Less than 1000 (online rating).
How long do you think it take to get to 1200 online here?
None, you start at 1200 and don't play any games.
I started here the second time in august 2016 so i did't remember.
Can you still keep the 1200 and improve right away if you only played 10 games OTB before you play here?
Less than 1000 (online rating).
How long do you think it take to get to 1200 online here?
None, you start at 1200 and don't play any games.
I started here the second time in august 2016 so i did't remember.
Can you still keep the 1200 and improve right away if you only played 10 games OTB before you play here?
Not necessarily improve right away, but if you spend a lot of time practicing tactics + reading, I don't see why not.
Btw does anyone here know a fix? I tried asking support but they didn't get back to me. I click live chess and get a goat saying sorry our fault server error
I don't have to check;i believe you.
I agree with the top comment 1800 is a beginner my high is 1811 CFC Canadian,
1800 isn't to hard to achieve with a little work 
I agree with the top comment 1800 is a beginner my high is 1811 CFC Canadian,
1800 isn't to hard to achieve with a little work
....which is why you are 1700-ish on chess.com..?
I agree with the top comment 1800 is a beginner my high is 1811 CFC Canadian,
1800 isn't to hard to achieve with a little work
1800 here = 1600 ELO....and only 28% of ALL the players on the USFC chart got a better rating.
1800 ELO is pretty hard to get and it's 1900 USFC and only 6% of ALL the players in the USFC chart got a better rating.
I agree with the top comment 1800 is a beginner my high is 1811 CFC Canadian,
1800 isn't to hard to achieve with a little work
1800 here = 1600 ELO....and only 28% of ALL the players on the USFC chart got a better rating.
1800 ELO is pretty hard to get and it's 1900 USFC and only 6% of ALL the players in the USFC chart got a better rating.
If you keep repeating the same points, no one will listen....just saying.
....But that doesn't mean I don't agree with you.
I agree with the top comment 1800 is a beginner my high is 1811 CFC Canadian,
1800 isn't to hard to achieve with a little work
....which is why you are 1700-ish on chess.com..?
1700 here is not more than 1500 ELO.
I agree with the top comment 1800 is a beginner my high is 1811 CFC Canadian,
1800 isn't to hard to achieve with a little work
....which is why you are 1700-ish on chess.com..?
1700 here is not more than 1500 ELO.
My point.
I agree with the top comment 1800 is a beginner my high is 1811 CFC Canadian,
1800 isn't to hard to achieve with a little work
1800 here = 1600 ELO....and only 28% of ALL the players on the USFC chart got a better rating.
1800 ELO is pretty hard to get and it's 1900 USFC and only 6% of ALL the players in the USFC chart got a better rating.
If you keep repeating the same points, no one will listen....just saying.
....But that doesn't mean I don't agree with you.
Sorry i'm done! 
Why is that obsolete chart still being cited when it's almost 20 years old?
The data means nothing anymore.🤨
On top of that it exclusively concerns USCF members who in general have slightly inflated ratings compared to FIDE players, which is a very well known fact.
Secondly, I am personally unaware of anyone who didn't hit 1600 ELO within their first couple tournaments, it's simply not as grand of an achievement as you make it out to be.
Again, reaching 1600 might be remarkable to you personally, but you need to stop generalizing based on your personal opinion. The fact that you can't see that is starting to get a little annoying tbh.🙄
Are you even FIDE or USCF rated?
Why is that obsolete chart still being cited when it's almost 20 years old?
The data means nothing anymore.🤨
On top of that it exclusively concerns USCF members who in general have slightly inflated ratings compared to FIDE players, which is a very well known fact.
Secondly, I am personally unaware of anyone who didn't hit 1600 ELO within their first couple tournaments, it's simply not as grand of an achievement as you make it out to be.
Again, reaching 1600 might be remarkable to you personally, but you need to stop generalizing based on your personal opinion. The fact that you can't see that is starting to get a little annoying tbh.🙄
Are you even FIDE or USCF rated?
