Chess has a funny distribution because there are different populations to consider. I'd guess a chess.com 1200 is better than 95% of all people who know the rul

Chess has a funny distribution because there are different populations to consider. I'd guess a chess.com 1200 is better than 95% of all people who know the rules and have played a game. Yet to reach the 95% of any tournament rating pool is far more difficult. It took me nearly three years just to get to 1450 USCF, which is about 83% nationally. In that time I've done more than 50,000 tactics, played more than 15,000 total games (mostly online blitz and rapid) and at least 300 rated tournament games at a slow time control (this includes online games played at 45+45, only half that number are OTB). I've analyzed those tournament games, most of them with a coach. I've played through annotated game collections. I attend lectures at the club from an FM, and watch dozens of Youtube videos every week from streamers and instructors. I drill openings and endgames etc etc. I have a lifetime goal just to reach 1800, which is about 95% I believe. Its reasonable to expect that to take at least 5 years, and also reasonable to think I will never achieve it. This is what chess improvement looks like when you start in your 40s. Any kid who takes the game seriously can get to 1800, a lot of them will do it in just a couple of years.