Heh, I used to think to myself "a USCF 500 rating? Such a person does not exist" So I'm glad someone agrees. An absolute beginner may be below USCF 1000, but not much.
Are Scholastic Ratings Way Out of Line?
Sort:
Most Recent
Forum Legend
Following
New Comments
Locked Topic
Pinned Topic
Both of @Jpostuma's examples involved kids rated around 1000, which is a perfectly reasonable place for any beginner to start. So we basically agree with each other.
[Stated Again] It's the 100 to 1000 rating range, with no requirement for taking game notation, that plays havoc with the USCF rating system.
When I tell my 3 nephews (ages 8-10) I occassionally get beat by 10 year olds rated @1300, they are inspired, and want to go over the game with me.
Everyone gets a good laugh out of it. Myself included.
And that opponent, as often as not, shows up as a 1700-1800 rated about 6-9 months later. That's fine with me. That's how the system should work.
Ratings under 1000 are a dream world. Get rid of them.