Compared to a grandmaster or computer, they're terrible. For 99% of the population, they're indistinguishable from a master.
Really, 1800 is pretty strong. They have pretty good tactics, a positional understanding that lets them develop sensible plans, and decent endgames. They still make mistakes in all phases of the game, every game, but I think it's fair to say that 1800 is a strong player.
Cool. So just play 99.9% solid and wait for him/her to make a mistake? That is probably the best strategy. :) I love being creative in games. It is so exciting!
People even above that can make stupid mistakes or even misplay an opening. Smirnov showed a video of a 2100 player going for a premature attack with a queen and pawns and all he did was weaken his own king's pawn shield. White, presumably around the same rating also missed a winning tactic involving a line clearence and then another for substitution. A pawn, knight and bishop for the queen wouldn't be too shabby. Still, white won and never really lost a clear advantage.
1800 is a pretty strong amateur player in my eyes.
Here's a game that a class A lost:
both. it depends
Completely a matter of perspective.
1800 USCF is close to the 90th percentile among all USCF players. That translates to the 94th-96th percentile on this chess site (which may be a better reflection of "all chess players", and clearly contrary to richie_and_oprah's claim in post 5).
USCF and others call Class A players "strong club players." Outside of major metropolitan areas, a player of this strength is likely stronger than all of his or her neighbors. In my county of 500,000 people, the strongest players are in the 1900s. There are six active players who have been over 1900 in the past six months and three more who are near 1800.
A Class is far below Master, and most players who make it to A Class never make it the next step up to Expert (or Candidate Master).
A Class players are strong tactically and positionally. The usually have strengths in the opening middlegame, and endgame. However, they make errors--sometimes terrible blunders--and they have much to learn if they hope to play at master level.
Xieff, in your state, an 1800 rating puts you at about #157 of current USCF members. Depending on the county in which a person lived, it could be statistically likely that they are the strongest USCF member in their county.
1800 USCF is close to the 90th percentile among all USCF players. That translates to the 94th-96th percentile on this chess site (which may be a better reflection of "all chess players", and clearly contrary to richie_and_oprah's claim in post 5).
USCF and others call Class A players "strong club players." Outside of major metropolitan areas, a player of this strength is likely stronger than all of his or her neighbors. In my county of 500,000 people, the strongest players are in the 1900s. There are six active players who have been over 1900 in the past six months and three more who are near 1800.
A Class is far below Master, and most players who make it to A Class never make it the next step up to Expert (or Candidate Master).
A Class players are strong tactically and positionally. The usually have strengths in the opening middlegame, and endgame. However, they make errors--sometimes terrible blunders--and they have much to learn if they hope to play at master level.
A couple of flaws in your logic. First off, the United States is weaker than many other countries (Russia, India, etc). So their statement of 1800 being 80th percentile might be accurate (haven't checked) when you talk "FIDE" 1800.
Secondly, ratings on here mean nothing. Everyone starts at 1200, which drags the numbers down as the "average" rating here is therefor somewhere near 1200 (probably not "exactly" 1200 because of provisional settings) whereas say, the USCF, is around 1400 to 1500. In addition, bad connections, rapid time controls, no delay or increment, and effort put in, also equate to lower ratings on here than Over the Board. On the flip side, computer cheaters will have a significant higher rating here. So Chess.com ratings literally don't mean a hill of beans.
As for making Expert after class A. I reached expert for the first time in 2001, and maintained it steadily from 2004 onward. I reached class A in 1998 and stablized in 1999. So going from A to Expert is not a huge chore. Expert to Master? Whole different story. I hit 2100 for the first time in 2013, so it's taking far longer.
1800= noob, levon aronian=noob, only magnus carlsen isnt a noob
1800 USCF is close to the 90th percentile among all USCF players. That translates to the 94th-96th percentile on this chess site (which may be a better reflection of "all chess players", and clearly contrary to richie_and_oprah's claim in post 5).
USCF and others call Class A players "strong club players." Outside of major metropolitan areas, a player of this strength is likely stronger than all of his or her neighbors. In my county of 500,000 people, the strongest players are in the 1900s. There are six active players who have been over 1900 in the past six months and three more who are near 1800.
A Class is far below Master, and most players who make it to A Class never make it the next step up to Expert (or Candidate Master).
A Class players are strong tactically and positionally. The usually have strengths in the opening middlegame, and endgame. However, they make errors--sometimes terrible blunders--and they have much to learn if they hope to play at master level.
A couple of flaws in your logic. First off, the United States is weaker than many other countries (Russia, India, etc). So their statement of 1800 being 80th percentile might be accurate (haven't checked) when you talk "FIDE" 1800.
Secondly, ratings on here mean nothing. Everyone starts at 1200, which drags the numbers down as the "average" rating here is therefor somewhere near 1200 (probably not "exactly" 1200 because of provisional settings) whereas say, the USCF, is around 1400 to 1500. In addition, bad connections, rapid time controls, no delay or increment, and effort put in, also equate to lower ratings on here than Over the Board. On the flip side, computer cheaters will have a significant higher rating here. So Chess.com ratings literally don't mean a hill of beans.
