FACT: You can't improve at chess

This is going to be a very controversial post - but I strongly believe that once someone has a basic understanding of the game (knowing all the opening variations, basic strategies etc..) it's almost impossible to improve based on practice. I think we all have a natural ability that will dictate our skill level. It's why we see little kids rated as grandmasters but players who have put 20+ years in still struggle at 1500

This is why you see that majority of players, who have played for over 5 years ALWAYS hover around the same rating. You would think after 5 years of consistent practice the rating would gradually increase? 

Every single graph I've looked at at long term players is within 200 rating points. I.e. if someone is rated 1900 they will have hovered between 1800-2000 for their entire careers. It makes me believe chess is based on genetic intelligence you're born with and nothing more. Yes you can sharpen your skill but you're not going to go from struggling at 1000 to 2500 in 10 years.

I know the majority of you are thinking "what an idiot of course you can improve" - Show me a graph of a player who has consistently improved over time. It doesn't exist. It's usually rapid increase or decrease at the beginning then just hovering around a rating forever. Give me a player profile graph and show me slow, long term improvement

Magnus Carlsen's rating progress chart: https://ratings.fide.com/id.phtml?event=1503014

In June 2000 (not displayed on graph), Carlsen was rated 904. In April 2001, Carlsen was rated 2064. By October 2004, Carlsen was rated 2581. By November 2009, Carlsen was rated 2801. Since then, Carlsen has remained consistently over 2800. The graph shows a "slow and steady improvement" of 1800 points over nine years.

Everyone has a limit of natural ability. For Magnus, that limit is around 2850. For me, the limit may be around 2600. I don't know. It's like bench pressing. Right now I can bench 150 pounds. Last year, I could only bench 80 pounds. (I was a weakling back then.) In a year or two, I may be able to bench 200 pounds. But there is a natural limit to exactly how much I can bench. Maybe it is 250 pounds. Maybe 300. Maybe 400.

Everyone has a natural improvement limit, but that limit tends to be well over how much they actually believe they can improve.

psylowade, if you were to play for six hours of chess every day for the next twenty years, I am quite confident that you could be a grandmaster.

In conclusion, where you're wrong is that you believe that the fact that there is such a thing as a physically impossible rating barrier to breach means that improvement is impossible. It doesn't, it just means that improvement is limited.

It's really hard to improve at chess through building skill. But what if you still want your rating to go up? It would appear that you are out of luck. That was indeed the case until the day Joseph Truelson saved chess by creating the RAR movement!

https://www.chess.com/club/classic-rar

Join The RAR movement, and you will improve dramatically! No studying necessary! Why try so hard to beat your opponents, if you can make them beat themselves?

That's the power of RAR!

Besides the many testimonials available online, Joseph Truelson himself has explained how RAR has changed his life:

"You might wonder how I managed to reach 1838 USCF. For the first few years, it was actual skill. I played a lot, and was so naturally talented that I didn't study. At all. However, a year ago I stopped making progress. It became clear to me that in order to get better I would have to study. But no! I would NEVER do that! My playing strength will be 1600 for the rest of my life. But I still wanted my rating to go up. So I decided I needed Good Luck. I'd rather have good luck than good skill. To have good luck, I figured I needed to INTIMIDATE my opponents. In one of my most recent tournaments, I had the courage to simply say rar before the game, during the game, and after the game. My opponent was rated around 1600 but played much worse, allowing basic tactics! Simply say RAR, and you will gain 238 rating points like me!"

I agree with bb_gum. Usually, players plateau and stagnate because they've stopped training and learning—not because they've hit some arbitrary mental ceiling.

A more enlightening graph would be to compare the efforts of those who get stuck with the efforts of those who continue to improve. In most cases, you'll see that the ones who keep improving have different studying and training habits than the players who "level off".

Solid science!

You are right. Magnus Carlsen was born with a 2800+ rating. 

He had rapid improvement - which I explained in my post if you read it.

I'm asking for an example where it's SLOW and steady improvement over a long period of time

Chess is about your 'psyche' and optimism, always keeping eye on, holds it correctly.

The tactics given daily free here totally improve your focus realizing way more opened than without them. I highly advise creating your own tactic and working with it throughout your given color you use, mine is white.

For 2 years I always gave my opponent white to be courteous and then as I again began to play white I felt considering so many here read up positioning and no way do I find that to be chess, because the object is to prevail with what's in front of you, and through being very defensive player you then build to play offensive.

Key Word: POSITIVITY 

Always dismissing any 'claim' that bites your @ as to how you're slacking, and holding your ground like by a loss realizing it's a win 'IF' you gained from it.

