At what point can you consider yourself a "chess expert"

Some could have been play chess all they life with their friends, but never take part to a tournament. They could be chess expert even if they don't have any FIDE ELO what ever number. Suppose, that guy, who has Einstein's brain has a hobby of chess with his friend who has brains like Gaus did: they could have been best chess player ever on this planet.

Einstein was actually a poor chess player .  

For someone who never really pursued chess beyond a hobby level, I'd say he was pretty decent:

Interesting question.When I was 1500,i used to consider the 2000's as Experts.Now that I'm 2000 myself I feel that the 2200+'s are experts.But generally i think anyone with a FIDE/USCF rating of 2200 and above is definitely an expert.

I agree for the most part, but a player who gets a 2200+ standard rating legitimately (I guess that's the key word) is probably fairly "expert." I guess each person knows for themselves if they are cheating, and of course the rating online in general can be suspect, but I think the original poster was asking regarding his own rating - assuming he's not cheating.

All this being said, I also agree that OTB ratings are the "final word" on these things.

of course you would have won it. what i meant of course is that you claimed you won it. that wrong use of language happened due to a confusion of german and english grammar rules. what i dont quite understand is why you dont play with an increment. the only difference it makes is deleting the win on time in a worse position factor. or do you see another one? 2/2, 3/1 or 3/2 should suit you. and in order to prevent an assumed wrong objection: does a flag make a difference to a win on time in a lost position where you just make random moves because there arent any good ones? i really dont see why you dont play with an increment? the games dont even last longer because lost positions get resigned immediately. maybe because you like the win on time factor? and if you at first decline a draw in a drawn position in hopes  i blunder of course you must be punished. and to your arrogance i have to say: look at the rating difference. thats a better reflection than a current moment of mental state.

I didn't decline a draw you idiot.  I offered the draw and you declined it.  I beat you 7-5, but with that game it should have been 8-4.  Either way I crushed you.  Rating fluctuate.  I have been anywhere between 1900 and 2100 over the last two months.  If you feel you are so much stronger than me then put out a better performance than 4-8 against me.  If you want to play me again I would be happy to rematch you because beating you was pretty easy. 

@PGJS-It was one Blitz game.Just move on already.

at first i did offer a draw, when you were up only one pawn in a position which was theoretically drawn. it only turned into a winning position for you because of a bad blunder or even a mouseslip. i am not sure about that. couple moves later after we reached the turning point you realised that you were completely down on time and offered a draw, which i declined only because you tried to somehow trick me in drawn position or hoped for a blunder. of course rating fluctuates. but how can you say the rating fluctuates whilst saying one match represents your general chess ability. you should be able to see that that is a contradiction. 

so why are you telling me you won that match. if theres a rating fluctuation it cant say much. 

There's still time! :D