I don't think the CCRL rating list has anything to do with the FIDE rating list, so Micro-Max most likely performs weaker than a FIDE 2000 human-chess player. I have an iOS chess app for MicroMax - Chess Mini, it uses the MicroMax chess engine. That's my description: "The engine has a rating of Elo 2000 on the Computer Chess Rating Lists." While this is certainly true, I've received complains that the app is too easy for a human FIDE 2000 player. In fact, I can consistently beat the app myself and I'm a 1900-2000 rated player. I don't recall that the app has ever positionally outplayed me.
Why is that important? It implies that the CCRL rating list most likely over-estimates the performance for MicroMax (for a human player). Therefore, I don't think a vanilla chess engine such as MicroMax should be your benchmark on what a 2000 chess engine should do. Evaluation in a plain engine (e.g.: MicroMax) is too simple and too much time spent on evaluating useless branches.
Let's take a look at BikJump, it's available on Android. Despite being rated 2100 on the CCRL list, I was still able to defeat it (more than once) after a complicated struggle. I think (but not 100% sure) the FIDE 2000 line should be drawn around CCRL 2100-2200. While I don't have the source code for BikJump, I'm pretty sure it's not a pure alpha-beta engine.
From memory, I could beat my engine quite convincinly when it was only counting materials and a plain alpha-beta. As soon as I added knowledge for pawn-structure, spacing and more aggressive cutoff strategy (e.g.: null-move pruning, hashing), it was equal to me. Next, I added king safety and things like SSE, the machine was starting to beat me.
PS: We don't call "closing book", we call "tablebase". They are not needed to reach 2000.