Play me.. Ill beat you easily. No no no .. I was just kidding! 
What is considered a beginner rating?
Sort:
Jan 26, 2020
0
#124
Hermione2008 a écrit :
NoahDr wrote:
Is 1874 a good number? I'm a beginner but I'm starting to get the hang of chess. Btw what does "rating" mean?
1874 is very good in OTB chess. On chess.com? Not so much. A beginner rating is anything below 1600. Below 1600 is Class E.
A 1600 uscf is at 82 percentile so that is far from a beginner since it takes years to get there.
http://www.uschess.org/archive/ratings/ratedist.php
Jan 26, 2020
0
#125
Hermione2008 a écrit :
NoahDr wrote:
Is 1874 a good number? I'm a beginner but I'm starting to get the hang of chess. Btw what does "rating" mean?
1874 is very good in OTB chess. On chess.com? Not so much. A beginner rating is anything below 1600. Below 1600 is Class E.
| Class E | 1100 to 1199 |
Jan 26, 2020
0
#126
Thanks @Marie-AnneLiz. I didn’t have the time to confront this piece of ignorance.
Marie-AnneLiz wrote:
A 1600 uscf is at 82 percentile so that is far from a beginner since it takes years to get there.
It might take you years to get there, but you need to stop making these bold, collective claims about the entirety of the chess community, when they really just apply to yourself. Your statements are based on your personal opinionon, not objective truths, i.e facts.
Jan 26, 2020
0
#128
Colby-Covington a écrit :
Marie-AnneLiz wrote:
A 1600 uscf is at 82 percentile so that is far from a beginner since it takes years to get there.
It might take you years to get there, but you need to stop making these bold, collective claims about the entirety of the chess community, when they really just apply to yourself. Your statements are based on your personal opinionon, not objective truths, i.e facts.
If you take the time to look at the USFC chart only 28% of the TOTAL members are above 1600 USFC.
Of course if you work 8 hours a day on improving your chess you can be 1600+ in less than 2 years or if you have an TALENT and a COACH like FISHER or KASPAROV or Carlsen you can get there in 23 months.
Most peoples work/play only 1 or 2 hours per day and it take them at least 2 years to get 1600+
Jan 26, 2020
0
#129
Quwu a écrit :
Marie-AnneLiz wrote:
Colby-Covington a écrit :
Marie-AnneLiz wrote:
A 1600 uscf is at 82 percentile so that is far from a beginner since it takes years to get there.
It might take you years to get there, but you need to stop making these bold, collective claims about the entirety of the chess community, when they really just apply to yourself. Your statements are based on your personal opinionon, not objective truths, i.e facts.
If you take the time to look at the USFC chart only 28% of the TOTAL members are above 1600 USFC.
Of course if you work 8 hours a day on improving your chess you can be 1600+ in less than 2 years or if you have an TALENT and a COACH like FISHER or KASPAROV or Carlsen you can get there in 23 months.
Most peoples work/play only 1 or 2 hours per day and it take them at least 2 years to get 1600+
I was 1600 + strength my first week playing
When i was 1600 elo= 1700 USFC here i was beating at least 95% of all the players on this site....my point is that VERY FEW have the TALENT or commitment and COACH to get that rating! 1700 USFC = BEAT 87% of ALL the players in the US federation.And 2 years+ is not bad to get 1600 usfc.
BTW 1600 here = 1400 ELO.
http://www.uschess.org/archive/ratings/ratedist.php
Jan 26, 2020
0
#130
Quwu a écrit :
Marie-AnneLiz wrote:
Quwu a écrit :
Marie-AnneLiz wrote:
Colby-Covington a écrit :
Marie-AnneLiz wrote:
A 1600 uscf is at 82 percentile so that is far from a beginner since it takes years to get there.
It might take you years to get there, but you need to stop making these bold, collective claims about the entirety of the chess community, when they really just apply to yourself. Your statements are based on your personal opinionon, not objective truths, i.e facts.
If you take the time to look at the USFC chart only 28% of the TOTAL members are above 1600 USFC.
Of course if you work 8 hours a day on improving your chess you can be 1600+ in less than 2 years or if you have an TALENT and a COACH like FISHER or KASPAROV or Carlsen you can get there in 23 months.
Most peoples work/play only 1 or 2 hours per day and it take them at least 2 years to get 1600+
I was 1600 + strength my first week playing
When i was 1600 elo= 1700 USFC here i was beating at least 95% of all the players on this site....my point is that VERY FEW have the TALENT or commitment and COACH to get that rating! 1700 USFC = BEAT 87% of ALL the players in the US federation.And 2 years+ is not bad to get 1600 usfc.
BTW 1600 here = 1400 ELO.
