Reach 2000 Elo in Chess

Proof required

Submit: (1) screenshot of your public profile showing ≥1800 FIDE/USCF or ≥1900 Lichess classical; (2) weakness analysis document covering your top 3 loss categories from 20+ annotated games with specific game examples.

What gets checked

• Rating is from a verifiable public profile with a URL — not self-reported
• Weakness analysis cites specific game IDs or PGN notation, not just impressions
• Three distinct categories are named with example positions showing the pattern

Common mistakes

• Skipping the analysis step: playing more games without diagnosing failure patterns means volume alone won't improve results efficiently at this level
• Online blitz inflation: Lichess blitz ratings run 300–400 points above OTB equivalents — use classical (90+ min) time controls for an honest baseline

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Is the rating screenshot from a public verifiable URL (FIDE, USCF, or Lichess) — not self-reported?
• Does the weakness analysis cite specific game IDs or PGN notation rather than general impressions?
• Are three distinct categories named with example positions?

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Submit: (1) opening tree exported from Lichess Opening Explorer showing your repertoire as White and Black (at least 3 main lines each, to move 15); (2) tactics session logs from 4+ consecutive weeks showing problems attempted and accuracy.

What gets checked

• Opening tree shows at least 3 main lines per colour to move 15 — not just a list of opening names
• Tactics logs cover 4+ weeks with consistent practice (minimum 3 sessions/week)
• Accuracy rate in tactics is trending upward across the 4 weeks — flat or declining signals a session structure problem

Common mistakes

• Opening memorisation without understanding: learning lines to move 20 without grasping the strategic ideas, leading to collapse when opponents deviate at move 12
• Tactics grinding without endgame study: reaching technically won endgames at 2000 and failing to convert them, which is where many rating points leak

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Is the opening tree exported from Lichess or ChessBase — not just a list of opening names?
• Do tactics logs show consistent 4+ weeks of practice with session dates and accuracy rates?
• Does the study plan address the specific weaknesses from M1 — not generic improvement areas?

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Submit: (1) screenshot of your FIDE or USCF profile showing ≥2000 established Elo; (2) profile URL for public verification.

What gets checked

• Rating is from FIDE (ratings.fide.com) or USCF (uschess.org) — not Lichess or chess.com alone
• Rating is established (≥5 rated games) — a provisional peak after one strong tournament does not count
• Profile URL is publicly accessible and shows the submitter's name

Common mistakes

• Online-only evidence: a 2200 Lichess blitz rating is not a 2000 FIDE Elo — these are different measurement systems
• Provisional peak: reaching 2000 in one tournament then dropping to 1850 does not satisfy the milestone sustainably

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Is the screenshot from FIDE (ratings.fide.com) or USCF (uschess.org) with a public URL?
• Is the rating established rather than provisional — check game-count indicator on the profile?
• Does the profile name match the submitter?

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.