What does a 100 rated player play like?

lol

In the grand scheme of things, a 1200 player is probably pretty good indeed. A 1200 player could walk around a populated area (like a mall) all day long and perhaps not encounter anyone better at chess. Maybe a few on an unlucky day. My friends who are 1200 have no problem winning nearly 100% of the time when they're challenged to play by players outside of the serious chess scene.

It all depends on context. On a site like chess.com, where everyone is at least a chess player, a 1200 is better than average*, but not by a large margin, and such a player certainly wouldn't be seen as "accomplished" by most.

And at a typical open OTB tournament or chess club, a 1200 might be one of the weaker players, since the people who go to chess clubs and OTB tournaments are a self-selected group - usually it's the most serious players who would be willing to invest time and money to travel to a place just to play chess.

If I go to a local tournament I'll probably be the top player, but if I go to a major open tournament like a World Open or Millionaire Chess, nobody would notice me amongst the sea of GMs.

It's all relative :)

*I'm going by chess.com blitz ratings, since blitz is the most popular game on this site. The average rating is currently 1095. http://www.chess.com/livechess/players?type=Blitz

:)

<NM Happytoad> Thank you for this revelation. You bring back lost memories...

In Israel, 1989, the "floor" rating was 1450. As I got 1.5/8 in my first tournament, which had only 1450 players, my level was probably 1200 back then. 

Before joining the chess club I was always convinced that I was an excellent chess player - exactly based on the same kind of evidence you present: I was pretty much as good as any other good player around me, and much better than the rest. I had no idea that higher levels existed and what they were like. 

I heard, vaguely, about "chess masters" - and I thought that it's pretty much about walking into the chess club and playing with these guys a little, and I'd surely be recognized as one myself... :-) 

Now that I'm reading you, I realize that I actually wasn't such a bad player as I subsequently believed... I worked my way up slowly and gradually to the 1200 level through years of trial and error in childhood and teenage, without having anyone to teach me, or books to read... 

so I guess it's another one of these "kudos to myself" moments. Thanks :-)

BTW I believe that a year before joining that chess club I made a sudden leap from about 1000 to about 1200 - just because of a remark a stronger (1200ish) player, a friend, made after a game in which he beat me. 

Up to that remark, he would beat me most of the time, with some exceptions. After that, I became directly and immediately his equal, to his great astonishment!

I will tell that story later on the thread - it's interesting and instructive, and could prove helpful to other players in that rating range who are reading us here. 

This gives me hope.....

If you have a rating of 100, you're probably just making random moves every game of chess. You know how to play, but you have no idea what kind of tactics to use, or even any kind of tactic at all.

If you have a rating of 100, you are sandbagging your rating.

Solskytz, glad to brighten your day and make you think a little bit :)

Like this...

Same here, thanks Happytoad.

When I was 11 years old I was very proud of having learned schoolars mate. I was also able to win against grown-ups. I thought I was very good on chess and decided to join a chessclub. On my first day at the chessclub I learned together with someone else to mate with 2 rooks. Since I learned it a bit quicker than my partner, my ego that I was good at chess didn't go down.

Needless to say, I was a lot worse then a 1200-rated player.

That was a great "eureka" moment - when suddenly what my friend (see post #29) told me clicked and made sense. 

This was one of countless games between us, where I really put decent resistence - but he saw more, understood more and prevailed. 

But in this game (I was 16) I was playing white and he had an attack which was very dangerous. At some point, he moved a bishop to f3, attacking my defended rook on h1 and an undefended knight on e4. 

I thought and thought...

Then of course I moved the rook away - after all, it's the more important piece, right? :-) !!!

So he took on e4. 

I played a couple more defensive moves, and suddenly his pieces were pushed away. The queen didn't look so threatening anymore. I reached a good place in life. 

So I told him with satisfaction - you see? I pushed you away this time. Smug. 

He looks at me, and says - but I won a knight. 

I say - so what? Who cares? :-) I pushed you away

And here came THE REMARK - for the first time in eleven years of playing chess as a child, someone actually told me - you know Itzhak, when you lose a piece, actually the game is as good as over. 

Really? I asked, you're serious? But what can a knight do? 

I mean, it can only hop around and threaten some stuff, but if you see what it's attacking, you'll be just fine, not so?

I mean, it's not like it's a really powerful, crushing piece as a rook...

I believed up to that point that pawns had absolutely no importance, and that knights and bishops are sneaky pieces, intended to threaten and capture rooks and queens, if the opponent doesn't see the threat...

It's funny that I can still remember the way I used to think about chess back then - as someone who has been playing tournament-level (and in recent years, expert-level) chess for the past twenty five years, I still didn't lose connection with my "inner patzer!!!!"

But he told me - no no Itzhak - knights and bishops are really important. Pawns are important too and you really don't want to lose them. 

He told me the point value of the pieces... until then I really thought that only queens and rooks mattered, and everything else was "scenery", immaterial... just kind of "leftovers" on the board...

But I took his advice to heart - immediately. 

I always used to calculate moves, but before his remark, I didn't care too much how it panned out...

Whereas after his remark and on subsequent games, he started to complain: how come, everytime I enter exchange sequences with you, at the end I'm always missing a piece? :-) !!!!

He was a funny guy, great sense of humor. I've seen him last time (I think) in 2006...

So guys out there: if you're rated under 1200 and don't understand why - take good care of your pieces. They are important!

Don't let the enemy get anything for free, for whatever reason. Don't be generous even with your pawns - they matter too.

And whenever they give you stuff - if you don't see a clear reason not to - then just TAKE IT TAKE IT TAKE IT ALREADY!!

Once you know that and do it every time - then we can talk tactics and strategy - but this is really like basic level. You need to do that ALL THE TIME. 

Take care of your bits!

We all know what high rated players play like, but when it comes to a 100 rated play strength, only enginges can try to show what they think a 100 player would play like.

True.

knows only the rules

Interesting. I forgot all about this type of thinking!

It's funny to recall... :-) we used to be so young and naive once upon a time...

It's nice because I was thinking like some other posters... that they're just dumb or something. But that is unfair. I liked how you said it, that there are queens and rooks, and the rest is scenery 

Sometimes you're taught the wrong way, and can't find the right ideas on your own... no matter how many years you play...

So until someone comes along and tells you things as they are, you sort of wander in the dark...

One comment for me like that was in a friendly club game a 2000 player asked me why I put my rook behind a pawn in the middlegame. I said to protect the pawn (the pawn wasn't under attack). He said rooks like to attack enemy pawns (or be on open files). If it stares at the back of a friendly pawn it's not doing much.

It was a very innocent comment, but I suddenly realized I can start thinking this way about all my pieces. Over the next few months I think I became much better player.