is getting to 1200 even considered an accomplishment?

Me with 700 ELO

Considering 1200 rapid rated is almost top 10% on this site, I would say that’s an accomplishment.

i went from 892 to 1200 in 20 min

From my experience on this site, I "blow chumks" at fast games and have a rating of maybe 600 or so for them, but my preferred style of playing is the 3 day max per move games, where I can spend a little time to think about things, and in that realm I've been hovering near a 1200 rating for quite a while now (~1170 was the peak).

Consider this perspective - "What percent of people even play rated games?" My guess is it's probably less than 1 out of 10, and then consider that a 1200 rating is probably similar to what the last poster quoted is close to being in the top 1/3rd of rated touranment players.

So, just as a rough estimate, having a rating of ~1200 Elo is probably close to being in the top 5% of everyone, with regard to being a challenging Chess player.

Sure, that's not near what a World Class Champion can do, but hey, is it something that one can pride oneself on? Personally, I believe so In fact, I even remember winning a game 'in real life' playing against a friend of mine who really WAS an awesome player ... so hey, take it as you will.

... and consider this - "Is a 1200 Elo rating considered an accomplishment?", if the answer is simply a yes, or no, then what would you prefer the answer to be?

Best wishes and have fun ... hasta

My answer is no.

What special significance does 1200 have? Why 1200 and not 1300? or 1258 ? or 1635 ? Reaching 1200 certifies nothing. Besides, the playing level of a 1200 chessplayer is very low, regardless of the fact that the vast majority of players are below it.

A real accomplishment may be to become a Master, which is something important, a real "certification", therefore an accomplishment. Or at least a Candidate Master, which indicates the achievement of a fairly high level. Or win some pretty significant OTB tournament.

1200 can be a goal that one sets as a stimulus to do better ( that's what I do, I set myself this goal ) but I don't consider it an accomplishment. Not even 1400, or 1500, or 1600. Just numbers referring to a pool.

I still think an Elo rating of 1200 is 'an accomplishment', in fact even being able to maintain a rating ~900 is also. It kind of depends upon ones perspective. If someone really loves playing Chess but is simply unable to become very proficient, but still enjoys playing, even if they are only able to maintain a rating of ~900 ... well, they are still providing quite a benefit to the game and other players and honestly, without 900 players, there either figuratively or literally wouldn't be 1000+ players.

My general impression though is that unless some reaches an Elo rating of 2500+ or so, you're probably not going to be of much notice on a worldwide 'Chess radar', but it depends upon your desires. My guess is that entering and playing in a Chess tournament and getting a ~1200 rating could get some kudos and maybe a couple plastic ribbons for awards, but probably not an explicit invite with free transportation and hotel accomodations to the next event.

An idea that might be worth considering is to simply be your own judge ... best wishses. Mostly I think Chess is about entertainment and maybe for only a few is it a true job / work / lifestyle etc. ... and that is ok.

Peace out

It's all relative. If you start at 500 and get to 1200 then you'll feel quite proud of yourself. On the other hand if you are normally at 1500 and fall to 1200 then you will think you suck. There's nothing wrong with setting short term goals for yourself as you improve.

Interestingly the better you get, the more aware you are of how bad you are or how much more there is to learn

What you say is right, and of course I agree that everything depends on our personal expectations, possibilities, abilities.

However, the title of the topic seems to invite discussion on whether 1200 can be considered as an objective accomplishment ( otherwise the OP would have titled it for example like this: "Which score do you consider an accomplishment ?"). In this sense, my answer to the question is definitely not, especially considering the modest playing level expressed by a 1200 player.

anything can be an achievement as long as you feel like you earned it!

Tough crowd on this website.

If you can witness how hard people will work to achieve there goals, you would have an appreciation for it.

well bill gates has a chess rating around the 1200, when he faced magnus on a friendly match. And bill gates was also playing for years chess.
Its considered amateur levels, but chess is a very complex game. So even a skill level of amateur is meaning full. A lot of people would need some years to achieve that rating. While others achieve 2000 rating within a year or two years, but those are the people that go in monk modus. And they might be ending up playing like 1000 matches a month. So their skill increase in such a short window is also relative

Ok, let us all be truthful for a minute. Yes, to the original poster. getting a 1200 (Elo) rating in chess is an accomplishment.

Congratulations, Sir(ess)!

I offer both a Brownt Point as as well as virtual on-line 'plastic ribbonish thing'. My general impression of a 1200 Elo rated player is that if you were to grab a random person on the street and play a game of Chess (though many may not be very familiar with the game), maybe 95% (or more) of the time you would win.

