I once knew a guy on a chess discord channel that used to say that he was only playing "serious" chess for about 6 months and he already attained a very respectable rating of 2300+ in blitz. He played IM John Bartholomew in one his streams, despite being outplayed in the opening, he created enough tactical complications to secure a draw.
I used to think that every 2000+ players have being playing for years, perhaps since their childhood, and it is already a natural thing for them. I've been playing online for quite some years and my progress is so slow that is quite frustrating. Is chess about "natural ability" after all?
we all learn at different speeds. It takes years and years to get good at chess. The player probably has spent years playing and just dedicated some time into intense study. The talented players are truly gifted and it shows when watching their games. My advice is stop comparing your progress to others(apples,and oranges) . I think i have hit my wall when it comes to getting better or more consistent games myself but I also don't have that much "natural ability" and I am quite pleased at my level of play
For 30 years now, 2000 offline rating I reached after say 5-6 years.
It took two years to reach 2000 elo online . I analyzed each game, especially the opening.
Today I'm still in that qualification, although I have not analyzed a game for a while. I just look at how many mistakes I've made and that's it. Maybe that's why I have not improved more or maybe I've reached my maximum potential
Online you can gain some 100 rating points if you know how to handle the mouse swiftly. Additionally lichess is overrated, Elo is the „harder“ currency.
I just wanted to point out that the online ratings might be influenced by other non-chess factors.
Isn't a 2000 lichess same as ~elo 1850? At least that's what I heard... And
chess.com is 50 points less still. So you'd have to be 2200 online to call yourself a 2000 player?!
It depends on what this chess Player means for "seriuos". For example I Play at chess game from 30 years, I've about 2000 Elo in classical chess (on the board, not on Computer) and I can't say that I did it seriously. Some week ago I've played a classical game against a MF (Elo 2350) with black. I've played weak in the opening, weak in the middlegame and weak in the end game; finally I loosed this game on time but the situation was equal for the Computer Evaluation (1 Knight plus 3 pawn me and 1 Knight plus 2 pawn for my opponent but with a very active King on his side). My anlyze was that I'm lazy on studying opening, I'm not doing tactical exercises (I did not saw a big chance to have a clear Advantage -2.5) and my know-how in finals is terrible... And maybe I was drawing against an 2300 Elo anyway...
I was beating 2000 USCF players during my first year of playing chess, although my rating was only 1500, mostly due to my natural tactical ability. With years of studying, I have achieved a rating around 2150, although I still win most games with tactics. Now another 30 years later, I haven't improved any. As a youngster, I wanted to prove myself, whereas now I just play. That motivation (or lack thereof) has a great influence on my rating.
Studying might make you better, but it can also make it less fun.
