Help me stereotype Chess players according to their rating.

How can people only be ABOVE AVERAGE when 2000 and above. THE AVERAGE player is around 1400-1600 tops, and Im only talking average regular chess site player, if we are taling across the whole population of the world above average would probably be 1000. If you have a higher rating than 51% of the players in a chess site you are aboe average. If you have a rating that puts you in the top 10%, lie a 1700-1800 does then you are already way ABOVE AVERAGE. 

Nice

I'm a kid! I'm 1700!!

avergae or newly registered soudns about right

De 0 a 1000 principiante

1000 a 1200 jugador con muchas partidas aunque sin conceptos básicos

1300 a 1500 jugador que maneja algunos conceptos aunque no tiene conocimientos sólidos

1500 a 1700 jugador que maneja algunas aperturas y sabe algo de teoría, aunque muestra solidez en algunas partidas comete errores en otras 

1700 a 1900 jugador que tiene cierto dominio sobre varias aperturas, finales de partidas y no comete errores básicos

1900 a 2100 jugador con manejo de aperturas y finales y nivel de abstracción para anticiparse a varias jugadas

2200 a 2500 jugador experto que conoce la teoría, aperturas, defensas, medio juego, finales, y otros aspectos, su abstracción y concentración son importantes aunque no las puede mantener a lo largo de algunas partidas y torneos

2600 a 2800 jugador que domina la teoría en casi todos sus aspectos, generalmente no comete errores. Alto nivel de abstracción y concentración.

2800+ jugador experto que hace del juego un arte, su juego está cerca de la perfección, y varias de sus partidas son de enseñanza para los demás.

GM's
It's move 98 and I have 1 pawn up on you in a pawn bishop knight king vs pawn bishop knight king rook endgame. I've already won.

599 or less: here lemme hang my queen on move 3 lol

600 - 800: either they're really not that good at the game, or they're borderline genius but play like they're joking around - could still probably cook most of their friends, but generally make stupid one-move blunders and get smoked.

Stereotype: "my queen is gone, time to resign"

800 - 1000: same as before but slightly more consistent - will USUALLY spot a three-move win but it depends on the day

Stereotype: "ding dong it's london time"

1000 - 1300: consistently mediocre or inconsistently godlike, no inbetween - definitely spots m2 and m1 if they're focusing regardless of who

Stereotype: "dA sIsHiLlIeN iSh ShO sHtRoNg"

1300 - 1500: Pretty consistent, and really good at what they do - the basics have become like childsplay and advanced tactics are in the mix

Stereotype: "oh no my piece - get FRIIIIIIICKEDDDD"

1500 - 1700: Usually don't make more than a slight tactical miscalculation amidst beating your behind

Stereotype: dunno

1700 - 1900: 90% perfect or better, the worst mistake they make is not finding the BEST of the best ideas. PLENTY of advanced tactical awareness - could probably spot a M7 with a three move chess vision drill 

Stereotype: uhhhhhhh

2000+: 100% perfect and you'll get 1000% destroyed to prove it. The only people who find better tactics than they do are they themselves. 

Stereotype: See Hikaru

i feel so dumb im 600 and 14 ig im just low iq

I wrote a blog on this where i compare ratings to something more relatable:

https://www.chess.com/blog/foobarred1/playing-at-50-part-i-how-good-can-i-get

Farfous1 your post really annoys me. 

"When I play 1700-1900 players, they tend to drop pawns and pieces like confetti."

Probably because you put them in tough positions. When an 1800 plays against a 1000 he probably won't drop anything. 