At least from the general idea of Elo ratings, a rating of 1200 would be something considered 'above average', and not a 'slightly above rating', but actually something statistically significant (though not highly ... just a figurative 'ping' detected on a possible "worldwide Chess radar").

... and consider that, that is a rating between people who enjoy Chess competition enough to do the work to join rated games, so it would appear to me that a ~1200 rating is definitely a rating that has some significance, though relative to 2000+ players, it's not of much significance and it's not likely a 1200 player is going to be written up in a local newspaper article etc.

... but 'flip side' perspective, my guess is, once again, that if a 1200 player were to play against a random person on the street ... 95% of the time that 1200 player would win.

... and another perspective is that even people at 1500 or more could not simply close an eye and ignore a 1200 player.

So, once again, YES a 1200 rating IS an acommplishment in Chess, though in that case I wouldn't consider taking Chess up as a figuratively 'viable day job' ... it's still cool though and mostly I just hope you enjoy your games

Best wishes, Sir or Ma'am.

It is a pleasant discussion, despite the slight diversity of views.

Perhaps we do not attribute the same meaning to the word "accomplishment" ( probably also due to my non-optimal command of English ). But I think it is above all a question of perspective from which we look, objective or subjective.

It can also be a personal satisfaction to have 1200 in the profile, if one worked hard to get it as someone said, but the ability of those at that level is what it is : modest, compared with that of a master ( the first really serious goal, just the first if you consider how long the path of Chess is ).

In other words : if I were a Master, I would let friends, relatives and colleagues know ; if I reach 1200 one day ( I may not succeed ) I will be very satisfied with me but I certainly won't go around saying "Hello, I am John Smith and I'm a 1200 chess,com rated player " . What achievement is it ?? That's a very small part of the path.

But that doesn't matter, because whatever my level, I will always enjoy playing chess. Not being a professional, that is all that matters.

i still tryna get to 800 and yall taking about 1200

I guessed my rating was around 1100 Elo, and it appears that guess was pretty accurate.

A friend of mine made the news in a round-robin game against 14 other Chess players from different schools - he went around the tables, playing a turn against each one of them, one at a time and he won 12 out of 14 games and tied on two of them, and that event was written up in the local news.

I played maybe 7 games total with him and one time I won - he went a bit 'hardcore' after that and said something like he thought we were just playing friendly games and I noticed he was playing harder and more serious afterwards ...

... but still those were just 1 on 1 games and he didn't have 13 other people to multiplex his plays with and I WON a game against him (none of the other 14 people in that news article won - just 2 of them were draws).

So, is that an "accomplishment"? Well, I guess it all depends. Personally, YES, it was an accomplishment and maybe 30 years later I still remember it, and yeppers, I was correct that my Elo rating is around 1100, as I'd guessed.

So, what does that generally mean? Well, I'd assume that if you were to pick a random person off the street, probably 90-95%+ of the time I would win a game of Chess (but partly that would be because 2 out of 3 of the people had almost no familiarity with the game and I would just be a bit above average against those that did) ... and that is honestly fine Yes, truth!

There are many areas in life that I can simply enjoy being a participant and not need to really compete - I don't expect to set any records at slam dunking basketballs, nor being one of the best poker players in the State, no, I already have many great talents and do not need to add much more ... again, in terms of Chess, yes, if you were to pick a random person off the street, likely 90% of the time, I'd be quite a challenge to play again, and that is fine.

I will go ahead and do the honors - "Congratulations, Mr. Steve, allow me to honor you with your plastic ribbon, as an award." See, it's simple.

Have fun folks and thanks for the fun. Hasta la pasta and peace out

A few months ago I reached the point where I would rarely leave a piece hanging in daily and rapid games. Around that time I crossed over the 1200 rating on chess.com. The rating is just a number, but the improvements are real.

Hm. I'm going down slowly towards the 1200 rating . . .

I been as hjgh as 1640 but my 85 years old is taking me there toward 1200 . . .

I used to play blindfold chess when I was 21 unrated at the time . . .

But when you don't use it you lose it . . .

I've taught chess to hundreds of people. Ran city parks tournaments.

Ive 24 boards, a demo board. 15 clocks. I'm slowly giving them away.

My prize is this butterfly wing chess board . .

Made in Brazil around 1930 . Given to me as a present . . .

1200 here I come.. . See you soon . . .

RichColorado, honestly congratulations on making it near 1600 at any age, that is a milestone that most people will never get. Even as you gain years on your life & go down to 1200, you can't expect to be the best for your entire life. Sorry to say it, that is my personal thinking. 1200 is already a huge achievement for a huge chunk of chess players. Everyone will slowly go down and eventually stop playing chess entirely. Although it sounds like playing chess has given you plenty of memories, & that is already precious enough.