1800s(USCF) Noob or strong?

HEY!! LOOK WHAT LOSER IS BACK!!!

Welcome back Halamede-von-bonehead!!!

Where's your pretty diamond?

Browne Quinterso(NN

it's far from noob/is potent and in the top 3-4 percent of all time uscf players. the current active members percentiles don't mean much i'd argue compared to the historic ones in terms of how high up someone is compared to the rest of the population/people who've ever played uscf. i did a study on it that's up on my blog and the average uscf rating all time is around 750, while 1400 is right around the 90th percentile, so 1800 is whistle /definitely a huge accomplishment and honestly if you're at or above 750 you're doing pretty dang good/can beat most of the rest of the population. it's only noob to masters who are comparing their play then to their play currently. but that's masters and less than 1/2 percent of players if that ever get that high.

https://www.chess.com/blog/KGreenGator/uscf-rating-study-average-otb-regular-rating-average-otb-regular-rating-by-state-d 

https://www.chess.com/blog/KGreenGator/uscf-otb-online-rating-averages-rating-pools-as-of-december-2021

https://www.chess.com/blog/KGreenGator/my-uscf-rating-chart-based-on-my-xp-in-my-xp-more-accurate-then-the-popularized-one 

https://www.chess.com/blog/kgreengator

1800 USCF (or about 1700 FIDE) is a decent club player. Not a noob, but far from being strong.

This is a quite hard question to answer. Before answering I would in my turn ask: "who is this player?". You may find a 1800 Elo player who is just 10 years old, and whose rating is skyrocketing and becomes GM in 4-5 years. But you may find also an elder player, maybe a FM or an IM, who reached 2300-2400 at the top of his/her career, and whose rating is dramatically dropping in the last years. For instance, GM Mihai Suba was a very strong GM in the 1980s, now is just 1946 Elo points. Thus you cannot say that 1800 is a rating of a "weak" player. Basically, a 1800 Elo is considered the rating of an "expert", a good player of a chess club. You may say that a "weak" player is someone who, after several years, of tournament games is sticking around 1500-1600 Elo points, and unable to progress.

That is a rating of an advanced player. So for me it's strong enough. And even more so if he has federated certification.

@Jenium Again I repeat: who is the player we speak of? Alireza Firouzja had a FIDE rating of 1734, when he was 10 years old. Then, 7-8 years after is now one of the strongest players in the world. How can you say that he was "far from being strong" just because he had a low rating???

I can find you DOZENS of young players who - at 10-12 years with 1700-1800 points - can beat even FIDE MASTERS AND INTERNATIONAL MASTERS. Please, remember; ELO/rating means nothing, you can say that a player is strong or not AFTER 4-5 years of tournament activity.

any player in 4 digits uscf or fide is going to clean the clocks of the unrated person that's sat down at the table against them probably. and anybody who's played only a couple games and thinks they won't is in for a rude awakening arguably.

and against a 1200+er even more so.

1000 is arguably intermediate, while 1600 is arguably advanced, and strong. and only players higher than that (experts, masters) are going to say that they're not sometimes because they can take down some pretty dang high level folks sometimes/consistently are going to beat 97-98 percent of people roughly arguably based on chess.com percentiles.

and probably 92-95 percent of the people with a uscf rating based on the all time database of ratings.

idk but i'd argue 1400 or 1500 is arguably beginning to be advanced too and not just upper intermediate/ the percentiles would arguably back that up.

and 1600's arguably aren't weak nor or anybody with a 4 digit number. if they are under 750 then maybe you could argue that because that's the average in uscf and 650 on here but, arguably they're just beginners/novices then and not "weak".

and why call them that if they still are pretty dang good at that level. like in scholastic or any level watch out for 600's lol because they're yep, likely to be at the top or near the top of the middle school club unless there's ringers in there because it's big enough and depending on the player be (whistle) to beat even once one gets up to 800 or 900. in time not so much maybe but it takes time/lot of effort/work to get there and most people don't put in that time or play 100 games yet alone the couple thousand it takes to usually get up to about 800 or 900 consistently.

Solid/decent

Sorry, I don't get your argument. A 3 year old kid who is 1700 has the potential to be the world champion one day, but he/she is still not a very strong player (yet) and weaker than a 60 year old who is 1900.

Join This Club To Have Fun, Meet New People, Talk, And More Trust Me It Will Be Fun!!!

