1000 rating unachievable for AVERAGE adult?

The average adult could easily reach a rating of 1000 with poor play.

I tend to believe that it's not possible to reliably guess someone's rating if their rating is 400 points higher or lower than yours.

In other words if I saw a 1000 rated player play, it would probably look pretty good, and I'd have no idea why they're 1000. (I've seen lots of people overestimate new players for the same reason).

So since a 1000 level of skill is essentially invisible to me, it would be pretty interesting to know, quantitatively even, what the difference between 1000 and 1200 is. Or the difference between 800 and 1000.

@Ziryab you coach (or are at least around) a lot of kid beginners. Any insights re: what makes someone above or below 1000?

If i am the teacher, i can make him reach my ratings within 3 years. P.S. No sandbagging from me

I coach teams (after school clubs) and individuals (one-on-one lessons).

The individuals all go over 1000. They work tactics, learn endgames, go through whole games, have strong parental support, ... They invest time in their skill development. Those who do not go over 1000 are the ones who only play.

That’s my question, too.

How fast would you say the average beginner kid gets to 1000? Just curious.

I know a brother pair who are about 1300 after 1 year. They work pretty hard on chess from what I can tell. They're in the 10-12 year old range.

There are people who should not vote because they cannot read. These are the same people who can study chess more than 90 minutes a week and remain below 1300 after a year. The Eugenicists of the late nineteenth century coined words for such people who are well below average intelligence. They are not nice words.

There is no average. I’ve taken several kids who could not see two move tactics up to 1200+ in one year. I’ve had others who barely crack 1000 and then stop improving. 

Every kid who has worked through my set of 300 tactics problems* plus another 139 checkmate problems will pass through 1000 easily. Of course, they don’t see the last 60 (queen award) or the previous 48 (rook award) without also learning other skills.

Scholastic Chess Awards

Pawn: the Pawn Award recognizes that the recipient knows how to play chess (and should be able to teach another).

1. Sets up board (light on right) and pieces correctly.
   2. Demonstrates basic movement of each piece.
   3. Demonstrate and explain castling.
   4. Demonstrate en passant.
   5. Demonstrate ability to recognize checkmate (complete “Pawn Award: checkmate in one” worksheet).

Knight: the Knight Award recognizes that the recipient has learned certain fundamental endgame and checkmate skills. 

1. Previously earned Pawn, or achieve an Elo (e.g. USCF) rating over 500.
   2. Demonstrate understanding of checkmate of lone king with heavy pieces:
   * queen and rook,
   * queen and king, and
   * rook and king (each from two random positions selected by the coach).
   3. Demonstrate understanding of “fox in the chicken coop” pawn promotion technique.
   4. Complete “Knight Award: checkmates and tactics” worksheet.
   5. Demonstrate ability to read chess notation.

Bishop: the Bishop Award recognizes that the recipient has developed skill in coordinating the chess pieces, including honing his or her checkmate skills.

1. Previously earned Knight.
   2. Force checkmate of lone king with two bishops and king.
   3. Demonstrate understanding of opposition and outflanking through success with king vs. king exercise, and two king and pawn exercises selected by the coach.
   4. Complete “Checklist of Checkmates: Corridors” and “Checklist of Checkmates: Diagonals.”
   5. Complete “Bishop Award: checkmates and tactics” worksheet.
   6. Demonstrate ability to write chess notation.

Rook: the Rook Award recognizes that the recipient has developed his or her endgame and checkmate skills, and has become a tournament player.

1. Previously earned Bishop.
   2. Demonstrate understanding of Lucena (building a bridge) and Philidor (sixth rank defense) endgame positions (rooks and pawn).
   3. Complete “Checklist of Checkmates: Intersections” and “Checklist of Checkmates: Knights.”
   4. Complete “Rook Award: checkmates and tactics” worksheet.
   5. Complete two scholastic tournaments (no voluntary byes or forfeits).

Queen: the Queen Award recognizes that the recipient has developed the habit of chess study, and has proven his or her abilities through success in tournament competition.

