How long does it take to become good?

I started when I was 23

for some people its easy....their minds are better structured in thinking for good moves.....so they learn quickly.....and TournamentPlayer how old are you now

I'm 30.  I hit 2000 when I was 27

it is an impressive feat according to me @TournamentPlayer ..and think that it is possible to reach 2000 elo here on chess.com without seriously studying it...but as i said earlier we need to discipline and structure our thinking order to attain such heights

no offense to you guys and maybe i'm just ignorant but I'm guessing I will be at least a 1500+ player within a few months. And good to me, as of right now, I'd say 1800

I dont even play blitz, i play 15|10

Zackblack, I've been where you are. The thing that did it for me is the book "Chess in a nutshell" by Fred Reinfeld. I used to lose 4 games out of 5 to my dad. Then I read this book. Then I went to winning 9 games out of 10 and my dad could not figure what hit him. Its great to get you from n amateur to intermediate level in a week of reading. After that point, I read 'The Road to Chess Mastery' by Max Euwe. That got me a bit farther. I am around 1500 now and looking for the next book to take me to the next kevel except I'm more hard pressed for time now. Cheers.

i consider 0-1500 the same elo because they are so weak

Very long. If you want to be good. Study more play less.

a player is weak if he/she is 0-1500 , but still you got to praise the diversity of human intellect.A lesser rated chess player is in no way intellectually weak.he/she is just weak in chess terms.  

Spot on

I'm not "good" yet, but I'm not 1200 anymore either. With that out of the way,

You'll hit artificially high numbers here on the site because of the rd glicko elo effect before your rating settles. But after your first 100 or so games against players of equal strength you'll begin to see a good idea of where your strength lies.

If you only beat up on lower rated players to get a higher rating, then that rating won't tell you as much or really be an accurate test or measure of your true strength.

On the other hand, if you play stronger higher rated opponents, your strength will increase along with your rating. 

After 6 months on here, my Online Chess high was 1709. 

Eventually though, after a few tough tournaments with much stronger and higher rated players, it nose dived down to the 1400s.

After study and tactics trainer as well as playing stronger opponents more regularly, it started to rise back closer to where the high was before. 

The only difference was, this time it was a deserved rating instead of a prematurely inflated one.

I hope this makes sense to you and proves useful.

If you're at least slightly above average in intelligence and work ethic, you could realistically expect to hit that consistent 1500 strength after about 24 months of consistent study.

Those guys were right about learning from losses. You'll learn from your mistakes and that can only help you. If you only want to win, it's hard to improve from that, so you might want to play stronger opponents so you will be able to lose enough to learn more.

The best growth I ever experienced was only after I began to lose more and as a result, learn why.

Another 24 months after you hit 1500, that 1800 could be in sight according to some projections I've seen here by stronger players.

So the 2000 by the guy in 4 years was actually kind of fast for adult beginners.

It's a long term game.

Those who *must* win and get that higher rating sooner rather than later eventually get frustrated and fizzle out once they see it's not going to come fast or easy.

But those who understand it's a lifelong pursuit, with consistent effort and focus usually reach new milestones and personal highs from what I've noticed here in the last couple of years.

In any case, best wishes to you on your road to improvement.

feels it take multiple lifes for me aha

I started playing chess 11 months back, my chess.com blitz rating was 700 then, now it is 1360,that is without any studying.

So if you study and play a lot of chess you can improve at a much faster rate. 

I currently have a FIDE rating of just over 2000. But I don't consider myself good by any means. "Good" in my opinion is 2300 FIDE. I recommend reading "Logical Chess Move by Move". Probably the best one volume beginners book ever. Never have studied tactics though.

Length of time to reach rating from total beginner:

1700 - about 3 years

1800 - about 4 years

1900 - about 6 years

2000 - about 11 years

Sounds reasonable to me.

The other consideration is that the vast majority of chess players will never put in the time and effort to become anywhere near "good".

Too, there are those who will find it absolutely hopeless, regardless of how hard they try to become "good". Why? Some people have an affinity for chess while others don't.

Not everyone can become "good" at olympic ice skating, either.

It took you 11 years to hit 2000 because you did not tactics

Another important aspect is to analyze all your long games to realise what you did right, and what you did wrong.

Most people can probably achieve around 1900-2000 rating if they work hard and put in a lot of time. Or started young. If you didn't start young, then prepare to spend at least a few years of VERY hard work to reach that level.

The problem is chess demands a lot of time for zero monetary reward, unless you are already a top GM at a young age. Not just any top GM, but a super duper GM. A 2500 GM that just makes the cut does not command the same value like before.

Winning a small fly tournament here and there is not going to feed and clothe you, and even then, you still need to be fairly "good" to win those miniscule tournaments, considering the opposition these days, programs, and chess becoming far more popular now. A prize money of $1000 for winning a tough 3 day tournament now and then, is not going to pay your regular bills.

The problem is TIME and MONEY. That is assuming you are willing to commit to the sacrifices required.