Do you think a kid can get above 1700? Just asking

People who say that everything below 2000 is a beginner is the same people that has less than 2000. Chess.com average rating is 800, so that means that only 2% of the more than 90 million site players are not beginners?

i agree with the last person who posted/did research on the stuff last year and found that the average uscf rating is right around 750. the average among active players is higher sitting around 1000 and what you would see on average in an adult club tournament might be around 1500, but across the board in terms of whose ever played rated the average is there. and that matches pretty close with chess.com average also. if you're up at that you're doing a pretty good job already i'd argue and can beat probably most folks that are beginners and social players and are already an average level player. while everyone else above you is intermediate, advanced intermediate, advanced or expert/master level. i'm at about 1700/on this site am ranked in the 99th percentile and in uscf from research i've done i know if i played otb and hit that, that i'd be in at least the 95th percentile of people who've played uscf all time if not higher because i'm already at the 87th at 1400. the uscf gives rankings on profile pages but it's only taking into account active members and not everyone who's ever played so if you're using that for your numbers you're definitely going to be wrong lol because it's not taking into account non active members' ratings. you can find those via the top players by state index/they've got rating distributions for most of the ratings and with some number crunching you can figure out where you're at. i did some on my blog/if your curious come check it out but ya 750 lol/most of us reading this are probably already there. a lot of people unfortunately quit because the mentality by too many high level folks is that if you're not up to x (usually their rating) you're not good when the truth is far from that.

wow i am real sucky then

Pawn up minor piece endgames are often winnable by people 1300 OTB... you think this is GM level stuff?  lol.

My subjective take on it (some mix of chess.com rapid and blitz ratings in mind while writing this... in other words the last level listed is around 2200 OTB):

Below 600
Still difficult to visualize how all the pieces move, so they can only check if a move is safe from a few different pieces... so they might move a queen right in front of a pawn that can capture it because they didn't happen to check that pawn... then the opponent might not capture the queen because they didn't look at that pawn either.

600-900
Can easily see how the pieces move and so they can start consistently incorporating basic knowledge like developing the pieces and castling (players below this usually think they're developing, but only do it 2-3 move then give up and attack).

900-1200
Basics like how the pieces move and castling are well known. Players can't win by waiting for opponents to sacrifice piece after piece, so now players move on to winning material with basic tactics like forks and pins. Of course players below this level can fork and pin, but tactics aren't the primary way they win material.

1200-1500
1-2 move basic tactics are pretty much always seen, so now players work on seeing harder tactics. More emphasis on positional ideas like rooks on open files and knights on outposts since active pieces are needed to generate these tactics. Of course players below this level can put a rook on an open file, but 1200-1500 is building up more. First building up some activity, and then looking for tactics.

1500-1900
Players aren't giving away material to simple common tactics anymore, so players have to start incorporating some long term strategy. By strategy I mostly mean after building up some activity, they go for a reasonable pawn break. Below this level players think they're making a plan, but usually plans change every 2-3 moves. 

I made this range the widest... there's also a lot of tactical improvement during this time.

1900-2100
Simple plans like "I should attack on the kingside" are correctly identified and pursued for 10s of moves, so now players move on to connecting opening moves to more specific middlegame ideas. So this is where you stop seeing the "I always go for this 1 pawn break" or "I always attack the king with the same type of attack" players. Also players start connecting late-middlegame decisions to basic endgames.

2100-2400
A game can make sense from start to finish, but only with the most basic and straightforward ideas, so now players need less linear tactics and strategic choices. For tactics, players are more aware of in between moves, and start being flexible enough with strategies to (correctly) change from one idea to another during the game.

2400-2700
I'm not rated this high, but my impression is now that players are familiar with basically "correct" chess, it's time to start learning how to break some of the rules... so instead of following basic rules, players are trying to understand the specific position in front of them, which may call for hurting your structure, weakening your king, etc. because it's ok in that specific position... obviously players below this level can try to get creative too, but the difference is below this level blindly following rules of thumb will lead to better results.

Obviously at each level, everything is a little better: tactics, strategy, opening knowledge, endgames, calculation, etc... and obviously older players who are in decline don't lose that knowledge, they lose stamina or their ability to calculate well... and kids who improve quickly may be lagging in their understanding but make up for it with calculation and stamina... so each player is different, and again, this is my subjective point of view.

never give up!

383: Sarcastic smart aleck.

1000 A KID??? WHAT? THATS ABOVE AVERAGE