And find some perfect type rhythms to blare out any distractions with some headphones.

I can only speak for myself here.  I learned the rules of chess at the age of 9 (late by today's standards).  I estimate my playing strength to have been around 300-500 at that time.  I didn't play much at all over the next 13 years though.   Just an occasional game with my brothers.  Then, at the age of about 22, I started studying the game (book openings, basic middle game and endgame strategy, etc.) and played my first tournament (and lost, of course).  At that time, I was USCF-rated at around 1160.   Then I started playing at my local chess club, reading more books and training with a 1550-rated friend of mine.   I got up to around 1450-1500, after a few years.   I took another extended break, pursuing other interests (for about 10 years) and then started studying seriously (more advanced books, video lessons, tactics training, puzzles, etc.) and am now in the 1800-2000 range and still improving (at the age of 53).   So, I will have to disagree with the OP.   Studying the game has a much bigger impact than just playing a lot though.   I study about 80-85% of the time and only play about 15-20% of the time.  That's how Fischer did it.   I learned from the best.   Balance is the key though.  I also had lots of other interests (sports, music, art, exercise, girls, the stock market, poker, video games, watching sitcoms, dancing, karaoke, etc.).   

You can sharpen yourself up with tactics puzzles etc, but OP is basically correct. First few years playing massive improvement, but once you hit your natural level it very difficult to go much further.   

   Many older players can argue that they are higher rated than they were 20 years ago, but ho much of that is due to rating inflation rather than actual improvement?

I'm just asking for the graph of 1 player... out of the millions of players that play on this website... that would show a slow and consistent improvement over years of time put in. 

No, I am MUCH better than I was 20 years ago or even 10 years ago.  Sometimes, you have the talent to be a 2000 level player, but there are a few holes in your knowledge that cause you to lose games.  That was the case with me.   After I studied the "right things", everything started to click and I filled in those holes and vaulted from 1600 to around 1900, over the past 5-10 years (in my late 40's/early 50's no less).   It takes dedication, lots of study and some inborn talent.   Not everyone can continue to improve at my age though.  I have managed to keep my mind sharp by playing lots of strategy games, taking quizzes, doing puzzles, etc.   I may be a rare exception to the age rule (most people peak mentally at around age 40).  I will admit that I am not a fast player.  I excel at longer games, where I can think deeply.   My blitz rating is only around 1450, but my daily rating is 1820 and rising.  

I've had slow, steady improvement over the past 44 years.   My chess.com graph only goes back a couple of years though, so it won't reflect that.  Before that, I mostly played OTB.   If you want a graph, you can take the ratings and ages that I posted and create one on Excel.   Or, if you don't believe me, feel free to look me up on the USCF website (click the link below) and then super-impose my chess.com daily game graph over that one.   The USCF graph only goes back to 1993 though, for some reason.  I played a several tournaments before that and my initial provisional rating was in the 1100's.     http://www.uschess.org/datapage/ratings_graph.php?memid=12528908

I've looked at 100's of players graphs and there all around the same mark. Makes me wonder the point of even playing. I'm definitely not improving and I'm pretty confident it's because my natural ability has peaked. 

If you study weekly, i believe you can improve. If you hit a plateau, is normal, but depends on you if you gonna pass it.

Try looking at the graphs of tournament players, on the USCF website.   Tournament players study the game and try to improve in between tournaments.  Most chess.com players just want to play chess and not study.   That's why their ratings plateau.    

After plateauing for a decade, my rating rose a hundred points.  http://www.uschess.org/datapage/ratings_graph.php?memid=12404632

Of course there are two major considerations which you are avoiding.  Most people stop learning chess when they become adults.  The higher your rating gets, the harder it is to improve.

According to your logic, there is something wrong with the human race, because they stop expanding vertically after about 15 years.  Humans just stop improving for an unknown reason.

edit after post #31:

I haven't trained or studied chess since 1988, so this is just by practice.  Also since I rarely play more than 7 USCF rated games per year, this graph is a little slow.

You have only played Six daily games, ages ago, which by the way are not real chess as you can consult books etc and move the pieces about.  

I think the OP is talking about proper club players who have grown up with the game.  A few may improve later in life, but it is probably because they never put any effort in when they were younger and are returning to the game after a break

Is like : why are you playing soccer if you can't be a professional soccer player, or why are you singing if you can't sing like Bon Jovi? Most people play chess for fun. It's entertaining.

This what I mean about making your own tactic.. Just played.

https://www.chess.com/live/game/2168289344

14:29 remaining to his 4:15

mate in 23