1800 Uscf rating sucks, I crush those all the time
1800s(USCF) Noob or strong?
Sort:
Feb 14, 2014
0
#63
Just noticed that the player I mentioned in #73 has been banned. Not certain when.
Who was it?
An 1800 is a very good player, who would crush an actual noob.
Feb 14, 2014
0
#66
Even 2000s are noobs. They just go down in flames against decent players.
(I´m just joking 
)
Simuls don't count. mr joker! [I'm just joking]
Feb 14, 2014
0
#68
Look ponz111, even 2100s are noobs, they get under mating attacks and drop pieces like confetti:
chessmicky wrote:
An 1800 player is around the 89% percentile of USCF rated players.
Yep. That means that among people that are serious enough about chess to study it, play in tournaments, and play 20+ tournament games to get a rating, they are better than 9 out of 10 of them.
I'd say that's a good, competant player. To a casual chess player (they know how the pieces move because they played in high school, etc) a Class A player would seem like some sort of chess genius.
http://www.eddins.net/steve/chess/2008/06/06/131
I think Class A players are quite strong. They have sufficient skill to easily lead a chess club in their town and be the strongest player around, so long as they aren't in a big city that is. They also know alot about the game.
P.S. fun fact, overall I score a measley 8 wins-4 draws-8 losses against 1800 players, but against 1900 players I have scored 8 wins- 0 draws - 1 loss. So I think it might just be 1900-2000 uscf players who are the noobs
Feb 14, 2014
0
#71
FirebrandX wrote:
Dodger111 wrote:
chessmicky wrote:
An 1800 player is around the 89% percentile of USCF rated players.
Yep. That means that among people that are serious enough about chess to study it, play in tournaments, and play 20+ tournament games to get a rating, they are better than 9 out of 10 of them.
I'd say that's a good, competant player. To a casual chess player (they know how the pieces move because they played in high school, etc) a Class A player would seem like some sort of chess genius.
I've had casual players think I must be a chess genius whenever I play them and crush them off the board. I tell them there are players that can easily beat me blindfolded, and they can't even fathom it.
I have only played blindfolded once. It was against a kid that took 2 or 3 lessons (but he only knew how to move the pieces and recitated some things about development, but he didn´t apply anything).
When I beat him his uncle told me: "you must have a very good memory to play like that".
I didn´t know how to explain that that´s not memory but visualization (but it was not difficult because the game was short like 15 moves).
Dodger111 wrote:
chessmicky wrote:
An 1800 player is around the 89% percentile of USCF rated players.
Yep. That means that among people that are serious enough about chess to study it, play in tournaments, and play 20+ tournament games to get a rating, they are better than 9 out of 10 of them.
I'd say that's a good, competant player. To a casual chess player (they know how the pieces move because they played in high school, etc) a Class A player would seem like some sort of chess genius.
Yeah, well known fact, every player who has played more than 20 tournament games is 1800.
1500 rated player: Noob or Strong ? Takes my self as your sample. May I indicated it. Check out my game as follows:
Ja.
Xieff wrote:
Is the average 1800 USCF strong and steady? Or pretty mistake prone.
mistake prone
varelse1 wrote:
1800's
Gods to beginners.
Ants to God.
1800s are ants gods, then you have the gods which are ants to Magnus
duck29 wrote:
1800= noob, levon aronian=noob, only magnus carlsen isnt a noob
This post wins
1800s are reasonably solid, but they will tactically crack sometimes, make oversights. And they're just not as good as people higher than them of course -- as for any rating. But yeah, I think 1800 is a great achievement, and they are capable of saying many wise words about the game. There is still some immaturity in their game but not too much; they have learned a lot. In other words I would definitely say they know what they are doing.
The better you get at chess, the more you realize how much separation and difference in skills there is between you and your opponent.
I'm only starting to appreciate how amazing IMs and GMs are at chess.
I can safely say, when I was 1200 in highschool, I could not even fathom what a GM thinks, or even a 2000 level player.
Many lower rated players alike can not imagine how GMs calculate or their thought process in general.
Another problem which I believe adds to the rating issue, is that easily 1/3 of the USCF members are under 18 and many drop of Chess before their 25th birthday, even if they are talented. Many under 1500 middle aged men drop out of tournaments altogether and are just happy to "push wood" at the local club. I hope my post adds a little something to this discussion.
The USCF rating graph is a double-bell shape. There are two peaks: one is near 1500, where Arpad Elo would have expected it; the other is below 1000 and is caused by the large number of young players.
I know a chess.com member who has played in one or two USCF rated events in the past two years after twenty years away. His USCF rating is near 1600, but his correspondence rating is 2300+. In his last USCF event where I saw him, he played without a loss, but had draws against B Class players. He is near your age.