How fast is normal improvement?

Hi, I’m a 1200-1300ish player (it goes up and down depending on the day) and my improvement has been weird so far:

I started playing in July 2018, by September I was 800, and I have gone up an average of about 100 points per month on here and elsewhere. Is this normal improvement, too fast or slow, and what can I do to improve other than my current “schedule” which includes about 15 minutes of tactics, 30 minutes of openings (I know my time could be better spent, but I like openings), I do chess.com positional lessons to the max, and I read a few pages from Silman’s Complete Endgame Course every night before bed. 

I started playing chess in August and have improved from 200 to 700-800 and frankly, I think that's the best I can manage. It would be great if I could be 1000 someday. 

@BK201YI You can absolutely improve higher than 1000! I believe everyone has their limit, but I think the work you put in has way more to do with your improvement than your intelligence does

Thanks. I usually do this anyway, other than when I lose to a simple tactic. If I lose to the same type of tactic over and over then I will study it and avoid it in my future games, but after something happens about twice, I pick up on it.

Ratings are meaningless until you get your Glicko RD down below 25 or so.

Not true at all. As a 1300, I consistently beat 1200s, 1100s, 1000s, etc. And I am consistently beaten by those higher rated than me. It is only after study and improvement that my rating improves for more than short periods of time. Glicko RD speaks to the accuracy of a rating, but the fact is that a 1300 should beat a 500 no matter what their Gicko RDs are. If yours was 100, you would probably still trash me every game. 

Yes, because your RD of 50 means that your true playing strength is somewhere between 1250 and 1350. The intervals you've chosen are too granular for the RD uncertainty to matter.

... and you don't need to lecture me on how ratings work. I was probably playing in (and winning) tournaments before you were born.

Rather, he doesn't need to lecture you on how ratings don't work.  Ratings are designed so that players get caught in a rating which does not reflect their real playing level (either too low a rating or too high)  It is all a damn scam so that people keep trying and paying fees.

At lichess you can reach 1000 even 1700 rank in no time.

The ratings in Chess.com gives you low scores depending on your play even if its a checkmate.

It's a Scam lol

Visit @IAMBacon thread.

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/for-beginners/imbacons-cheat-sheets

If I win I get points. If I lose, I lose points. How exactly is that a scam? 

It's so that people would keep trying and pay sum fees

Ratings are designed so that players get caught in a rating in which it does not reflect their real playing level.

At least that's how it looks to me on chess.com

I still don't understand. How does it not reflect my real strength when I play against other people. If I'm better than them, my rating will go up. And I don't have to pay anything for it. 

@everyone Ratings are not a scam. If you win you get points, if you lose you lose points. There’s no monetary factor, no ads, and no other motivation for them to scam you. If magnus Carlsen gets on, he will have a higher rating than you. If I get on, I’ll have a lower rating than you. It is perfectly reflective of ability, and if you think it’s a scam then stop playing and posting in forums. 

Next, ratings are most certainly an indicator of improvement. Because of the win/loss factor, players who beat other players more often have higher ratings. The higher the player you beat, the more your rating goes up. I could never beat a 1300 a month ago and now I am, and you’re telling me I haven’t improved. That’s false.

everyone is different, there is no way to say when someone will reach their peak, how long it will take to get there, and how much past it they can push by hard work and study.   There are thousands of variables …. how well do you remember patterns, how well do you see and apply principles, how well can you remember openings, how well do you adapt when the moves go off the known path, how well do you see tactical hits, how well do you visualize the board (how many moves ahead can you see), and many more.    You can be strong at some of those and weak at others, and that will affect how fast you get to your highest level and how high that will be.

ratings are both good and bad.  its an inexact tool … Ive had winning streaks or good months and shot mine way, way over my true capability, and losing streaks (coming off of one) that had me below my true capability.   Ratings are a bit like the stock market... its what your historical ability was in the recent past, but it says little of your true value or future performance.   Everything could all come together for you after reading these books and playing and you might jump from 1300 to 1500 in the span of a week.   Then you might get overconfident and fall back to 1400.   I guess, what I am trying to say, is that tracking your rating does help to say if you are getting better, and it helps to find fair opponents, but don't track it over the short term.  Maybe track it once a month, and put down that value as a data point, and then look at the 12 points after a year...  tracking it week to week or day to day will drive you mad, because it is going to have imprecision and spikes that make no sense (in terms of measuring your skill). 

I started last January. My goal was to reach 1300. I border along 1300-1400 now almost a year later. Hopefully get to 1500 by the end of another year. Ultimately I will be happy to be enjoying the game at the 1800 level.