Because it's the only FACTS (chart ) available and 15 years old DATA from a chess federation is not out dated except for you because it PROVE that you are WRONG!
You CANNOT PROVE the DATA is wrong because you have NO FACTS (OFFICIAL CHART).
Why is that obsolete chart still being cited when it's almost 20 years old?
The data means nothing anymore.🤨
On top of that it exclusively concerns USCF members who in general have slightly inflated ratings compared to FIDE players, which is a very well known fact.
Secondly, I am personally unaware of anyone who didn't hit 1600 ELO within their first couple tournaments, it's simply not as grand of an achievement as you make it out to be.
Again, reaching 1600 might be remarkable to you personally, but you need to stop generalizing based on your personal opinion. The fact that you can't see that is starting to get a little annoying tbh.🙄
Are you even FIDE or USCF rated?
Because it's the only FACTS (chart ) available and 15 years old DATA from a chess federation is not out dated except for you because it PROVE that you are WRONG!
You CANNOT PROVE the DATA is wrong because you have NO FACTS (OFFICIAL CHART).
20 April 2017
https://www.pathtochessmastery.com/2017/04/how-do-you-know-you-are-becoming.html
The USCF data is terribly skewed in a manner that defeats most comparative generalizations. Graphed, rating distribution in the US forms a double bell because of the large number of young children with low skills who play only a few events, but who nonetheless have ratings. It would seem that a mass of such players would contribute to rating deflation, but instead we find that at certain levels (not all), USCF ratings are inflated slightly relative to FIDE.
Claims, however, that USCF ratings are 100 above FIDE across the board are false.
Do any of you even play competitive OTB under USCF or FIDE?
I am starting to get annoyed having a 1200 rated beginner explain the strength based nuances and intricacies of ELO ratings with a ridiculous chart that literally means nothing.
Play OTB matches first and see for yourself, ok?
I play CFC. Competitively.
Its too hard to find FIDE rated tournaments in Canada that are near where I live, and I can't get a USCF rating.
Do any of you even play competitive OTB under USCF or FIDE?
I am starting to get annoyed having a 1200 rated beginner explain the strength based nuances and intricacies of ELO ratings with a ridiculous chart that literally means nothing.
Play OTB matches first and see for yourself, ok?
Your brush is too broad.
My USCF rating puts me in the top 92% nationally (it was higher a few years ago), but only the top 86% in my state. The difference is that in my state, we have a scholastic rating system that keeps most youth players—all except the really serious players—out of the USCF.
The claims about what 1600 represents based on the old linked chart are inaccurate because of the large number of scholastic players in the USCF as a whole.
Do any of you even play competitive OTB under USCF or FIDE?
I am starting to get annoyed having a 1200 rated beginner explain the strength based nuances and intricacies of ELO ratings with a ridiculous chart that literally means nothing.
Play OTB matches first and see for yourself, ok?
Your brush is too broad.
My USCF rating puts me in the top 92% nationally (it was higher a few years ago), but only the top 86% in my state. The difference is that in my state, we have a scholastic rating system that keeps most youth players—all except the really serious players—out of the USCF.
The claims about what 1600 represents based on the old linked chart are inaccurate because of the large number of scholastic players in the USCF as a whole.
Here are the distributions as of today, 23 - 02- 2014:
https://www.quora.com/How-does-the-rating-distribution-on-chess-com-look-like
Sorry @Marie-AnneLiz I didn't say they were facts, I already posted above that personally that a person rated below 1000 (online rating) is a beginner, I was just responding to Quwu about how her opinion may also be correct.
I'm not arguing against opinions.....i'm stating facts based on THE MOST RECENT usfc chart and a lot of interviews from Maters and IM and GM....and Covington is attacking me personnally.
28% of ALL USFC players EVER go over 1600 usfc...and Covington pretend it can be done EASILY by MOST players.......28% is very very low.