is getting to 1200 even considered an accomplishment?

I for sure can't beat your 14 year streak of being stuck in the gutter elo. Don't flush your rating by accident next time you take a dump.

Ew, imagine that! Your rating on my face. No thanks!

"no where" is one word my friend! I prefer Chess capitalized and saying "you are face" is a bit silly!

"my skill level has nothing to do with the fact most of my opponents don't even have 200 games played."

I genuinely don't mean any disrespect, but it does. Most people improve enough after 200 games so as to reach a rating of at least 800. Now, that doesn't make you dumb or anything - there is a number of reasons why you've gotten off to a relatively slow start in chess that are unrelated to intelligence - but it does explain why most people you play have under 200 games played on their account.

I don't understand the drive for ratings. You will never beat Magnus Carlsen. Magnus will never beat Alpha Zero. Can't we just play for fun? Your rating is kinda like your skin color. You can change it a little bit but try to change it too much and you'll start getting weird side effects.

I try to set personal goals. Like mine right now is to get to 1500 ELO. It's hard but fun and it's just against me, I'm not competing. I think after 2000 you should start thinking competitively.

I never said that most people reach their limit after 200 games, nor would it make any sense for me to, given that I've played 6000 games and am still improving. What I did say, however, is that most people who have played 200 games or more are experienced enough to be 800-or-higher-rated, which is undeniably true. For reference, I was at 1300 after 200 games.

coming from a 500, yes you are in the cool gang now

Yes, 800 is the average rating. But most people around that level only play for fun occasionally, like how I might log into world of tanks a few times a month. But if you’re dead set on improving, you’ll have more games... and generally speaking, a higher rating. And usually 800 or higher.

if ya ask me, 800 seems to low to be the average rating lol

That's because if you're on the forums chances are, you actually care about chess and therefore will likely have a rating higher than 800. Now, in clubs, that's a different story...

I think some people are wired differently, and the way they first approach chess happens to be wrong (just like someone who improves quickly at first luckily takes a good approach).

For example, when I was new, I didn't want to lose anything for free, not even a single pawn. I didn't improve really quickly after my initial increase, but I got to the level of 1000 almost instantly. Some people, even after being told not to lose pieces for free, do it over and over. I think it's just a mindset they have to develop.

All this is to say... I don't think you should shame people by telling them 800 is easy. It was easy for you because you were lucky enough to take the right approach.

Examples from 30|0 games:

-

-

-

This isn't a skill or intelligence issue, it's just a mindset of not valuing material.

or the people were prolly amazed by magnus's ability in chess and tried to intimidate him by playing brand new novelties before move 10 which in reality were just straight-up blunders

I volunteer to help with chess in my community frequently. One time I encountered a middle schooler who was obviously bad. When I told him, this move is bad because it drops a pawn, he flippantly said "who cares? It's just a pawn..."

A few moves later I took his piece for free and told him that he should pay more attention. He immediately responded with "I still have chances to win!" Leaving me flabbergasted... while what he said was true, there's also no need to help your opponent by sending them christmas gifts every turn!

It's neat you're helping out.

After one OTB tournament round, I saw a 2000 rated player analyzing with his friend who was still pretty new. His friend showed a position from his game and was making a comment like "my opponent played this and I don't think it was a very good move, what do you think my opponent should have played?"

And the 2000 rated guy just said "your opponent is a knight up, he can do anything he wants"

Same sort of story... some people don't understand.

That's not what they said at all. This is the 4th time in a row that you have completely misinterpreted the text that you are replying to, and it's kind of getting frustrating. Please pay closer attention to what's being said before replying.

B1ZMARK implied that people who are active on forums, like yourself, are more likely to care about chess than people who aren't, since being active on chess forums pretty much requires having a relatively profound interest in chess (i.e. relatively to people who just play with their friends and family a couple of times a year).

However, most people ─ especially people your rating ─ aren't active on forums, which means that the group of people around your rating who are active on forums is completely unrepresentative of the incomparably larger group of all the people who have the same rating as you on chess.com. 

So if the reason you think that most sub-800s have more than 200 games to their name is that most sub-800s that you see on forums have more than 200 games to their name, you can forget about it. In reality, I think it's more likely that most sub-800s are brand-new to the game and are just starting out.

It seems like every single comment anybody on this thread makes needs a special translation just for you. Fine. Here is a translation of what B1ZMARK said in clearer English:

"Most people around 800 and below play with the only purpose of having a good time while playing the game ─ as opposed to people above that rating who often also play with the purpose of improving and/or winning. Both of these groups of people play for "fun", but for the former group, "fun" is just playing the game no matter how, while for the latter, "fun" is both that AND being good/better at the game".

Didn't ever think I would ever need to translate something like that to a full-grown adult, but oh well.

I'll remind you that it was you who brought up your "skill level", not me. "my skill level has nothing to do with the fact most of my opponents don't even have 200 games played"

Nor did I have any intention of being demeaning.

"And people who are active in forums and fans,  might not even play the game AT ALL"

We're talking about likelihood here. Are you going to argue with the fact that fans of the game and people who are active on forums are more likely to be more serious about the game than non-fans and people who are not active on forums?

I may not have any stats to back up my hypothesis, as don't you to back up your claim that my hypothesis is false, but, logically speaking, it would make a lot more sense for my hypothesis to be true than false. Why do I say that? Well, first of all, by your own admission, most of the players that you get matched with ─ which is a MUCH more representative sample than people your rating you see on forums ─ have fewer than 200 games on their account. The conclusion that I draw from this is pretty simple: most players your rating have played fewer than 200 games. You, on the other hand, need a conspiracy theory that makes most people your level cheaters and/or speedrunners to account for this fact. You should google "Occam's Razor" and figure out why I find my hypothesis more plausible than yours by yourself.