I think it's more a case of if you can't reach 2000 after a period of time (I don't know how long that time period would be, but let's say a year or so) then chances are you won't reach 2000 no matter what studying you do.
I don't read any chess books but still I crossed 2000 in blitz and bullet. It is quite possible
Goodness I guess it depends on what you consider study. I would think without review your games at the least it would probably be pretty difficult. And why would you want to discover every mating pattern and tactic on your own instead of reading about it or doing the puzzles or something? Its not like most (any) of us have every opening / end game memorized but i would assume almost everyone over 1700 even has read basic opening principals somewhere. I would think even picking up tips and tricks in the forms here is study in a sense.
Anyways everyone already knows all you have to do to get past 2K is to stop hanging pieces.
Yes you can.
AlphaZero reached 3000 rating without studying, just playing against itself and learning from that.
Opening theory is absolutely useless and even stops your progress as it absorbs so much time and effort for no real benefit.
Endgame study is different: it is too hard to reinvent all these Lucena, Philidor, Karstedt positions over the board and short of time. However with a very tactical aggresive playing style, you might checkmate your opponents before you get to an endgame.
also 2000 on lichess one can skip also almost all complex endgame theory. I've seen in OTB tournames. philidor position being achievable once and defending player (aboou 1800 elo) did not know it but managed to draw still without problems. Cannot recall single lucena position. Most of endgames are not the ones in books. If I recall correctly Dan Heiman said he ran into philidor like situation first time being about 2000 USCF he did not know it then. So general analytical skill are far more important than any knowledge. obviously there comes the point when it starts to matter
#15
Maybe a player can find the theoretical win or draw of his own provided he has enough time, but most often they fail.
You do not run into a theoretical endgame position by accident: the player who has an advantage steers towards known won positions and avoids known drawn positions.
I agree however tactics > endgames > openings
Engines like Stockfish are weak in openings and endgames without their table bases, but the engine is incredibly strong in tactics and that makes up for the weakness in endgames and openings.
Is it at all noteworthy that you guys have heard of these positions? What about more common things like K+p vs K or R+k vs K... smothered mate.... Greek gift... fried liver attack... scholars... algebraic notation..Yeah sure you don't need to do any research but its sure been helpful to me and I'm willing to bet most people over 2k (1500) have.
I think 2000 is mostly about overcoming your fear of the people who hold that rating and playing as accurately as you can. Practise playing casual matches against that rating range up to 2200 and also play a lot of games with the computer (this will force you to play accurately even if computers do not play in the same style humans do). Play on as many servers you can, thus exposing yourself to a wide range of people and also build ratings on many sites (you won't be fixated on maintaining one rating while you progress towards your goal).
#18
One server is enough.
Rated is better than casual: it helps to measure progress or lack of it.
2000 is not about fear, it is rather about discipline, concentration, and learning from losses.
Pretty sure its about dropping less pieces and finding cheeky checkmates in lost positions.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.