The average adult is 300 - 500?? How is it even possible to be 300?? 300 would be a person that dribbles when he eats a meal?
No my good friend 300 would be the person who thinks dribbles means the same thing as drools
Utter drivel.
People don't get stuck below 1,000 because they are dumb. They get stuck because they don't learn the fundamentals of tactics and strategy and practice them.
If they know a little bit about the game they are having fun, that's all that matters.
People don't get stuck below 1,000 because they are dumb. They get stuck because they don't learn the fundamentals of tactics and strategy and practice them.
If they know a little bit about the game they are having fun, that's all that matters.
Start with the fundamental nature of contacts. Two books featuring problems that all have ten pieces or fewer are very useful for this first step.
Bruce Pandolfini, Beginning Chess
https://www.amazon.com/Beginning-Chess-Elementary-Problems-Players/dp/0671795015/ref=sr_1_3?dchild=1&keywords=beginning+chess&qid=1589030385&sr=8-3
James Stripes, Essential Tactics
https://www.amazon.com/Essential-Tactics-Building-Foundation-Chess-ebook/dp/B06XKG1VZD/ref=sr_1_5?dchild=1&keywords=essential+tactics+chess&qid=1589030482&sr=8-5
It took me 5 years to make it to 1000, the next 1000 took me 15 years.
For those with experience in teaching adults or older kids chess, what do you think a person of average intelligence could achieve? 1000?
Chess is not about intelligence, chess is about knowledge and experience!
im 1300 at blitz and 1400 at normal. but i dont remember when i got those.. it feels like forever.. i believe i will never get better.. :(
Sorry to say this but I don't think chess requires a huge amount of intelligence. Basic strategies are not hard to comprehend. Opening theory is a lot of memorization. Most everything else is pattern recognition. I should think that virtually any human being without a disability could go well above 1000 if they spent the time. Most people just don't really like chess is all.
Not taking anything away from good players btw. I just think it's your devotion and hard work that is most impressive not some super amazing raw intelligence.
Most adults are simply NOT interested in chess. End of Story, and this mindless thread? What planet are you guys on? Stop navel gazing and play some chess. Take you mind off this idiot thread.
The OP is trolling, (or too dumb to know better). No more, no less.
Most adults are not interested in chess. End of Story, and this mindless thread?
What planet are you guys on? Stop navel gazing and play some chess. Take you mind off this idiot thread. The OP is trolling, (or too dumb to know better). No more, no less.
Bruh
A month since I started playing chess, just play casually no study nothing am beyond thousand now. Several of my friends on chess.com are even faster than me and I believe if somebody is putting a decent amount of effort they would be even better. I mean in my personal experience you can reach 1000 if you just stop blundering pieces.
So yeah 1000 doesn't seems like a limit to anyone with average IQ.
The short answer is "No, not unachievable."
The long answer...
What ratings are achievable depend on who is playing rated games against whom. The ratings are designed to make the average rating be 1600 with a bell curve centered on that number, so theoretically half the players should be below 1600 and half should be above. IQ is somewhat similar. It is designed to be a bell curve around 100, meaning that 100 is the target "average IQ" and one standard deviation is supposed to equal about 15 IQ points, meaning that about one-third of the population should have an IQ between 100 and 115 and another third between 85 and 100. About 2.5 percent should be above 130 and about the same amount under 70. I am not sure how many chess rating points are supposed to equal one standard deviation, but I am sure someone out there knows. However, in practice, obviously, IQ and chess ratings are imperfect systems and are mostly attempts to give us a somewhat objective comparative modality. Both rely heavily on who is actually getting measured in the system and how often and how well.
As Zborg pointed out, "most adults are simply not interested in chess," so obviously we are not measuring the population as a whole with our chess ratings system. However, if you wanted to put the question to the test, you would want to measure a fairly large number of people, but them entering the system, would, of course, change the bell curve... most everyone already in the system would see some increase in their ratings as these newbies came in -- remember the system is designed to have the average work out to 1600.
If you got enough "average Joes" to play, their average would eventually dwarf the current players, and theoretically, their average would be just slightly less than 1600.
It does matter which kind of chess you play. Like I’m around 1000 for blitz. But when it comes to daily or puzzles I’m (much) higher. So that says a lot.
I am not sure how many chess rating points are supposed to equal one standard deviation, but I am sure someone out there knows.
In the Glicko-2 rating system (used here on chess.com) your Glicko RD represents one standard deviation in the accuracy of your current rating.
So if you had a rating of 1500 and an RD of 50, then there is a 95% chance that true playing strength is within two standard deviations of 1500.... ie: between 1400 and 1600.
That average must be homer Simpson
Hello All,
I have logged in again and read all the comments. The common theme seems to be that all adults should supersede 1,000 rating in minimal time with modest effort. My experience has been very opposed to this. I have continued to play chess against some people who study and play chess for hours a day, and they are invariably between 500-700 rating, typically starting around 400 and quickly gaining to close to 600, then gaining slowly to 700-800 after a year of work. Typically, since these are people who like chess, and since they were considered "intelligent" in school and have higher degrees and careers, these things are correlative with higher than average IQ.
My guess is most people in this chat come from somewhat privileged backgrounds and of high natural talent, which is most likely typical of chess, in areas with high densities of intelligent people in comparison to typical areas of the country/world. This would make sense, since the majority of you then would never be exposed to an average adult. Additionally, since most of you are extremely high rated (>1200), I do not believe you can distinguish the skill difference between anyone below 1,000. Comments such as "do not blunder pieces and you will be over 1,000" show this. An 800-1000 rated player rarely hangs pieces and usually has extensive practice with tactics and understands basic opening concepts, compared to someone rated around 400, who has very little understanding of tactics and often blunders often.
Given that this avarage adult is playing regularly, it's pretty easy to get over 1000. If he plays once a year, than it's unachievable.