Bassically really high level players like to make low level players feel bad.
1400 is average for a tournament chess player. For someone who plays chess online, it's quite good.
Why do people say that 1400 is low-rated
Sort:
It should be recognized that titled players (especially FM to GM ) are basically the NFL of chess. Of course if you compare yourself to them you'll look terrible. Just like a high school kid may be a very good football player but if you put him in a NFL game he will look like a hopeless fatty. You must compare yourself to people in your class. Casual players if that's what you are or competitive players or people who don't practice or train at all and just play.
fgsjd wrote:
It should be recognized that titled players (especially FM to GM ) are basically the NFL of chess. Of course if you compare yourself to them you'll look terrible. Just like a high school kid may be a very good football player but if you put him in a NFL game he will look like a hopeless fatty. You must compare yourself to people in your class. Casual players if that's what you are or competitive players or people who don't practice or train at all and just play.
I agree it makes sense to compare yourself to others in your class. But FMs and GMs are not the NFL of chess. NFL players get paid, I dont think there are any volunteer NFL players. The minimum an NFL player makes is about 400k per year. Minimum. I dont think the minimum amount a FM makes is 400k a year playing chess. I'll bet some FMs and even some GMs make close to zero playing chess.
iluvzmetuna wrote:
why don’t you do some checking out of the facts instead of making pointless guesses and trying to make fgsjd’s post look inaccurate while making it look far more relevant than your own.
Because I use common sense. So when I make a guess, it's usually pretty accurate. So what ARE the facts? Are you implying the minimum salary in the NFL is NOT about 400k? Are you implying some FMs do NOT make about zero playing chess? Are you implying 400k IS the minimum a FM, or even a GM, makes in a year? Which of my guesses do you disagree with?
As far as expertise and ability, I agree, GMs would compare to the NFL. They are the best of the best. To compare ability it makes sense to compare within your own class or ability. But to say FMs compare to the NFL I think it totally inaccurate.
Jun 28, 2019
0
#67
lfPatriotGames wrote:
fgsjd wrote:
It should be recognized that titled players (especially FM to GM ) are basically the NFL of chess. Of course if you compare yourself to them you'll look terrible. Just like a high school kid may be a very good football player but if you put him in a NFL game he will look like a hopeless fatty. You must compare yourself to people in your class. Casual players if that's what you are or competitive players or people who don't practice or train at all and just play.
I agree it makes sense to compare yourself to others in your class. But FMs and GMs are not the NFL of chess. NFL players get paid, I dont think there are any volunteer NFL players. The minimum an NFL player makes is about 400k per year. Minimum. I dont think the minimum amount a FM makes is 400k a year playing chess. I'll bet some FMs and even some GMs make close to zero playing chess.
Yep.
No, they are those people that clean the hallways
The JANITORs
Jun 28, 2019
0
#70
lfPatriotGames wrote:
iluvzmetuna wrote:
why don’t you do some checking out of the facts instead of making pointless guesses and trying to make fgsjd’s post look inaccurate while making it look far more relevant than your own.
Because I use common sense. So when I make a guess, it's usually pretty accurate. So what ARE the facts? Are you implying the minimum salary in the NFL is NOT about 400k? Are you implying some FMs do NOT make about zero playing chess? Are you implying 400k IS the minimum a FM, or even a GM, makes in a year? Which of my guesses do you disagree with?
As far as expertise and ability, I agree, GMs would compare to the NFL. They are the best of the best. To compare ability it makes sense to compare within your own class or ability. But to say FMs compare to the NFL I think it totally inaccurate.
The comparison was not NFL salaries to chess salaries. Suprise! Football pays more as the viewers who watch football are richer than the viewers who watch chess, as well as the fact that most people don't understand chess, so watching it is not very appealing.
The comparison was the class of player. However, I believe GM is a better comparison, as there is a big leap from CM or FM to GM.
I`m currently trying to make my way from the 1400s to the 1600s so I have quite a lot of experience playing players rated around 1400. Back when I was 800-1200 I considered 1400-players to be good players with advanced chess understanding, but the truth is they just played logical moves while I was making weak threats and blundering pieces and/or pawns. 1400s, as opposed to players lower rated are more capable of playing "complete games" with more solid development and better piece coordination. But the truth is, if you have a rudimentary grasp of chess fundamentals, know basic tactics, and can avoid blunders you can make it to 1400 or even 1500 easily. The vast majority of players are however not motivated or disciplined enough or simply don`t have the time to learn chess 101, so they never learn good chess habits. 1400 is however a low rating, it`s a good step towards better chess understanding, but a 1400 will be absolutely squashed by good chess players.
palmRace wrote:
solflores wrote:
I suck
???????????
palmRace wrote:
solflores wrote:
I'm 1400 and I'm 83rd percentile. How is that low-rated?
well in America I'm 11 and 1600 I'm 200 points away from top 50
thats not that good, considering your FIDE is only 4 points above mine, and I'm 12
Well, I'm 1500, and I can answer that question for you. 1400 is a low rating, it puts you in the advanced beginner range. In fact, some systems start you off with a 1500 rating, which shows that anything below 1500 is still a bit low. My rating would put me in the beginner intermediate range. It's not an exceptional rating, and it's not a bad one either. It's like "mmh, you're 1500 - cool".
Jun 29, 2019
0
#75
WSama wrote:
Well, I'm 1500, and I can answer that question for you. 1400 is a low rating, it puts you in the advanced beginner range. In fact, some systems start you off with a 1500 rating, which shows that anything below 1500 is still a bit low. My rating would put me in the beginner intermediate range. It's not an exceptional rating, and it's not a bad one either. It's like "mmh, you're 1500 - cool".
Under 2000 is a beginner. I don't care how long you've been playing.
Jun 29, 2019
0
#76
You have an odd definition of beginner if it counts 99% of people who do an activity!
yeah. how does that make sense?
solflores wrote:
palmRace wrote:
solflores wrote:
I suck
??????????? 
Ziryab wrote:
WSama wrote:
Well, I'm 1500, and I can answer that question for you. 1400 is a low rating, it puts you in the advanced beginner range. In fact, some systems start you off with a 1500 rating, which shows that anything below 1500 is still a bit low. My rating would put me in the beginner intermediate range. It's not an exceptional rating, and it's not a bad one either. It's like "mmh, you're 1500 - cool".
Under 2000 is a beginner. I don't care how long you've been playing.
Beginner-intermediate master (expert)
Allow me to break it down. The following is the ranking system for all of earth chess:
- <1200 = beginner/patzer
- <1400 = intermediate beginner
- ☆1500 = advanced beginner (beginner intermediate)
- <1700 = medium intermediate
- ☆1800 = strong (advanced intermediate)
- <2000 = beginner expert (candidate master)
- <2100 = intermediate expert (master)
- ☆2300 = advanced expert (expert master)
- >2400 = grandmaster
- >2700 = super grandmaster
- >3000 = legendary master (final master)
1400 is low rated depending on how long you have been playing and who's perspective it is in. For example, if you became 1400 in 6 months vs. becoming 1400 in 2 years, you can tell which player is better.