As for making Expert after class A. I reached expert for the first time in 2001, and maintained it steadily from 2004 onward. I reached class A in 1998 and stablized in 1999. So going from A to Expert is not a huge chore. Expert to Master? Whole different story. I hit 2100 for the first time in 2013, so it's taking far longer.
Ratings on here do mean something. They don't mean the same thing as USCF or FIDE ratings but they do mean something. Duh!
1800 USCF is close to the 90th percentile among all USCF players. That translates to the 94th-96th percentile on this chess site (which may be a better reflection of "all chess players", and clearly contrary to richie_and_oprah's claim in post 5).
USCF and others call Class A players "strong club players." Outside of major metropolitan areas, a player of this strength is likely stronger than all of his or her neighbors. In my county of 500,000 people, the strongest players are in the 1900s. There are six active players who have been over 1900 in the past six months and three more who are near 1800.
A Class is far below Master, and most players who make it to A Class never make it the next step up to Expert (or Candidate Master).
A Class players are strong tactically and positionally. The usually have strengths in the opening middlegame, and endgame. However, they make errors--sometimes terrible blunders--and they have much to learn if they hope to play at master level.
A couple of flaws in your logic. First off, the United States is weaker than many other countries (Russia, India, etc). So their statement of 1800 being 80th percentile might be accurate (haven't checked) when you talk "FIDE" 1800.
Secondly, ratings on here mean nothing. Everyone starts at 1200, which drags the numbers down as the "average" rating here is therefor somewhere near 1200 (probably not "exactly" 1200 because of provisional settings) whereas say, the USCF, is around 1400 to 1500. In addition, bad connections, rapid time controls, no delay or increment, and effort put in, also equate to lower ratings on here than Over the Board. On the flip side, computer cheaters will have a significant higher rating here. So Chess.com ratings literally don't mean a hill of beans.
As for making Expert after class A. I reached expert for the first time in 2001, and maintained it steadily from 2004 onward. I reached class A in 1998 and stablized in 1999. So going from A to Expert is not a huge chore. Expert to Master? Whole different story. I hit 2100 for the first time in 2013, so it's taking far longer.
Do you have a copy of Informant's 1000 Best Games? I hear it's great for going from expert to master. Also, ECE might help too for a couple reasons:
1.You are good enough where you don't need annotations, and can figure out why a variation is good for a certain side on your own. This is why ECE (new editions come out this month I read) is bad for players below Class A (I think?), since there's no text to explain why a move is good. Understanding comes first, burning patterns into your mind second.
2.You improve your memory. Experts calculate more than any other group, masters and above have to think less often as they run into more positions familiar to them (Edited out more familiar since it looks odd and might not be read as intended). This is where ECE comes in, you'll have more posititions memorized than you'll ever need!
As for the annotated game collection it'll largely help your thinking process. It will be a lot of work, but you can make it!
Right now I'm doing a month of Marcozy structures, particularly fighting against them as black. They can prop up at any time and give you a headache, such as 1.c4,e5 2.e4 and as black especially with my e-pawn commited (no e6-d5 break available), but that's for another thread.
1800 USCF is close to the 90th percentile among all USCF players. That translates to the 94th-96th percentile on this chess site (which may be a better reflection of "all chess players", and clearly contrary to richie_and_oprah's claim in post 5).
USCF and others call Class A players "strong club players." Outside of major metropolitan areas, a player of this strength is likely stronger than all of his or her neighbors. In my county of 500,000 people, the strongest players are in the 1900s. There are six active players who have been over 1900 in the past six months and three more who are near 1800.
A Class is far below Master, and most players who make it to A Class never make it the next step up to Expert (or Candidate Master).
A Class players are strong tactically and positionally. The usually have strengths in the opening middlegame, and endgame. However, they make errors--sometimes terrible blunders--and they have much to learn if they hope to play at master level.
A couple of flaws in your logic. First off, the United States is weaker than many other countries (Russia, India, etc). So their statement of 1800 being 80th percentile might be accurate (haven't checked) when you talk "FIDE" 1800.
Secondly, ratings on here mean nothing. Everyone starts at 1200, which drags the numbers down as the "average" rating here is therefor somewhere near 1200 (probably not "exactly" 1200 because of provisional settings) whereas say, the USCF, is around 1400 to 1500. In addition, bad connections, rapid time controls, no delay or increment, and effort put in, also equate to lower ratings on here than Over the Board. On the flip side, computer cheaters will have a significant higher rating here. So Chess.com ratings literally don't mean a hill of beans.
As for making Expert after class A. I reached expert for the first time in 2001, and maintained it steadily from 2004 onward. I reached class A in 1998 and stablized in 1999. So going from A to Expert is not a huge chore. Expert to Master? Whole different story. I hit 2100 for the first time in 2013, so it's taking far longer.
You did not point out flaws in logic, although you did add an important perspective.
