Forums

after 1330 games, is it normal to still be slightly over 1,000 rated only?

Sort:
Ziryab
blueemu wrote:
Ziryab wrote:

You must be really old.

My grandfather was a Cro-Magnon.

Actually, I was born in 1956.

Cro-Magnon is rare. Most people outside sub-Saharan Africa are descended from Neanderthals.

I’m four years younger.

mpmpmkipbjmobjn

No, you should be a lot higher than that really

mpmpmkipbjmobjn
KeSetoKaiba wrote: nicklausthebear wrote:

i play 10 min rapid only

The average chess rating is below 1000 rating, so you are already above average, but if you want to gain more chess rating than 1000, it will take absorbing the right information.

The problem with this is that the average rating takes everyone into account. It's like a discussion me and some friends had about money a few years ago. At the time, I would've easily been in the top 5% of the world in terms of wealth when I only had a few thousand pounds to my name if we include literally everyone from the billionaires and CEOs to children and those living in mud huts in third world countries. However, once you start weeding out people like the homeless, the unemployed, those on benefits, etc etc then that top 5% percentile starts to go down to something less impressive.

Same with average chess rating. It could say you're in the top 10%... if we include the new beginners. those who don't care for improving, those who are just no good and have no business playing chess. Take those out of the equation and you're in a much lower percentile because measuring by the average rating has no context behind it. It's a useless metric.

Ziryab

Children growing up in mud huts is an apt comparison to the vast majority of woodpushers on this site.