Chess learning curve

I think three years ago when I first started playing chess, my rating on chess.com, or my strength was something like 1200-1300. now my rating, or strength is 1550-1620.

Am I going to continue to improve or am I going to be like this for the rest of my life?

For people who have been playing ten years or more. Do ratings continue to climb or do they level out at a point. I believe that 1600 is too low a level to be a plateau and I feel that I still have much chess in me that has not come out.

Lets assume one thing:

1. Everybody has the same mediocre talent in chess.

With that assumption out of the way, I can safely say that without proper study and study materials, everybody will level out sooner or later.

This comes down to your person, YOU. If you are content where you are, then you won't improve, or have little chance thereof, even with study as your heart just won't be in it. Now if you wish to improve and truly WANT it, the number of games and study will help you improve, if done correctly.

I was very recently rated about 1200 and had been sitting at that rating for a couple years. At that time I was thinking the same thing you are now, "Can I improve?". It certainly didn't feel like I could. It felt, in fact, that I was playing at the top of my game! Then I began studying. A month or so later and here I am at 1400.

Short Answer: You will improve, if you put the work into it. Know, however, that it takes talent to break a certain level. But sheer hard work and determination should take you up to a title, perhaps as high as IM. That, however, could take years and years to achieve.

well, i mean it's good to know that IM is the ceiling, but I think I would be extremely happy with much less. even reaching 1800 Live would give me great satisfaction if I can do that in the next five years.

not saying i would mind being a master though.

i think one poster here made an astute observation.

they said, learning is based on repetition. that is very true if one can keep a critical attitude.

It was meant to be incorrect. Of course there are varying levels of talent, but making that assumption makes the explanation a little easier and quite a bit shorter.

"well, i mean it's good to know that IM is the ceiling, but I think I would be extremely happy with much less. even reaching 1800 Live would give me great satisfaction if I can do that in the next five years."

Just go for it and try to enjoy yourself. Don't forget that your improvement will very likely become slower the further you progress. This is the same in all endeavors though.

Every now and then I'll be on the train, mumbling to myself, "don't put your knight in that damn corner" holding on to my iphone. Then I look up and smile at the pretty ladies. Learning is hard my friend.

This is a valid point. Just use the ratings as a way of showing whether you are improving or not. Don't trust them, just use them.

well, i remember when play in my teenager period (from 15 to 18) and study/play like 4 hours per day! what a waste of time because i do 99% wrong in that period anyway improve from 1300 to 1500.

I comeback to play last year with 22 years with probably 1300 (out of training) but with a teacher in the university study 1,5 hours per week and improve to 1600 easily (in the record i was 1500 and go to 5 tournament with a performance of 1900 aprox).

I just try to say that think with a good training is possible up to 2000 easily.

It depends on how well you study and practice... There is no universal learning curve. But it gets harder for anyone as your rating increases. In other words, a leap from 1600 to 1900 is much harder than from 1300 to 1600.

for that i put my performance, because i don't have this elo yet but my average performance say another story.

Thank you. I think I succeed.

Improvement will come slowly because you're facing tougher competition who is also improving, and you'll need to learn more relative to a rating increase.  It takes much less to go from 1000 to 1500 than it does to go from 1500 to 1800, for example because of diminishing returns. 

Improving in chess is everyone's goal. Even top 100 GM's continuosly seek to improve their game! If we follow Fisher's path to improvement I believe he improved tremendously after staying at the library and devouring hundreds of books. It was the way then and still applicable today. 

If you are still in the phase of studying openings, then it's not time yet for you to improve your rating. Pick an opening that's easy for you. The opening is your trade mark and your soul. Live and die by that opening.

Then you can forget whatever opening you play. You forget completely. You just play chess. The real Chess! And not an opening.

Then to measure your strength, trade your rook with bishop or knight. Trade your bishop or knight with 1 or 2 pawns.

Then test your defence. How strong can you hold a very strong attack and attack back in return.

If you survive and succeed in all of that, then you are ready for your master.

Play with no fear!

You have a big problem: An Attitude Problem Dude!

I agree, hard work will bring nothing but another hard work.

Look how I crush 1. d4. Actually I seldom play 1.e4. But I don't mind playing against 1. d4.

And play with no fear. Trade your rook for knight or bishop.

withThe Free Dictionary: Next to; alongside of: stood with the rabbi; sat with the family. →

I've gone several years without playing chess; I have hardly improved since I began playing chess in 3rd grade. How do I start improving at chess again?

Hence the term "assumption". It was just a guideline for the estimation of what happens. He even mentioned that afterwards.

Otherwise, back to the point : the rating bottleneck can also be explained by the shape of the rating curve, independantly of "chess strength" measured by a chesstrengthometer (tm).

Ratings are a measure of your relative strength. If you assume that very roughly the 2800-2900 range is the top 5, the 2700-2800 is the top 50, the 2600-2700 is the top 500, it is ten times harder to get into one of these categories than in the one just below. If the work to do to win one rating point increases exponentially, it might be just due to the exponentially small number of people in the higher ranks.

(Note that this reasoning only applies in the decreasing slope past the average player - before the average player, it does not apply : it would become simpler to improve the more you approach the average rating ? seems strange.)