I have been playing chess since I was a little girl and have never lost or drawn any of my thousands of games. I was never coached, I don't study and I am only interested in improving as much as I can through my own ideas and refinement rather than taking advantage of external tools or ideas. Plenty of my opponents have been much stronger than 1600. I really don't think it takes all that much for all people, but instead it's a case by case basis depending on how bright you are.
If 1600 was easy for all peoples why only 28% of ALL the players in the US federation are above 1600?
If it's so easy for ALL peoples why at 1600 ELO i was beating more than 95% of ALL the players here?
Marie-AnneLiz wrote:
If you take the time to look at the USFC chart only 28% of the TOTAL members are above 1600 USFC. http://www.uschess.org/archive/ratings/ratedist.php
Most peoples work/play only 1 or 2 hours per day and it take them at least 2 years to get 1600+
"....USCF Regular Rating Distribution Chart as of November 1, 2004"
http://www.uschess.org/archive/ratings/ratedist.php
Your "chart" is 16 years old.🤭
On top of that it exclusively concerns USCF members, and in no way regards FIDE players.
Whenever you use terms like "most people" or "everybody" it's just a substitute for "yourself" as you have already admitted that your claims are solely based on your personal opinion, not actual facts.
Either present solid, factual data or just stop citing your worthless anecdotal evidence.
Jan 26, 2020
0
#132
Colby-Covington a écrit :
Marie-AnneLiz wrote:
If you take the time to look at the USFC chart only 28% of the TOTAL members are above 1600 USFC. http://www.uschess.org/archive/ratings/ratedist.php
Most peoples work/play only 1 or 2 hours per day and it take them at least 2 years to get 1600+
"....USCF Regular Rating Distribution Chart as of November 1, 2004"
http://www.uschess.org/archive/ratings/ratedist.php
Your "chart" is 16 years old.🤭
Whenever you use terms like "most people" or "everybody" it's just a substitute for "yourself" as you have already admitted that your claims are solely based on your personal opinion, not actual facts.
Either present solid, factual data or just stop citing your worthless anecdotal evidence.
And WHERE is your CHART (FACTS)?
I am not making any ridiculous claims that require evidence, you are sitting alone in that boat.
Your "chart" being almost 20 years outdated really took the wind out of your sails though.😅
Jan 26, 2020
0
#134
Colby-Covington a écrit :
I am not making any ridiculous claims that require evidence, you are sitting alone in that boat.
Your "chart" being almost 20 years outdated really took the wind out of your sails though.😅
You have not ONE FACT IN 10 POSTS and my chart is the most recent from YOUR federation and you cannot prove it's out dated in it's DATA.
And you cannot give one name of a REAL KNOWN player that got to 1600 ELO in less than 2 YEARS?
NOT EVEN ONE?
Jan 26, 2020
0
#135
Colby-Covington a écrit :
I am not making any ridiculous claims that require evidence, you are sitting alone in that boat.
Your "chart" being almost 20 years outdated really took the wind out of your sails though.😅
It's not MY chart;it's the chart of YOUR federation!
If you are unhappy about YOUR federation chart Complaint to THEM!
Jan 26, 2020
0
#136
Freja7007 a écrit :
Quwu wrote:
I assume anyone below 2300 is either a beginner or not going anywhere in chess.
That's also another way of looking at it. It depends on what is a beginner to you. I think that someone rated 2500 may see a 1500 player as a beginner.
And God see Carlsen has a NOVICE! you can argue anything you want these are not FACTS!
Everyone know a beginner is under 1200 and it take a long time to get to 1400 ELO.....not hours or days....but MONTHS....some peoples never get to 1400 ELO and some take a few YEARS! and only a very small MINORITY ever get ABOVE 1600 ELO (28% of all the US federation).
Jan 26, 2020
0
#137
Quwu a écrit :
Marie-AnneLiz wrote:
Colby-Covington a écrit :
I am not making any ridiculous claims that require evidence, you are sitting alone in that boat.
Your "chart" being almost 20 years outdated really took the wind out of your sails though.😅
You have not ONE FACT IN 10 POSTS and my chart is the most recent from YOUR federation and you cannot prove it's out dated in it's DATA.
And you cannot give one name of a REAL KNOWN player that got to 1600 ELO in less than 2 YEARS?
NOT EVEN ONE?
How about me?
I was technically unrated but I beat Emory Tate in the above game less than a month after learning how to move the pieces.
I'm not arguing with you
Jan 26, 2020
0
#138
Quwu a écrit :
And not to mention, Tate's highest OTB rating was 2413 and he, like me, didn't use books or engines and just sat down and played.
Jan 26, 2020
0
#139
Freja7007 a écrit :
Less than 1000 (online rating).
How long do you think it take to get to 1200 online here?
What is the basis for those numbers?
400 points difference means you have to play 10 times to win one game. 800 difference means 100 games. And so one. Difference means how much stronger statisticaly player is.