Whats a good rating for an 11 year old that just started learning chess - Chess Forums - Page 2

Platypus

Oct 30, 2021

0

#21

idk cuz i do competitive, i turned 12 recently and have a 1270 rapid

DasBurner

Oct 30, 2021

0

#22

CooloutAC wrote:

DasBurner wrote:

Ok, final post from me

1. Good, because I don't agree and am tired of arguing for it lol

2. Let's just take a random person rated 618. Perhaps @PenroseOrb04, who is rated 618 rapid on chess.com. Here are their stats

Now naturally, if 90% of people were rated less than 600, than this person rated over 600 would be in a percentile higher than 90th , right? Well, evidently that's not actually true. A player around 600 is around the 33rd percentile, which means that 33% of players on chess.com are rated under 600.

3. I don't agree

(Quick reasoning: He's 11. He has oodles of potential, and in the coming months if his rating skyrockets like I predict it will, he's going to look back at his games and say "Jesus I was trash". And if he gets to 1500, he'll look back at his games from when he was 1100 and say "Jesus I was trash". Rinse and repeat with higher numbers)

but we can agree to disagree

Have a good night

Like I said I was just giving a ballpark figure. And i'm pretty sure you got it all backwards. according to your 1800 rating you are 95th percentile. Thats way different then saying 95% of the player base is at your rating level. lol Why don't you clip an image of the global blitz graph for all players and lets discuss that. How many active players are there in the playerbase? Because literally 636,000 of them are around 600 rating. lol

well I'm not saying that either

I'm just laying out a simple statistics concept

I am in the 95th percentile for blitz. That doesn't mean that 95% of players are at my rating level, it just means I'm higher rated than 95% of blitz players

In the rapid time control, there are 29,086,614 total players in the dataset. Out of that number, 5,081,211 players are rated under 600 (I did all the addition).

I'm assuming that 5 million out of 30 million does not equal 90%

Here's your blitz graph

There are around 11 million total blitz players in this dataset.

Adding all of the players rated under 600, there is approximately 2 million

Again, I don't think 2 million out of 11 million is 90%

DasBurner

Oct 30, 2021

0

#23

CooloutAC wrote:

DasBurner wrote:

CooloutAC wrote:

DasBurner wrote:

Ok, final post from me

1. Good, because I don't agree and am tired of arguing for it lol

2. Let's just take a random person rated 618. Perhaps @PenroseOrb04, who is rated 618 rapid on chess.com. Here are their stats

Now naturally, if 90% of people were rated less than 600, than this person rated over 600 would be in a percentile higher than 90th , right? Well, evidently that's not actually true. A player around 600 is around the 33rd percentile, which means that 33% of players on chess.com are rated under 600.

3. I don't agree

(Quick reasoning: He's 11. He has oodles of potential, and in the coming months if his rating skyrockets like I predict it will, he's going to look back at his games and say "Jesus I was trash". And if he gets to 1500, he'll look back at his games from when he was 1100 and say "Jesus I was trash". Rinse and repeat with higher numbers)

but we can agree to disagree

Have a good night

Like I said I was just giving a ballpark figure. And i'm pretty sure you got it all backwards. according to your 1800 rating you are 95th percentile. Thats way different then saying 95% of the player base is at your rating level. lol Why don't you clip an image of the global blitz graph for all players and lets discuss that. How many active players are there in the playerbase? Because literally 636,000 of them are around 600 rating. lol

well I'm not saying that either

I'm just laying out a simple statistics concept

I am in the 95th percentile for blitz. That doesn't mean that 95% of players are at my rating level, it just means I'm higher rated than 95% of blitz players

In the rapid time control, there are 29,086,614 total players in the dataset. Out of that number, 5,081,211 players are rated under 600 (I did all the addition).

I'm assuming that 5 million out of 30 million does not equal 90%

Here's your blitz graph

There are around 11 million total blitz players in this dataset.

Adding all of the players rated under 600, there is approximately 2 million

Again, I don't think 2 million out of 11 million is 90%

Thankyou for that explanation. well done. I still think if this kid saw that graph and got this explanation, realizing most of those people have been playing for years. A good chance he'd still be here playing.

Idk, statistically he was below average so I doubt this would have encouraged him any unless he was the type of person to muster determination from that.

Personally, my mentality has always been to strive to not be in the peak of the graph, rather the tail end to the right. I guess that's where we differ?

Duck

Oct 30, 2021

0

#24

When I first started chess at the age of 9 I was at about the 600-800ish level. I stuck with basic chess principles and openings until I started playing chesskid, where I began to utilize more advanced openings like 1.d4 as white or 1.c4 as black. Before that I stuck with 1.e4 as white. Since I have retired from chesskid and started chess.com when I was 12, I have significantly improved from 1300-2000+.

