is getting to 1200 even considered an accomplishment?
Sort:
Jan 28, 2022
0
#162
1200 is a good rating! I do think any functional human being can reach it but it definitely requires practice
i have tried super hard over the last 3 or years, creeping higher albeit slowly - still in the 1070's range..My age is 57 and I'm not sure what my potential is. My son shot up past 1600 in couple of years and I have a feeling he's going to improve considerably. Although I could attribute his progress to lessons with an IM I also credit him for his retention and command. He has shared some of the teachings with me but it's like putting Ferrari tires on a tricycle .
Jan 30, 2022
0
#164
Dorianmode53 wrote:
i have tried super hard over the last 3 or years, creeping higher albeit slowly - still in the 1070's range..My age is 57 and I'm not sure what my potential is. My son shot up past 1600 in couple of years and I have a feeling he's going to improve considerably. Although I could attribute his progress to lessons with an IM I also credit him for his retention and command. He has shared some of the teachings with me but it's like putting Ferrari tires on a tricycle .
I wrote a 6-part blog on this very topic: Playing at 50+ - Chess.com
Let me know if this helps!
Dorianmode53 wrote:
i have tried super hard over the last 3 or years, creeping higher albeit slowly - still in the 1070's range..My age is 57 and I'm not sure what my potential is. My son shot up past 1600 in couple of years and I have a feeling he's going to improve considerably. Although I could attribute his progress to lessons with an IM I also credit him for his retention and command. He has shared some of the teachings with me but it's like putting Ferrari tires on a tricycle .
yeap foobarred1 2100 and something..read it, sir! i bet it helps! I'm on my way to the topic after..don't know if my point of view would be of any assistance but I will leave it out here..i got 1205 September i think? cause 2 weeks i dedicated myself on playing full-time! rage, plan, the speedd you name it..all there in my head..but actually not a single fundamental on chess..if you really focus i think you will get there sir! until there all it takes, in my opinion, is basic knowledge and a clear head..but when you get there its another story..well i realist after some good games and the better and better opponents that i had no idea,, so angry to the point i downgraded my account back to the stone age 800!..they almost banned me (didn't know it's not aloud tho)i asked for forgiveness, and I received.. haha thank god .. and i said to my self i love this game!! i would do this right!! so i started playing again doing all the things all the masters are talking about above...watch the Hikaru videos play with the bots!! (i actually have won a 1800 does this meaan anything??)😂..solve the puzzles be ruthless again and again..you will find that the road to 1200 will be much smoother!...its a process... there are things that need to be done if you want your rating to stand in strong foundations...whatever the rating is doesn't matter as a guy writes above it's a loop ..the point is getting better and more confident with your game! and the rating will follow in harmony...if you follow the rules,doing the work, and still no results!!? maybe you approach a rule wrong, maybe your end game isn't strong enough?? and you fix that you skyrocket to 1300!! what does your son tell you?? he is 1600! he can point out some of your weaknesses I'm sure..look within sir you will get there!!
1200 is awesome dude! Keep playing and most importantly, have fun.
Aug 21, 2022
0
#168
In my opinion every 100 point barrier I cross is an accomplishment for me. But it really just depends on if you consider 1200 an accomplishment for you or not.
Yes
Aug 21, 2022
0
#170
It is an accomplishment for sure; it is just (as other have highlighted) that reaching a higher level of chess ability and understanding typically takes many years of dedicated study and playing.
Aug 21, 2022
0
#171
It depends on what type of chess you play. If you just play for fun, yeah that’s an accomplishment but if you play to get better and maybe play in tournaments then it’s not so much of an accomplishment
Aug 21, 2022
0
#172
Times have changed. Before the web existed, to play serious chess you had to travel to a chess club. This required real commitment, so there weren't a lot of weak players in clubs. The average over-the-board rating was around 1400-1500. A 1200 rating was definitely on the low end.
Now that the web exists, anyone can play easily right from home. So there are WAY more players, most of whom are beginners. As a result, players at the 1200 level are stronger than most chess.com members.
So on chess.com, I'd say yes it's an achievement, especially if you started as a total beginner. In a brick-and-mortar chess club, 1200 would be on the low end.
Dorianmode53 wrote:
..My age is 57 and I'm not sure what my potential is.
I just started playing seriously a few months ago and have risen to 1100 in fewer than 500 games. I don't know what my potential is either, but I don't believe it's age related. I'm 76. I'll be 77 in January.
I thought hitting 1000 was an accomplishment and I never expected to get to 1100, so I definitely think 1200 would be an accomplishment.
kpcollins86 wrote:
I have generally had a rating of around 900and would play casually a lot with basically no improvement, and then during the quarantine a few months ago I read the book Bobby Fishcer Teaches Chess and after that very quickly got up about 1150 but then fell down to around 1050 shortly after. After putting a lot of work and taking a few lessons I finally cracked 1200. So, basically I got from 900 to 1200 over the course of a 3 months and it took a lot of work, puzzles probably ended up being the most useful tool for me.
