1600 make a better living and earning than 1200
Is a 1600 live standard rating better than 97%?
Sort:
Exactly. 1600s have private jets, 1200s ride a bike to work.
Well thanks for your non-sense ironic answers, but my question was serious
There are not nearly 800,000 people who play on chess.com, that's the first problem. Someone signs up, plays 1 game, then hasn't logged in since 2007 for example. Or had made 50 accounts themselves.
Another problem is you only have 18 games played. Your rating isn't exactly established yet.
A problem you may not know about is cheating.
Of course none of this matters if you're just looking to play, have fun, and maybe learn a few things. If you're interesting in comparing your play to others then find a local club or even better start going to tournaments.
TabithaEChess wrote:
There are a ton of people who don't play any games in standard and end up with the default 1200 rating. This includes forum trolls. So, while 1600 may be a high percentile, it really isn't special. Sorry ;)
I'm the first to acknowledge that 1600 isn't anything special, and that's exactly why I asked some explanation about the unrealistically high percentile 
shell_knight wrote:
There are not nearly 800,000 people who play on chess.com, that's the first problem. Someone signs up, plays 1 game, then hasn't logged in since 2007 for example. Or had made 50 accounts themselves.
Another problem is you only have 18 games played. Your rating isn't exactly established yet.
A problem you may not know about is cheating.
Of course none of this matters if you're just looking to play, have fun, and maybe learn a few things. If you're interesting in comparing your play to others then find a local club or even better start going to tournaments.
You're a bit too suspicious because mine was mere curiosity 
TabithaEChess wrote:
Giumikesch wrote:
The time controls I actually enjoy the most are the live standard games, and I have a 1600 rating which isn't too bad, but really nothing special. What makes me wonder though is that it seems that such a mediocre rating is still higher than 97% of standard live ratings on chess.com (I'm on 20.000th place of more than 800.000). This just seems to much, I mean how is it possible that only 3% are better than me, rating-wise?
Do you mind telling me what my percentile is on chess.com for blitz?
it's 95.7%
Giumikesch wrote:
shell_knight wrote:
There are not nearly 800,000 people who play on chess.com, that's the first problem. Someone signs up, plays 1 game, then hasn't logged in since 2007 for example. Or had made 50 accounts themselves.
Another problem is you only have 18 games played. Your rating isn't exactly established yet.
A problem you may not know about is cheating.
Of course none of this matters if you're just looking to play, have fun, and maybe learn a few things. If you're interesting in comparing your play to others then find a local club or even better start going to tournaments.
You're a bit too suspicious because mine was mere curiosity
Not you cheating :)
Banned blatant cheaters take points out of the system while active occasional cheaters make ratings unreliable. Also, if there are enough cheaters, then strong players wont play those time controls. I don't know how much goes on, but I don't trust it myself, so I wont play standard time controls... not that I'm so strong, I'm sure many titled players feel the same way.
Even if you've never played a cheater or cheated yourself, this affects the percentages of course.
I wonder this as well being over 1600 live standard myself. I do not think of myself as that good of a player but am better than almost anybody that do not play in tournaments.
Many above my rating are likely cheating, But sadly strong players will not normally venture into a long time control on this site. Online makes it really hard to see how good you are comparitively.
Hmm, I don't know about balance out in terms of percentages because chess.com bans these guys and then they make new accounts. The point being the rating points they suck out of legitimate players changes the % for everyone.
shell_knight wrote:
Giumikesch wrote:
shell_knight wrote:
There are not nearly 800,000 people who play on chess.com, that's the first problem. Someone signs up, plays 1 game, then hasn't logged in since 2007 for example. Or had made 50 accounts themselves.
Another problem is you only have 18 games played. Your rating isn't exactly established yet.
A problem you may not know about is cheating.
Of course none of this matters if you're just looking to play, have fun, and maybe learn a few things. If you're interesting in comparing your play to others then find a local club or even better start going to tournaments.
You're a bit too suspicious because mine was mere curiosity
Not you cheating :)
Banned blatant cheaters take points out of the system while active occasional cheaters make ratings unreliable. Also, if there are enough cheaters, then strong players wont play those time controls. I don't know how much goes on, but I don't trust it myself, so I wont play standard time controls... not that I'm so strong, I'm sure many titled players feel the same way.
Even if you've never played a cheater or cheated yourself, this affects the percentages of course.
You made a good point about people avoiding standard time controls because of the cheating risk, but at the other hand I think that if someone wants to cheat, he really wouldn't have to do that on standard time controls because you really don't need all that time to get the right moves out of an engine! In my opinion it makes much more sense (well, "sense" isn't probably the right term) to cheat on blitz.
The time controls I actually enjoy the most are the live standard games, and I have a 1600 rating which isn't too bad, but really nothing special. What makes me wonder though is that it seems that such a mediocre rating is still higher than 97% of standard live ratings on chess.com (I'm on 20.000th place of more than 800.000). This just seems to much, I mean how is it possible that only 3% are better than me, rating-wise?