im 12. whats a good uscf rating for me?

1600

idk

a good chess rating is 2700 but it's ok most people don't get that far

----->the joke

(._. ) <-your head

2400

im 712, use to be 777, before I used to be 891

@EthrealMoon is right.

https://www.uschess.org/component/option,com_top_players/Itemid,371?op=list&m2401&f=foreign&l=R:Regular%20Top%20Age%2010.&h=Top%20Age%2010%20regardless%20of%20Country,%20Residence,%20or%20Federation

That is the link for top 10 year olds

sorry, you did say 12

https://www.uschess.org/component/option,com_top_players/Itemid,371?op=list&m2401&f=foreign&l=R:Regular%20Top%20Age%2010.&h=Top%20Age%2010%20regardless%20of%20Country,%20Residence,%20or%20Federation

they both are 10 years old but for 1-yrs its 1500-2200

500-1100 makes sense actually. 2100 is way too high.

https://www.uschess.org/component/option,com_top_players/Itemid,371?op=list&m2401&f=foreign&l=R:Regular%20Top%20Age%2012.&h=Top%20Age%2012%20regardless%20of%20Country,%20Residence,%20or%20Federation

here's the 12yo list - need almost 1800 to be on this list. if you figure 1800 is the 2 std dev value, then (simplifying) 100 is the lowest value, would mean about 5 SD between 100-1800, a sd of 1700/5 = 340 would give a mean of 1120, and a (low) 5% value of 440. This seems reasomable.

So 1120 would likely make you an "average" 12yo player, a meaningfully "good" rating would be 1/2 SD or so better, or about 1300 based on this data...

Good luck - it's about fun and learning at 12, don't worry about rating. If you enjoy it and work a little, your rating will be fine.

- John

I dont get it. can u please explain more

btw my rating rn is 712

I'm 16 and rated 5682.

In all seriousness though there's no set rating for what you should be, it just depends on the player. If you want to set a realistic goal, I say go for 1200 or 1300. It's a realistic goal

1500

sure - there's a way to talk about a group of related values, like the rolls of 5 dice or the ratings of a set of players, in a manner that lets you make sense of the set, not just one or two values.

This is a picture of a "normal distribution" which I used in the other note. If you take a rating at the bottom, then show how many people have that rating, it looks something like this - a few have really low ratings, another few have really high ratings, but most fall somewhere in the middle, with the peak of the curve being the "average" rating. There's lots of ways to skew these distributions, and they might be more accurate, but that's outside this discussion.

There's something about a normal distribution that makes it useful - it has a measure called a "standard deviation" (or SD), where about 2/3 of the values fit in the range of the average value plus-or-minus 1 * SD, and about 95% of the values fall in the range of +/- 2*SD, like in this picture.

What I did was assume (I know, but it's likely close), that to get on the top 100 list for your age is likely around that +2 SD range on the right - that would mean that there were about 2000 active players at your age group, (know there are many more players <= 12, but the last stat I saw was about 40k junior USCF members, if the range is 5-21, that's about 2300 per age cohort - again close enough).

So, if it takes about 1800 to get on that list, and it's about at that +2SD range, then we know that there's approximately 5 SD from the 0.1% line on the far left (basically the lowest rated 12 year old) with a rating of 100, to the 95% line, with a rating of 1800. So, to get the actual SD, I did (right rating - left rating) / nbr of SD between them = (1800 - 100) / 5 = 1700/5 = 340.

now we know that 1800 is about 2SD higher than the average, so the average is probably close to 1800 - 2SD = 1800 - 2*340 = 1120, which is what I said in the post. About 70% of the values are < 1/2 SD higher than the mean, so for a "good" rating, I said that would be a reasonable point, and that's how I got 1120 + 1/2 * 340, or 1290 (I think I said 1300..close enough)

In reality, a "good" rating for someone in this range is probably at the -1 SD point, where it's better than about 17% of your peers, which is certainly better than a beginner, and gives you room to grow, especially if you're just starting out - that value would be 780 - which is right about where you are.

There are lots of assumptions here so don't worry about the specifics - 100 points either way on any of the numbers is more than likely - but overall, I think you're on the right track.

lmk if any of this helps - again play for fun. rating changes constantly. Don't worry about the number - as long as it's a "random walk with an upward trend" you're doing fine.

1300-1400

hmmmmm

I am 10 and 2885

Prolly 1700 ish cause i just turned 13 and am 1850