It would be nice if we know the average ratings of chess.com users.
But I dont have these data.
812 is the average rating. You can check by looking at the leader boards and on the right side it will say the average rating
It would be nice if we know the average ratings of chess.com users.
But I dont have these data.
812 is the average rating. You can check by looking at the leader boards and on the right side it will say the average rating
Average rating for which category?
The average rating in Daily is 1033.
It would be nice if we know the average ratings of chess.com users.
But I dont have these data.
812 is the average rating. You can check by looking at the leader boards and on the right side it will say the average rating
Average rating for which category?
The average rating in Daily is 1033.
Ahhh yeah I probably should have said, it’s rapid which is also the most played time control on the site
SURE!!!!! Lol
You can disagree with me if you want, but the term for beginner has evolved to mean more than just someone new to a game but someone at a lower level. It is not offensive to say someone is a certain level based on their rating, the point of a rating is literally to measure someone’s skill level to give them fairer matches
You can disagree with me if you want, but the term for beginner has evolved to mean more than just someone new to a game but someone at a lower level.
Lower level than what?
In Rapid, a 1000 rating is higher than 75% of the players on chess.com... isn't it?
You're saying that only the top 20-25% are not "at a lower level"?
Why stop there? Why aren't everybody but the top 1% "at a lower level"?
You can disagree with me if you want, but the term for beginner has evolved to mean more than just someone new to a game but someone at a lower level.
Lower level that what?
In Rapid, a 1000 rating is higher than 75% of the players on chess.com... isn't it?
You're saying that only the top 20-25% are not "at a lower level"?
The percentile is extremely inaccurate. That’s including every single account ever to play a game of live chess.
You can disagree with me if you want, but the term for beginner has evolved to mean more than just someone new to a game but someone at a lower level.
Lower level than what?
In Rapid, a 1000 rating is higher than 75% of the players on chess.com... isn't it?
You're saying that only the top 20-25% are not "at a lower level"?
Why stop there? Why aren't everybody but the top 1% "at a lower level"?
It’s funny to see that people that most would call “beginners” are better than 75% of people who play the game
I've got no worries either way, of course. I don't have a horse in this race.
look, a rating of 1000 is easily achievable. Being better than 75% of chess.com accounts means nothing. When I was 1000, I would miss obvious tactics and mates and hang pawns constantly, any 1000s I play are not very different.
look, a rating of 1000 is easily achievable. Being better than 75% of chess.com accounts means nothing. When I was 1000, I would miss obvious tactics and mates and hang pawns constantly, any 1000s I play are not very different.
I didn't say that 1000-rated players were wizards at the game. I said that extending the category of "lower level players" until it encompasses 3/4 of the user-base sounds like a very artificial and stilted classification system.
This is extremely relative and impossible to measure, but I mean in comparison to active chess players who study and actively play, 1000 is at a very low level
This is extremely relative and impossible to measure, but I mean in comparison to active chess players who study and actively play, 1000 is at a very low level
Jeeze... I don't study, and I've played two games in the past three years. Does that make me a 1000 player, too?
This is extremely relative and impossible to measure, but I mean in comparison to active chess players who study and actively play, 1000 is at a very low level
Jeeze... I don't study, and I've played two games in the past three years. Does that make me a 1000 player, too?
What
the pure number (here: 1000) is uninteresting and difficult to evaluate! what is much more interesting and meaningful is your place in the gaussian normal distribution. its the answer of the question how good you are compared with all the other player. did you left behind more than the half amount of players or are you just exactly on 50% or are more than half of the players better than you? that brings you in relation to something meaningful. and, by the way: you did not mention in what kind of chess you want an answer. think it's a great difference to have 1000 p in bullet or in chess960....
the pure number (here: 1000) is uninteresting and difficult to evaluate! what is much more interesting and meaningful is your place in the gaussian normal distribution. its the answer of the question how good you are compared with all the other player. did you left behind more than the half amount of players or are you just exactly on 50% or are more than half of the players better than you? that brings you in relation to something meaningful. and, by the way: you did not mention in what kind of chess you want an answer. think it's a great difference to have 1000 p in bullet or in chess960....
im sure we are all talking about rapid
@jaro488 what makes you so shure? the op plays blitz, bullet, rapid. and in rapid he is near the 400 points he/she/it mentioned in the beginning.
It would be nice if we know the average ratings of chess.com users.
But I dont have these data.