However, even though 1200 is something like the 70th percentile or so, what I've read suggests that it's still seems to be considered to be a pretty abysmal rating by the chess community. I guess my question is if this degree of improvement over this amount of time is any indicator that I could ever be truly "good" at chess or does it more suggest the opposite? I would also like to add that this is my rating for rapid and I still cannot seem to really improve at blitz at all, which is frustrating, although I also don't play it nearly as much.
However, even though 1200 is something like the 70th percentile or so, what I've read suggests that it's still seems to be considered to be a pretty abysmal rating by the chess community. I guess my question is if this degree of improvement over this amount of time is any indicator that I could ever be truly "good" at chess or does it more suggest the opposite? I would also like to add that this is my rating for rapid and I still cannot seem to really improve at blitz at all, which is frustrating, although I also don't play it nearly as much.
You choose what you consider to be an accomplishment. I would say reaching 1200 rapid is an accomplishment, but I would also say that 1200 rapid on this website isn't a very good rating. Getting good at chess takes a lot of time. You need to play a lot of games in order to get good at it. Also, what people consider to be good at chess is subjective. I used to think 1500-1600 were good at chess, but now that I am over 1800 I no longer view 1500s as good chess players. When I started playing chess I thought 800-900 rated players were really good, now I think they are horrendous. It is all a matter of perspective.
Reaching 1200 is definitely an accomplishment as that is much higher level than somebody who has just learned the rules of chess. You have to play a lot of games in order to reach 1200.
kpcollins86 wrote:
I have generally had a rating of around 900and would play casually a lot with basically no improvement, and then during the quarantine a few months ago I read the book Bobby Fishcer Teaches Chess and after that very quickly got up about 1150 but then fell down to around 1050 shortly after. After putting a lot of work and taking a few lessons I finally cracked 1200. So, basically I got from 900 to 1200 over the course of a 3 months and it took a lot of work, puzzles probably ended up being the most useful tool for me.
However, even though 1200 is something like the 70th percentile or so, what I've read suggests that it's still seems to be considered to be a pretty abysmal rating by the chess community. I guess my question is if this degree of improvement over this amount of time is any indicator that I could ever be truly "good" at chess or does it more suggest the opposite? I would also like to add that this is my rating for rapid and I still cannot seem to really improve at blitz at all, which is frustrating, although I also don't play it nearly as much.
However, even though 1200 is something like the 70th percentile or so, what I've read suggests that it's still seems to be considered to be a pretty abysmal rating by the chess community. I guess my question is if this degree of improvement over this amount of time is any indicator that I could ever be truly "good" at chess or does it more suggest the opposite? I would also like to add that this is my rating for rapid and I still cannot seem to really improve at blitz at all, which is frustrating, although I also don't play it nearly as much.
Great post and I can relate. As a teenager, though I never played in any official tournaments with ELO ratings, it seemed I did well playing against most players at a random park, or with a friend who was very good at Chess and I'd assumed my ELO rating might have been 1200 or 1300 or (maybe even) 1400 ... and so I thought it a fun idea to try to read up and learn more to truly improve my game ... and then I began to suck! haha 
I think part of what happened was that I learned Chess at a young age playing with my father and did ok with my instincts because they were not 'standard' openings or moves and the gameplay would quickly go 'outside the box', which was fine for me because I hadn't considered of such 'optimal boxes' or deeply studied chess openings etc.
So, I believe, when I figuratively tried playing within more conventional arenas and styles, things shifted because there was a large precomputed/studied knowledge database that many people who had played for long were familiar with.
Overall, I think ELO ratings have shifted down some and personally, I think 1200 is a great rating.
Oh and I can understand how challenging (frustrating? 
) the Blitz games can be. For some of the normal games I play, I would already be out of time in the first 4 or 5 moves , if it had been a Blitz game.
It's nice having some 'book moves' available to draw from but overall, I tend to enjoy the more freestyle exploration and treating each move like a 'puzzle of the day'.
Good luck on your 1200 quest
Oct 11, 2022
0
#177
Personally I think 1200 would be an accomplishment for anyone who was previously rated less than 1200 just as obtaining an 600 rating would be an accomplishment for any previously rated lower. On the other hand you can con consider anything less than say 2000 as a non-accomplishment or heck why not anything less than 2300 a non-accomplishment. The question itself is pretty much ludicrous on its face.
Oct 11, 2022
0
#178
Well millions will never make it to 1200 so give yourself a pat on the back for making it out the rabbit hole.
Peterf90 wrote:
Personally I think 1200 would be an accomplishment for anyone who was previously rated less than 1200 just as obtaining an 600 rating would be an accomplishment for any previously rated lower. On the other hand you can con consider anything less than say 2000 as a non-accomplishment or heck why not anything less than 2300 a non-accomplishment. The question itself is pretty much ludicrous on its face.
I absolutely hate non-answers like this one. Why did you even bother answering if you had no intention of providing any information? Smh...
of course it is