, that's been my experience.

So congrats to anyone above 1900 USCF!

I wonder if Chess.com is discriminating against people not from the USCF. They definitely award the NM badges, but I don't think that, for instance, an ex-Soviet candidate master or master is eligible for a diamond account. Meanwhile, one has to be rated 2450+ FIDE to become a Russian master + there are a few more conditions.

eek!

So in Russia, "NM" is generally superior to the general "IM" title? Wow, those guys are harsh. Ultimately though an individual shouldn't ask the federations for how "masterly" they are -- that's up to him or her to decide. The only problem is that for some countries, some players will be as strong or stronger than USCF NM's, yet won't be enjoying the same free membership.

Maybe chess.com is just too lazy to consider other NM's, I don't know.