not sure, i dont' know too much about this
Ratings (I can hear you groan from here...)
Sort:
My OTb is right at 1700 and when I play in a tournament at our local club I am usually ranked about 10 out of 12 players.
Ah got ya, so 900, whether it be Chessmaster or wherever is fairly low.
Cheers
D
Jan 13, 2014
0
#8
the chessmaster thing is a bit odd, it hangs pieces like no human player would, even a 900 (we all hang pieces out to dry, but not the way CM does it), then defends like an expert for a bit before blundering again. It's not very realistic. Plus, it's annoying to get beat by 'Josh, aged 2' or whatever. more fun to get crushed online here.
Generally speaking, I'd say a 1000 rating is the point where you no longer hang pieces to 0-move combos, and a 1500 is where you no longer hang pieces to 1-move combos. Obviously everyone makes silly blunders, but I would expect a player rated under 1000 to drop a piece for free at least once per tournament. Most people I know get to 1000 after about a year; 1500 after 3 to 4 years (assuming casual play and no consistent coaching).
Jan 13, 2014
0
#10
oh and club players, yeah they're pretty good as a rule. I went a few times, they let me play for the club at bottom board if everyone else was on holiday/ill. Think I was around 100BCf at one point. pretty pathetic. club champion was 215, think that's around 2300 FIDE or a bit more. most were pretty solid at around 140ish, probably like's been said, 1500-1900 or so.
but go to a club if you want to get better, got to play these guys then chat afterwards. I ran away in fear.
Yeah, under 1000 is a true beginner i.e. learned the rules fairly recently. For chess.com live ratings, probably closer to 500.
Average club player at 1500 is a good estimate IMO. Usually in the teens, 1300-1900, but as they said depending on the club you can have masters and above show up too.
May be worth it to note computers can't simulate the way these humans play. Forced blunders and artificially limited search depth have them making odd bad moves. Playing humans is different and even if you don't talk after the game it's much better practice. Playing on chessmaster (or the chess.com java computer for example) can be fun now and then but for practice I wouldn't ever choose to play a computer to the exclusion of human opponents.
Jan 13, 2014
0
#12
yeah 9thEagle, I guess they (we) do, even at long time controls. Chess is hard. Beating 900 chessmaster even after it blundered is pretty good going if you've played for less than a year, because it might blunder but it will then play a sequence of pretty solid moves, and will take advantage if you blunder right back.
Brillaint, thanks everyone, things are a lot clearer now. I've also beaten a 1009 player, and had a loss and a draw to a 1200 player, which seems about right.
BTW, the 1200 player is 'Josh - aged 6'!!!
Cheers all
David 
Mmm, I think the win against the 1200 player was a one-off!! Just lost to a 1068 player! And pretty convincingly. Or maybe that was a one-off?
What am I babbling on about....??
D
waffllemaster wrote:
Yeah, under 1000 is a true beginner i.e. learned the rules fairly recently. For chess.com live ratings, probably closer to 500.
Average club player at 1500 is a good estimate IMO. Usually in the teens, 1300-1900, but as they said depending on the club you can have masters and above show up too.
May be worth it to note computers can't simulate the way these humans play. Forced blunders and artificially limited search depth have them making odd bad moves. Playing humans is different and even if you don't talk after the game it's much better practice. Playing on chessmaster (or the chess.com java computer for example) can be fun now and then but for practice I wouldn't ever choose to play a computer to the exclusion of human opponents.
well an interesting thing that i do is i play an engine (say houdini or stockfish) and give them about two minutes to my 1 or 2 hours. It works pretty well, and i usually can give the engine a good game, though i don't do it too often. But if your internet doesn't work, your stuck in one of Garry Kasparovs long (and sometimes boring) sides lines, and you don't have anything about silman what else can you do? lol
Hi all
Just played my first game of chess using Chessmaster. The computer opponent was rated at 900 (I know it's probably a different system to chess.com, but bear with me....)
Anyway, I'm pretty much a beginner at chess, yet I completely battered him. Give away his queen etc etc, so my question is, is 900 quite a low score?? For some reason, I thought it might be quite high, but certainly not on that performance. I appreciate it was a computer opponent, but that's immaterial really, as Chessmaster does a very good job of simulating players.
What would be a rating of, say, an average club player?
Thanks in advance
D