DasBurner

Oct 30, 2021

0

#25

If I felt the need to feel superior mentally I would have a superiority complex

Whatever though

I could say many things about you, but what's the point? You're calling me a typical chess player on a chess website. That about summarizes the meaningfulness of our argument

Duck

Oct 30, 2021

0

#26

CooloutAC wrote:

ScatteredWealth wrote:

When I first started chess at the age of 9 I was at about the 600-800ish level. I stuck with basic chess principles and openings until I started playing chesskid, where I began to utilize more advanced openings like 1.d4 as white or 1.c4 as black. Before that I stuck with 1.e4 as white. Since I have retired from chesskid and started chess.com when I was 12, I have significantly improved from 1300-2000+.

congratulations you are like .001% of society. Anyone can do it right? Hey, we all can be at the pro basketball level too with a little practice. lol. FKn makes me sick to my stomach these posts.. All your posts makes me want to do is quit too.

This has to be the only sport community thats like this. I mean can you imagine playing some other sport and constantly hearing that they are not at the NFL level after 4 years why are they still even playing? lol... Its why in alot of online communities they hide ratings from people. Pretty sure even on this community they hide the deviation. Jesus....

Normally people just play this game to improve, or to have fun. Just because you aren't past the 1000 level doesn't mean you can't improve at the game or have fun!

Platypus

Oct 30, 2021

0

#27

sure lets just totally forget the millions of casuals who dont know biggie cheese about chess and the inactive accounts that were made for one time use

Platypus

Oct 30, 2021

0

#28

CooloutAC wrote:

ScatteredWealth wrote:

When I first started chess at the age of 9 I was at about the 600-800ish level. I stuck with basic chess principles and openings until I started playing chesskid, where I began to utilize more advanced openings like 1.d4 as white or 1.c4 as black. Before that I stuck with 1.e4 as white. Since I have retired from chesskid and started chess.com when I was 12, I have significantly improved from 1300-2000+.

congratulations you are like .001% of society. Anyone can do it right? Hey, we all can be at the pro basketball level too with a little practice. lol. FKn makes me sick to my stomach these posts.. All your posts makes me want to do is quit too.

This has to be the only sport community thats like this. I mean can you imagine playing some other sport and constantly hearing that they are not at the NFL level after 4 years why are they still even playing? lol... Its why in alot of online communities they hide ratings from people. Pretty sure even on this community they hide the deviation. Jesus....

also dont use his name in vain not cool bro

EamonB1

Oct 31, 2021

0

#29

Guys OP hasn't been heard from since May I think it's time to give this a rest.

ninjaswat

Oct 31, 2021

0

#30

ExploringWA wrote:

ninjaswat wrote:

don't think this argument however much type it was one has any purpose whatsoever.

Will someone please decipher this for me. It’s like a Chess puzzle that I know has an answer, probably an easy answer, but no matter how long I stare at it, it still makes no freakin sense to me.

Well that had an enormous amount of typos

ninjaswat

Oct 31, 2021

0

#31

EamonB1 wrote:

Guys OP hasn't been heard from since May I think it's time to give this a rest.

Cough cough my actual point

Leon-girl

Oct 31, 2021

0

#32

maybe 1000

king_of_faluoopys

Oct 31, 2021

0

#33

how do you do the DefenderPug2 wrote: thingie?

Platypus

Oct 31, 2021

0

#34

click them quotation marks, bro this guy just salty cuz we are a couple of kids and we got higher ratings

FoolMate2222

Nov 16, 2021

0

#35

Ages doesn't matter. It's depend on your skill and how long u play chess. https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/how-good-are-you-based-on-your-skill-and-rating

Terminator-T800

Nov 16, 2021

0

#36

I would say 1200 rating is very good for that age & being a beginner.

FoolMate2222

Nov 17, 2021

0

#37

Terminator-T800 wrote:

I would say 1200 rating is very good for that age & being a beginner.

Thats intermeidtate.

AunTheKnight

Nov 17, 2021

0

#38

FoolMate2222 wrote:

Terminator-T800 wrote:

I would say 1200 rating is very good for that age & being a beginner.

Thats intermeidtate.

1200 is definitely beginner level. Heck, 1700 is beginner level.

plentyodrip

Nov 17, 2021

0

#39

2800 super GM. actually forget that, if people aren't calling you mini Magnus by 8 you're already to late

FoolMate2222

Nov 17, 2021

0

#40

AunTheKnight wrote:

FoolMate2222 wrote:

Terminator-T800 wrote:

I would say 1200 rating is very good for that age & being a beginner.

Thats intermeidtate.

1200 is definitely beginner level. Heck, 1700 is beginner level.

How? My rating is 300 and im a beginner