1. Previously earned Rook.
   2. Demonstrate understanding of queen vs. pawn endgames (winning and drawing ideas).
   3. Complete “Checklist of Checkmates: Combinations,” “Checklist of Checkmates: Queens,” and “Checklist of Checkmates: Challenges.”
   4. Complete “Queen Award: checkmates and tactics” worksheet.
   5. Complete three scholastic tournaments (no voluntary byes or forfeits), scoring three points or more in at least one five round event.

King: the King Award recognizes that the recipient has become a strong scholastic player.

1. Previously earned Queen.
   2. Demonstrate correct play from five opposition exercises selected by the coach.
   3. Correctly solve fifteen problems in fifteen minutes selected at random from “Checklist of Checkmates” exercises with 86% accuracy (13 of 15).
   4. Show evidence of independent study of tactics exercises book, such as those by Fred Reinfeld, Bruce Pandolfini, Murray Chandler, Paul Littlewood, Lou Hays, or others.
   4. Earn Elo rating above 1200.

BTW, the first student to earn the Queen Award was in kindergarten at the time. He's in tenth grade now and is over 2000 USCF.

*The first 150 precede the awards curriculum. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B06XKG1VZD/

I wish I'd had some chess environment like that as a kid. I would have been the huge dork who'd try to get all the badges

One teacher / chess coach told me he had a ladder system where if you beat a player you take their spot (and everyone else moves down one) and that helped motivate the kids. He had all their names on a big board and he'd keep track of wins and stuff.

Then one year a girl showed up and beat everyone, and the club shrank because the boys didn't like it heh.

"scoring three points or more in at least one five round event."

That sounds tough. I'm surprised the kindergartner did it.

The kindergartner scored 4/5 in the state championship for kindergartners the year before he was in kindergarten. I started coaching him a few months later. His fifth round loss to a girl who is now a WIM (in eleventh grade) remains his only loss at state.

The credit for his success belong to his parents. I simply provided the resources they could have found elsewhere.

Most youth players where I coach play in youth events. 3/5 is the standard for qualifying for the Washington State Elementary Chess Championships, which attracts 1000-1400 players every year. At the state championship, students play only in their own grade level with the exceptions of a small number who play as preschoolers in the K section.

After I'm retired, years from now, it'd be fun to be involved in something like that. Sounds like you put a lot of thought into it making it fun and instructional for the kids.

Today I ran a small holiday tournament with three sections. There was a scholastic section, rated by the NWSRS; a youth USCF rated section; and an adult USCF section. It is the first time that one of our local scholastic events had USCF sections.

It was the second or third USCF event for a student that I've been coaching three years. His NWSRS rating is over 1400. He plays in nearly every scholastic event (12-14 per year), and always plays in the top section (includes high school students). He won several events in third grade. Now, he's in fourth.

He won today's youth USCF section. I also coach the player who finished fourth, and have been coaching her since late last spring.

I started coaching children as a parent volunteer at my youngest son's school when he was in third grade. That was January 2000. I was already an active tournament player (class C at the time). When my son left that school, I became a paid coach because the school wanted me to stay. It has supplemented my income.

Oh wow, I never thought about being paid for it. That would actually be pretty cool.

My peak income from chess in a year was about 10K. I usually make less.

Nice. Oh, so you've been at it for around 20 years. I've seen you around the forums for a while but I didn't know that.

I learned to play chess in 1968, started reading chess books half a decade later, competed all through high school, including USCF correspondence. But my first rated OTB tournament was in 1995. That year, I also resumed USCF correspondence and always had games going (switching to the sort of correspondence that this site now calls "Daily" in 2003).

I played chess online for the first time in the late 1980s (my brother set up a telnet connection so that he and a friend could play, and he let me play once because I was a stronger chess player). I started playing regularly online in 1998 when a few sites became popular. 

I estimate that I've played over 150,000 games online, and most of those that are not bullet are in a database (I've lost several thousand due to database corruption, mostly about 15 years ago). I guess I've been at it awhile.

I've probably played close to 100,000 but when I use a more conservative estimate it's more like 75k so I'm not sure. I've been at it for almost 20 years now.