[advertising not allowed -- MS]

@Jenium You clearly have no clue of what is taking place in chess tournaments. I can find you 10-12 year old kids, having just 1700 Elo who are crushing 90% of 60 year old players having just 1900 Elo. Please, take any tables showing chess results of any tournaments you want. I can show you what happened a few days ago here in Italy, at Arco chess open tournaments. A 8 year old little boy from Singapore, whose name is ASHWATH and having just 1714 Elo performed 5 1/2 out of 9 and defeated elder players like Cardili (born in 1961, Elo 2008; Fuochi (born in 1994, Elo 2007); Bellincampi (born in 1966, Elo 1980); Leoni (born in 1958; Elo 1950). All the elder players had been literally crushed by a 8 year old little boy, having 250-300 points less than them. And this is happening almost any time: the elder player is normally crushed by younger players. Thus a strong 1700/1800 very young player (say 10-12 year old) is potentially able to defeat MANY elder players, and his/her real strength is at least 400 Elo points more.

What's your point? Of course players can be over- or underrated. That doesn't mean that 1700 in general is the rating of a strong player. It only means that people's rating can be inaccurate, for example when kids improve faster than they play, or when older dudes sit on their past ratings without playing much.

Now, I have to quote you: You clearly have no clue of what is taking place in chess tournaments. Why don't you make a poll and ask a few tournament players if ELO rating matters?

@Jenium Please, let's stop this conversation. I DID NOT say that Elo rating ALWAYS does not matter. I said that for young kids (10-12 year old), having 1700-1800 points, it does not matter, they can beat even players having 300-400 points more than them. Obviously, if you take a 2500-2600 GM versus a young kid, the latter is defeated 99%. However I'n not interested to discuss with people like you, who don't admit their mistakes. You wrote: "1800 USCF (or about 1700 FIDE) is a decent club player. Not a noob, but far from being strong." WRONG! There are young kids whose real rating is at least 300-400 points more than 1700. You wrote also about the "3 year old kid" and that's really ridicolous. Where are 3 year old kids having 1700 Elo rating? Please I cannot waste my time with you.

I think @Jenium you are wrong here. As age grows, their skill decreases. I have seen multiple 2000s who came down to 1600s in their old age. A kid will most of the time overpower the old man due to sharper vision.

I agree that it's pointless discussing with you... So I will refrain from pointing to the obvious flaws of your "arguments". For some reason, that's an emotional topic for you. Feel free to come back when you are willing to discuss the issue in a rational manner.

I don't see a contradiction to what I said. He/she might be overrated for a while. But eventually, after enough games the old 2000 player, who plays like a 1600 player, would lose his rating and end up with a rating of 1600...

I guess that totally depends on the kid. There are kids who are GMs and kids who fall for the scholars mate.

@jenium

It seems to me that talking to you is like talking to Arthur Fonzarelli (Fonzie), the character of the sitcom “Happy Days” in 1970s, who was uncapable of saying “I’m wrong”.

You don’t want to admit that a kid whose underrated rating – when he/she is 9-10 year old – is 1700-1800 is a very strong player, and the actual rating should be al least 2100-2200, a master level. Kids "who fall for the scholars mate" DON'T HAVE 1700-1800 POINTS!

You may twist the point as you want, but it is very clear.

It is sufficient to show you the ratings of the first 7 juniors on top of FIDE rating list, and compare them with their Elo when they were 9 year old:

1) Firouzja (2777) – 9 = 1750 , only 3 years later: 2455 (IM)

2) Gukesh (2758) – 9 . = 1752, only 3 years later: 2433 (IM)

3) Praggnandha (2738) – 9 . = 1836, only 3 years later: 2447 (IM)

4) Keimer (2717) – 9 . = 1861, only 3 years later: 2341 (FM)

5) Abdusattorov (2716) – 9 . = 1915, only 3 years later: 2428 (IM)

6) Erigaisi (2712) – 9 . = 1731, only 4 years later: 2379 (FM)

7) Nihal (2694) – 9 . = 1725, only 3 years later: 2351 (FM)

Someone might raise the objection that those above are the strongest juniors of the world, on top of the rating list.

But you ALWAYS find the same trend, even with players at the bottom of the list.

If we take the number 100 of the list: Mardov, we find that when he was 10 . his FIDE rating was 1714. Then, only 3 years later, his rating jumped to 2414 (IM).

This is a very common trend, and you cannot deny it.

If a kid is around 1700-1800 points when he/she 10-12 years, then you can almost mathematically predict that 99% he/she will become at least a FIDE master, or an International master, and even a grandmaster, in a few years.