Plateaus

Why do they happen, and how can you get past one?

The Queen’s Gambit got a lot right about how it portrayed chess: the obsession, the subculture, the language. But when it comes to the setbacks on the road to getting really good at chess, it took some creative license: Beth Harmon seemingly goes from not knowing the rules to a world-class competitor while losing only a handful of games, to say nothing of months or years of apparent futility.

Anyone who’s actually played serious chess knows this isn’t how it goes. Even for the most talented players, the road to the top is paved with long stretches of losses, often with no apparent progress.

Today we’re talking about plateaus: what they are, what causes them, and the million-dollar question: how to get out of one.

The GOAT adult improver

In our livestream from last week,

Dan Bock

made a great point: Michael Johnson, arguably the greatest adult improver of all time, experienced numerous plateaus punctuated by short bursts of improvement. Unlike many players who make impressive gains later in life, Johnson didn’t start with a strong base of chess understanding developed at a much younger age. He played his first tournament at age 36 and his first rating was 981. Over the course of many years, he increased his rating to a high of 2134, an amazing achievement by any standard. Yet, if you were to zoom in on any moment in that stretch, chances are you’d find him on a plateau.

If the greatest adult improver of all time spent most of his time on the plateau, what can the rest of us reasonably expect?

SMART goals

One of the most popular frameworks for goal setting is SMART goals. This stands for:

1. Specific

2. Measurable

3. Attainable

4. Realistic

5. Time-bound

But as Dan pointed out, specific rating targets are unrealistic to expect on a specified timetable.

I’m currently reading a draft copy of

Brad Stulberg

new book. Stulberg suggests that SMART goals are most effective when you’re new to a subject, and improvement is relatively quick and easy. As you become more advanced and progress becomes more difficult, they lose their effectiveness and can even become counterproductive.

At this point, it might come better to ditch SMART goals for bigger picture goals that help you stay aligned with your values. For example, when you’re just starting out at chess, you might have success with a goal like, “Gain 100 points in six months.” But later on, you might be better served by a goal like, “Explore chess with curiosity and focus.”

If you’re on a plateau, you’ve reached a point where, by definition, progress is not easy. Therefore, a SMART goal may not the right tool for the job.

North star goals

Inspired by Ono, another livestream guest, Dan now believes in north star goals. In contrast to smart goals, a north star goal is not time-bound. It’s a big picture vision of where you want to end up. As Ono says,

“Instead, having a non-time specific ‘one day’ ambition can help you to remember why you’re studying this board game so intensely, particularly if you’re in your office hearing the white noise of a Netflix standup comedy special coming from the next room.”

Whether you subscribe to SMART goals, north star goals, or some other template, the most important thing is to work backward from your goal and break it down to daily actions that are under your control.

What’s going on during a plateau?

So far, this has all been rather tactical, but there’s also a mystery to plateaus. Why do we see this pattern of a long period of stagnation followed by sudden, apparently unexplained growth so often? What’s happening during the plateau, and what, if anything, causes someone to break out of it?

I don’t know, but I have a few ideas:

• The knowledge-skill gap: Many adult players focus on acquiring knowledge (e.g., by reading chess books) but don’t devote enough time to transforming their knowledge into actionable skill on the chessboard. On the other end of the spectrum, some players grind endless games without ever reviewing them, thinking about where they’re going wrong, or acquiring new knowledge. Getting better at chess requires both knowledge and skill, but in terms of practice time, the lion’s share has to go to building up skills. It takes much longer to learn how to use a concept effectively than to simply learn that it exists.

• Two steps forward, one step back: When learning a new concept, it’s not surprising that your game would stagnate or even take a step back. It’s like getting a new car. Your new car might be nicer than the old one, but there might be a period of time where you’re still getting accustomed to how to drive it, and you’re actually a worse driver.

• Consistency: What both of the above have in common is that you can expect a period of stagnation or even decline before seeing positive results. For many players, they might abandon the plan before ever getting to that point.

How to break through a plateau

This is the million-dollar question, but it’s made very difficult by the tension between two apparently sensible statements:

1. If what you’re doing isn’t working, you should try something else. What got you here won’t get you there.

2. Given that plateaus are the norm, it would be foolish to abandon a plan before it has a chance to work.

I believe the best way to resolve this tension is to commit to a sensible strategy, but vary your tactics. The core things you have to do to improve at chess aren’t really that complicated…

…but few people do these consistently over a period of months or years (maybe that’s another reasons for plateaus).

If you’re consistent with these basics, you can experiment around the margins. Try learning a new opening or doing guess-the move training with a player whose games you’ve never looked at before. You might stumble upon a technique that really works for you, or at worst, give yourself a breath of fresh air.

There is one specific adjustment that has come up so often that I feel it’s worth mentioning. In my discussion with GM Jacob Aagaard on doing tactics, we agreed that up to around 1600, doing a large volume of basic puzzles is key. After that, it makes sense to mix in some more difficult calculations. I’ve noticed that a lot of players are struggling with plateaus in precisely that 1600-1800 region, so if that’s you, mixing in some more difficult calculation training might be something to consider.

Wrapping up

I have a confession to make: I believe, if I really had to, I could achieve a big rating gain in a short amount of time. But, speaking rationally, this is probably just me falling victim to the same illusion as everyone else. Maybe we’ll find out in 2026!