how good is 2200 elo chess player

Although I'm no cognitive scientist, I feel it must be approximately exponential.

I'm basing that on hearing that chess players, from beginner to pro, become better based on the acquisition of "chunks". Presumably, to be able to defeat a player of a particular strength by a particular percentage, you need to acquire a set number of chunks.

Assuming there's some finite population of useful chunks, as you improve, there's a diminishing number of easy to find chunks you have not yet acquired. If you simplify this a lot, conceptually, it becomes similar to a radioactive decay curve, where each atom is a chunk. Such a curve is logarithmic, which means that the amount of time taken for a given amount of material to decay (or effort and time required to acquire more chunks) is exponential.

If these assumptions are true, then Elo rating is arguably exponential with respect to amount of time, work, or talent required.

1200 elo in disguise

Not very good.

on this, site, 2200 isn't good at all. they hang their pieces so often

On a scale from 100 to infinity I'd say they're about 2200. So 200 points higher than 2000.

Mostly just hanging less pieces and taking them for free

Bruh you are a coach and also even if you are 2777 elo doesn't mean 2200 elo isn't good. 2200 is like top 0.2% of players on chess.com

we get it u are cool

this site is full of bad bots who lose on purpose designed to make people feel better about themselves. go play otb against a 2200 and you'll see a big difference in skill level.

Your forgetting 2200s also get tunnel vision:/ it's why we aren't very good in the first place occasionally the tunnel vision is worse than 600s people are people that means we play bad sometimes

I'd say they're roughly 2200ish level. I hope that helps.

I'm in the percentil 99,9% in Chess.com, so it can't be really bad. Anyway this is nothing to compare with an International Master, Grand Master, or a top engine.

I can win a game to an IM in a simul if I am lucky, I can win to a GM if he is really drunk. My chances to win a game to a top engine are equal to zero.

Now you can set an engine to 2200 Elo and make it play to another (or the same) set to 2700 Elo (Grand Master), or to 2000, and see how the thing go over the virtual board.

The Elo is not exponential or proportional, it is a rating in the kind of the IQ. An interval scale. This means a 2200 is expected to win to a 2000 "as easily" as a 2400 is expected to win to a 2200.

If you’re talking about FIDE ELO, that’s a candidate master (CM). However, this website’s ELO can vary significantly of how players play, even though they have the same ELO, some 2200 rated players here can be attempted canditate-or FIDE masters.

I view each 100 points as approximately one pawn worth of material strength.

So a 2200 vs. a 2100 should (in theory) reach a point in the game where the 2200 is winning by about a pawn - assuming both players are accurately rated.

Until you get those annoying playstyles that is ... Some 2200s-2400s are pain for higher rated players

Online ratings are not as reliable as OTB ratings. So predictions based on online rating differences are not very accurate.

In OTB ratings, a difference of 200 points means that the higher rated player is expected to win about 75 percent of the games. A difference of 100 points means that the higher player should win about 63 percent of the time.

To go back to the original question, a 2200 beats a 2000 player 3 out of 4 games and beats a 2100 player just under 2 out of 3 games.