I have someone with whom I'm discussing attaining IM title.
Their claim is that they could attain an IM title in 3 months, from 1700 Elo rating on Lichess, if he spent 3 months ONLY on chess and absolutely nothing else. How likely is this (consider even strong GM coaches).
Please state why it is possible or not possible. Also possibly include the probability of attaining the IM Rating required (excluding the actual title, just in case the logistics of competing internationally comes up).
My opinion is clear, but I need someone who is actually titled to perhaps explain why or why not this is possible or not.
You wrote: " IM title in 3 months, from 1700 Elo rating on Lichess, if he spent 3 months ONLY on chess and absolutely nothing else". Now either it is a funny joke or you are dreaming. I mean: you can study a life and never become a master. 1700 elo is about 2N. At max in 3 months you could reach 1900 elo about that is 1N. Then you must study a lot and maybe never become CM,then master(2200 elo),FM(2300 elo),IM(2400 elo with 3 norms).Then to get GM title 2500 elo and 3 norms. But from 1700 elo to IM in 90 days,anyone told you that,is a fake news. Or,at least,i do not believe in miracles. I am not telling you ill never become IM,but you need to spend a lot of time and years on chess first(that is my though,i could be wrong of course). All the best!
Your 1900 elo estimate is on par with my calculations as well, I think the curve is way too flat as you approach your "probable" best; Age playing a big factor. I'd love to hear from any master (CM as well) on how much time they think they've sunk into the game.
There are breakthroughs you can go through that might give you a 100-200 elo jump (<2200), ideas/concepts but that only comes from intense practice and a lot of games, analysis and study.
Well... Nothing is impossible. But that doesn't seem very probable. The better you get the harder it gets to become better. The amount of knowledge it takes to go from 2200 to 2400 is vastly larger than you need to go from 0->2000. I don't think there is enough time in only 3 months to do this.
I don't really see how it would be possible. Even people who are already very strong IMs/GMs could struggle to take 3 IM norms in 3 months. Getting to the right level and taking the norms at the same time? No way.
never ever
To understand this question...one must understand the structure of chess as it is played today.
Opening theory leaves hardly any room for creating anything. So 90% of your time would be spent on learning and updating yourself on opening theory.
The rest will be the "real chess". Middlegame and Endgame.
What you say is definitely possible in a world without opening theory i.e., chess960 etc. As things stand, it is a rote-based field.
This steep learning curve is why there is hardly any interest in chess for the general public. It is just impossible to appreciate it after "learning the rules of the game"
You can safely lay a wager with this person and scoop up your money at the end of 3 months :-)
That's not true at all. Opening theory isn't close to as important as lower level players think. You hardly have to know anything to play the opening well enough.
I made a big jump many years ago, but not THAT big of course. I was around 1900 when I started to work seriously on chess for the first time in my life. I worked hard for some weeks or months and then played a lot of tournaments. After a few tournaments I was already 2250.
Well, not to argue...but if you look at history...
The Morphys managed to win with tactical brilliance
Not so in the Soviet era, where the person who had read the latest chess literature won
Now, everyone has access to databases. What scope is there to make opening errors, however insignificant it might be? Your opponent will reproduce a GM game to beat you. A feat of memory more than anything else.
So to the original question of rising up the ranks and becoming an IM, pure tactics are of hardly any use. Strategy/Positional knowledge will not be possible to learn and apply in 3 months.
But if you were to introduce random positions, then a good tactical player 2000-2200 strength and an IM/GM are quite equal. Hard to digest, but there it is.
There is enough sound openings and reachable positions that you don't have to worry about being prepared to death, ofc unless you are extremely predictable.
It's not about memorizing past games. It is about understanding the opening and positions.