That US players on average are weaker than players in Europe is well established. However, active tournament players are a small subset of all players. My "logic" was not stated, but was this: that subset culls more from the strong than the weak. The lower commitment level of a chess site attracts a more representative pool.
My percentile rank in several pools may be relevant:
My state (Washington): 85
My nation (USCF): 92.5
Live Chess.com: 96.7 (after a 100 point drop last week)
Correspondence Chess.com: 99.7*
From this limited data, I might assert that my state is stronger than the world as a whole. I did not make this assertion. Moreover, I know it to be false.
I did assert that an 1800 USCF player would be in the top 95% on this site. When I reached USCF 1800 at the young and tender age of 49, all of my ratings on Chess.com were in the top 3%. Since then, I have improved my correspondence rating while playing more sloppily in blitz. Although I have not gathered the data, I am confident that a survey of all 1800+ USCF players would demonstrate that the vast majority are in the top 5% in all rating categories on this site.
If there is a better reprensentative sample of all chess players globally, by all means point to it.
It is not FIDE, which would not even rate players below 2000 until a few years ago.
At every rating level above the average, there is a diminishing number who achieve the next level. Most B players do not make A; most A do not make expert; most experts do not make master; most masters do not make FIDE Master; most FIDE Masters do not make International Master; most International Masters do not make Grandmaster; most Grandmasters do not become World Champion.
This is elementary statistics; where's the logical flaw?
*98-98.5 has been typical, but this summer and fall I have played some of my best games ever, and then won some games on time-out. This rating will likely drop over the next few months.
1800 is noob to the strong and strong to the noob!
Is the average 1800 USCF strong and steady? Or pretty mistake prone.
Everyone makes mistakes, just different kinds. To a noob an 1800 makes zero mistakes and to a GM an 1800 makes constant mistakes.
When I was ~1500 strength a new guy, novice player, game to our club and played me. After 3 games he commented, wow, zero mistakes, I can't beat you. Of course I made mistakes, but what he meant was I didn't give up my pieces for free.
After a round at a tournament I walked outside the playing hall and saw one master showing another master his game from the last round where he faced a B class player. He was laughing as he said "and after all those mistakes he has a long think here and manages to find the worst move in the position! Bwhahahahaha!"
It's all a matter of perspective.
Gods to mortals.
Mere ants to God.
1800 is noob to the strong and strong to the noob!
Had to share that chiasmus on FB!
1800 USCF is close to the 90th percentile among all USCF players. That translates to the 94th-96th percentile on this chess site (which may be a better reflection of "all chess players", and clearly contrary to richie_and_oprah's claim in post 5).
USCF and others call Class A players "strong club players." Outside of major metropolitan areas, a player of this strength is likely stronger than all of his or her neighbors. In my county of 500,000 people, the strongest players are in the 1900s. There are six active players who have been over 1900 in the past six months and three more who are near 1800.
A Class is far below Master, and most players who make it to A Class never make it the next step up to Expert (or Candidate Master).
A Class players are strong tactically and positionally. The usually have strengths in the opening middlegame, and endgame. However, they make errors--sometimes terrible blunders--and they have much to learn if they hope to play at master level.
A couple of flaws in your logic. First off, the United States is weaker than many other countries (Russia, India, etc). So their statement of 1800 being 80th percentile might be accurate (haven't checked) when you talk "FIDE" 1800.
Secondly, ratings on here mean nothing. Everyone starts at 1200, which drags the numbers down as the "average" rating here is therefor somewhere near 1200 (probably not "exactly" 1200 because of provisional settings) whereas say, the USCF, is around 1400 to 1500. In addition, bad connections, rapid time controls, no delay or increment, and effort put in, also equate to lower ratings on here than Over the Board. On the flip side, computer cheaters will have a significant higher rating here. So Chess.com ratings literally don't mean a hill of beans.
As for making Expert after class A. I reached expert for the first time in 2001, and maintained it steadily from 2004 onward. I reached class A in 1998 and stablized in 1999. So going from A to Expert is not a huge chore. Expert to Master? Whole different story. I hit 2100 for the first time in 2013, so it's taking far longer.
Ratings on here do mean something. They don't mean the same thing as USCF or FIDE ratings but they do mean something. Duh!
Yeah, they mean you have a better internet connection, faster fingers with the mouse, and can calculate 2 move combinations quick.
Whoop-di-f'ing-do-dah!
People even above that can make stupid mistakes or even misplay an opening. Smirnov showed a video of a 2100 player going for a premature attack with a queen and pawns and all he did was weaken his own king's pawn shield. White, presumably around the same rating also missed a winning tactic involving a line clearence and then another for substitution. A pawn, knight and bishop for the queen wouldn't be too shabby. Still, white won and never really lost a clear advantage.
I saw a 2150 hang a piece and the game to a very simple knight fork in a Q+R vs. Q+N endgame in a rated G/65 with plenty of time this weekend. Everyone blunders :)
Is the average 1800 USCF strong and steady? Or pretty mistake prone.