Is top 5% intermediate?

So whats the deal with people calling 1500-1600 hundreds intermediate when they are top 5% i agree some 1500 1600 are theory players that are studied whilst others are completely non book players i.e. myself i studied book 8 years ago and quit chess at 1684... yet more recently most likely because so many new players ive nearly topped my old peak... book ruins the game??! blunders talk 

tons of patzers but in the serious chess world you should be able to top 2200 ez

but then the pazters that are serious arent accounted that much because we socialize too much or meme

 

yeah i have 30k plus games if i "prepared" ez claps fact is... i listen to (some) gms teach they miss the lessons they want players to memorize lines its in lack of better words disgusting

 

Bro

its true

i prob beat u

 

Intermediate depends on a lot of things... like the group you're comparing yourself to / what you aspire to achieve. Top players were master level after a few years, and before they hit puberty. Meanwhile some social players never get above 1000. 

+1

i jus dont respect system players #sorry not sorry

i cant expess how many jokes are there^^ memorizing lines for gms is jokes

 

There are three basic skill levels : Beginner which is under 1000; Intermediate is between 1000 and 2000; and Advanced which is over 2000.

The definition of intermediate is "coming between two things in time, place, order, character, etc."

Intermediate is intermediate, not because of the number of people in the category, but because it falls between beginner and advanced.

The percentile only shows that most people are beginners; and that very few ever achieve an advanced skill level.

i am big noob 

but my puzzles is going up so im happy 

Yes, I’m very mediocre at chess, and despite this, I’m currently 98th percentile on chess.com.
I
t’s just that the player base is rife with people who are even weaker than I.

A gap of two or three hundred elo is far greater than many will realize.

Playing against an 1800, I get slaughtered, yet the last time I played a 1400, I was beating them so comfortably that at the end it bordered on toying with them.

I was just that much worse/better in those two instances.

While 1500-1700 seem untouchable to casual players, we are bottom of the barrel patzers for serious chess players.

I know very well, because just a couple months ago I was in the 800-900 range, and felt like 1600s were godlike.

Now that I am 1600, when I play peer opponents, I often feel as though I haven’t improved much at all.

That is, until I play 800s off of my account and completely outclass and systematically destroy them while barely paying attention.



Basically, it takes a fair bit of time and effort for most people to get even halfway-decent, so the majority of chess players are beginners to low intermediates.

So higher rated intermediates, though in the top 5% , simply bridge the cavernous gap between beginner and advanced.

The last few percentage is just exponentially harder to progress through.

Yes that is correct, and unless you are at least an Expert, you do not qualify as an "Advanced Player"

 

you can be bad at something while being better than other people.

There was a Spanish athlete who, after a failure in the world championships, said that there were only about 15 or 20 people better than him at discus throw in the whole world. Go figure.