If you had to train a 2000-rated player to become a GM, what would you focus on first?

️ If you had to train a 2000-rated player to become a GM, what would you focus on first?

Imagine you have a 2000-rated player in front of you and your goal is to help them reach GM level.

What would you work on first?

• Calculation?
• Positional understanding?
• Endgames?
• Opening preparation?
• Chess psychology?
• Tournament experience?
• Something completely different?

I'm especially interested in hearing from GMs, IMs, FMs and experienced coaches.

If you are a titled player or coach, what would your training plan look like?

Here is an answer by a player who became grandmaster:
https://rafaelleitao.com/chess-books-grandmaster/

@tpr said ^

Here is an answer by a player who became grandmaster:
https://rafaelleitao.com/chess-books-grandmaster/

Ok it's good

Also:
'I claim that nothing else is so effective in encouraging the growth of chess strength as such independent analysis, both of the games of the great players and your own.' - Botvinnik

'In order to improve your game you must study the endgame before everything else; for, whereas the endings can be studied and mastered by themselves, the middle game and the opening must be studied in relation to the endgame.' - Capablanca

I would first focus on telling him that GM is still unrealistic and that he should become FM first

@Cedur216 said ^

I would first focus on telling him that GM is still unrealistic and that he should become FM first

That's a fair point. I agree that becoming a GM is a huge goal, and FM would be a much more realistic milestone to focus on first.

My question was more hypothetical: if the player already had the potential and was determined to pursue the GM title, what would you prioritize in their training first?

I'm curious what GMs and experienced coaches would actually focus on.

"... going from good at tactics to great at tactics ... doesn't translate into much greater strength. ... You need a relatively good memory to reach average strength. But a much better memory isn't going to make you a master. ... there's a powerful law of diminishing returns in chess calculation, ... Your rating may have been steadily rising when suddenly it stops. ... One explanation for the wall is that most players got to where they are by learning how to not lose. ... Mastering chess ... requires a new set of skills and traits. ... Many of these attributes are kinds of know-how, such as understanding when to change the pawn structure or what a positionally won game looks like and how to deal with it. Some are habits, like always looking for targets. Others are refined senses, like recognizing a critical middlegame moment or feeling when time is on your side and when it isn't. ..." - GM Andrew Soltis (2012)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708093409/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review857.pdf
"Every now and then someone advances the idea that one may gain success in chess by using shortcuts. 'Chess is 99% tactics' - proclaims one expert, suggesting that strategic understanding is overrated; 'Improvement in chess is all about opening knowledge' - declares another. A third self-appointed authority asserts that a thorough knowledge of endings is the key to becoming a master; while his expert-friend is puzzled by the mere thought that a player can achieve anything at all without championing pawn structures.
To me, such statements seem futile. You can't hope to gain mastery of any subject by specializing in only parts of it. ..." - FM Amatzia Avni (2008)
"... The game might be divided into three parts, i.e.:- 1. The opening. 2. The middle-game. 3. The end-game. There is one thing you must strive for, to be equally efficient in the three parts. Whether you are a strong or a weak player, you should try to be of equal strength in the three parts. ..." - from Capablanca's book, My Chess Career
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/for-beginners/tips-for-beginners-3
"... To become a grandmaster is very difficult and can take quite a long time! Referring to my nine books: they are simply the beginning of the journey. To go beyond this, you need to look at Jacob Aagaard’s books, Mark Dvoretsky’s books and solve many exercises, analyse your games, study classic games, modern games, have an opening repertoire and so on. Basically, it is hard work, but at least a lot of good material exists. My books are intending to build a foundation for a grandmaster, but much more work is needed. It takes a lot more than just reading books to become a grandmaster I am afraid." - GM Artur Yusupov (2013)

It is an impossible question to answer because no two students are alike. The trainer's goal is to identify the student's strengths and weaknesses, and systematically improve their strengths while reducing the weaknesses.
To achieve any title, you need to play a lot of classical OTB games. So that should be a priority, playing frequently and analysing the games afterwards.

What if the biggest obstacle at 2000 isn't a lack of knowledge, but the inability to consistently apply what you already know?

This is exactly the kind of discussion I was hoping to get from this thread.

I agree that there is no single shortcut to becoming a GM. Tactics, calculation, positional understanding, endgames, openings, memory and practical skills all interact with each other.

But this raises an interesting question for me:

If you had to choose only ONE area to prioritize for a 2000-rated player during the first 6–12 months of serious training, what would it be — and why?

Not necessarily because it is the most important skill overall, but because improving it would have the greatest impact on breaking through the 2000 2200 barrier.

I'd especially like to hear from titled players and coaches who have actually worked with players around this level.