A normal person can't get to 2000+.
How much time do a normal person needs to go from 1200 to 2000 +
Sort:
Mar 24, 2018
0
#23
SteamGear wrote:
godsofhell1235 wrote:
As I recall it took both Kasparov and Karpov about 2 years to go from beginner to 2000.
Though, they both had a lot of chess training to help them along the way.
It'd be near impossible to reach 2000 in 2 years from just playing alone (as the OP wants to), without any sort of guidance or instruction.
Yep.
Just giving a benchmark.
If you're young, have huge potential, work hard, and have good coaches, it's still going to take years.
Plenty of normal people (just play online for fun) can play 10 or 20 years and never get close.
Mar 24, 2018
0
#24
torrubirubi wrote:
I think it depends how much money do you have. There are some titled players that will let you draw or even win if you pay enough. I heard that in Russia whole tournaments were faked to allow some players to get their GM norms.
But if you want to improve only by playing you need a lot of talent to get 1600 or 1700. 2000? No way!
But if you want to improve only by playing you need a lot of talent to get 1600 or 1700. 2000? No way!
This highlighted part brings up an interesting point.
Lots of different players will tell they didn't study... but what do they mean?
It's extremely rare to not study at all... not a single video? A single line of literature, or online article? Not a single tactic puzzle? Not even terms like backward pawn? You've never analyzed one of your own games? Not one? Really?
I think what people mean when they say things like "I've never studied ____" is that all their learning and practice has been for fun. They've never made a schedule, and rigorously followed it whether they felt like it or not, and whether they felt like they had time for it or not.
But don't be fooled. Some people find it fun to work 4 hours a day and cover many different topics. One man's work is another man's leisure.
Mar 24, 2018
0
#25
godsofhell1235 wrote:
torrubirubi wrote:
I think it depends how much money do you have. There are some titled players that will let you draw or even win if you pay enough. I heard that in Russia whole tournaments were faked to allow some players to get their GM norms.
But if you want to improve only by playing you need a lot of talent to get 1600 or 1700. 2000? No way!
But if you want to improve only by playing you need a lot of talent to get 1600 or 1700. 2000? No way!
This highlighted part brings up an interesting point.
Lots of different players will tell they didn't study... but what do they mean?
It's extremely rare to not study at all... not a single video? A single line of literature, or online article? Not a single tactic puzzle? Not even terms like backward pawn? You've never analyzed one of your own games? Not one? Really?
I think what people mean when they say things like "I've never studied ____" is that all their learning and practice has been for fun. They've never made a schedule, and rigorously followed it whether they felt like it or not, and whether they felt like they had time for it or not.
But don't be fooled. Some people find it fun to work 4 hours a day and cover many different topics. One man's work is another man's leisure.
A lot of players take a lit if information looking hundreds if games played between strong players. Even if they don't know some specific chess terms like outpost or isolani they will be able to recognize such features in a game and know how to use them in own games. I consider this "studying chess".
"... I know that a large percentage of my readers almost exclusively play on the internet – after all, you are reading this on the internet, right!? But there is a strong case for at least augmenting internet play with some OTB play, whether in a club or, better yet, a tournament. Tournament play gives you the kind of concentrated, slow chess that often helps improve your game, especially if you are inexperienced at slow play. ...
How often should you play? ... A minimum of 8 OTB tournaments and about 100 slow games a year is a reasonable foundation for ongoing improvement. ...
Can’t make 100? Then try for 60. ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2002)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627052239/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman16.pdf
Mar 24, 2018
0
#27
- "How much time do a normal person needs to go from 1200 to 2000 + ?"
Normal people don't play chess.
Play vs opponent only. Yes, 100% possible if your opponent is 3500 rated stockfish and you can learn from stockfish that is practically hard for most human. (not possible if you are playing vs 1000-1200 noobs) .Stockfish is still not perfect. (perfect chess rating is estimated at 4500). Stockfish sometimes mishandled in rare opening positions and many endgames where some human knowledge apply up to 4000 -4500 rated.
My suggestion, though some opening strategies are written by 2500 rated players with much outdated ideas/wrong strategy/ suboptimal moves ( that can lead to forced lose in high quality computer play) , it is much easier/quicker to improve your chess if you follow these 2500 rated people's books.
Saludos a todos desde Honduras!!! #HND504
Mar 24, 2018
0
#30
Once you reach 2000 you are pretty much in the top 1% of chess players on this site, so a "normal" person will never make it there.....
Mar 24, 2018
0
#31
2000 is not as hard as most chess players think.
But it's totally impossible unless you, at least partially, enjoy doing the right kind of work.
The main point: you have to enjoy the work.
And that's why so few make it.
Chess is super entertaining and interesting and difficult and rewarding at a beginner level. No need to go to 2000+ unless you're crazy 
All you gotta do is watch 4-5 John Bartholomew Videos and you will get to 2000! I read about it all the time in the video comments 
blueemu wrote:
- "How much time do a normal person needs to go from 1200 to 2000 + ?"
Normal people don't play chess.
Lol. Lot of abnormal people in this world.
Mar 25, 2018
0
#34
SeniorPatzer wrote:
blueemu wrote:
- "How much time do a normal person needs to go from 1200 to 2000 + ?"
Normal people don't play chess.
Lol. Lot of abnormal people in this world.
Shocking!
Why do we have to get all caught up in this rating stuff? Is it really that big a deal?? Why can’t we just love each other?
Mar 25, 2018
0
#36
You cannot reach 2000 just by playing. Why isn't it as good as study/practice? A few examples:
- Openings. You are honestly trying to recreate theory by yourself.
- Tactics. If the rare occasions you get some OTB are the only times you study tactics, your pattern recognition is going to be terrible.
- Endgames. If you don't study some basic endgames, it's just like openings in that you'll have to repeat it OTB, and this time the price is much higher (you can come back from an opening mistake).
- Your own games. If you don't analyze your own games, you'll find yourself making the same types of mistakes over and over again..
However, if you do study efficiently and continuously (ex. no 5 day breaks) the amount of time to reach 2000 will only be determined by the number of tournament games you can get in. (it will probably take at least like 6 months).
If you still attempt to reach 2000 without study and analysis of your own games...
That's a lot of wasted time.
"Hanging here in space? Forever." - Scotty
Mar 25, 2018
0
#38
Do you even play on this site or just use the forums? Doesn't look like you have really played much for someone with big goals. A normal person wouldn't be asking the question, they'd be studying their weaknesses and improving, not talking about it.
It strikes me as an understandable question from someone new to chess.
Not every body can do this, irrespective of time and effort.
Lack of concentration, being distracted, nerves, ... Besides lack of ability and understanding.
(In the past, 700 was a hurdle in 5 minutes Blitz. Am expecting to perform worse years later). 2000 is ambitious. My FIDE ELO is likely 0 as I have lost every game...