The curious case of 1200: The Expert's rating

Everyone hits barriers and everyone eventually plateaus and eventually declines.

It would be an interesting research question. One could define a barrier as a rating at which there is little change for a significant period (say a year or two), but then that is followed by a significant increase (say 200 points) in a short period.

It’s an interesting question, but I am skeptical as to whether 1200 will represent an inordinately large cluster of players. My guess is that it would be no more than what we’d expect by random chance.

I thought that 1200 is the median player. 

The median expert, yes.

I think that after months of playing to get to 1200-1300 a lot of players quit like i did for a few years or they are stuck for at least many months.

I know from experience that a lot quit way before they get to 1200.

Of course imo 1200-1300 is not that hard to reach for anyone who has the time and the passion but still it's a plateau for a lot of players.

I think 1200 is pretty average for chess players. A person of average intelligence, determination, and has an average amount of time can reach it pretty easily. So far below expert level. 

But, among the general population, a chess expert could easily be someone with a rating of 700 to 800. There are 7 billion people who do not play chess. So really anyone who at least knows the rules and how to play could be considered someone with authoritative knowledge. 

As far as 1200 being some sort of hurdle or hump, it's just another rating mark that many players blow by without even thinking about it. 

Chess plateaus exist!

A chess plateau is when your rating or level of play stagnates or remains around the same for a long period of time. 

 Chess plateaus are something that every chess player at some point in his career has faced and are often discouraging to the player going through it. 

Being stuck around the same rating for weeks, months, and even years can be extremely frustrating.

When things aren’t going well it’s always good to take a break from chess.

Going through chess plateaus is a tough experience.

1200 is not "Expert". Here is the official USCF rating delineation:

2200+ is Master

2000 - 2199 is Expert

1800 - 1999 is Class A

1600 - 1799 is Class B

1400 - 1599 is Class C

1200 - 1399 is Class D

Anything below 1200 is Class E.

You're welcome.

Marie-AnneLiz It is unrealistic for anyone to advance forever. Every player will reach a maximum and then continue to bounce around that number. The only question is, is it truly a maximum?

(Beautiful cats, by the way. Maine Coon?)

Thanks!

so im class B? kool

i thought 1200 was the noob rating. No offence, u 1200s. just that u dont play enough chess............                     

The bots are rated <1000 = beginner. 1000-1400 = intermediate. > 1500 advanced.

To be 1200 you are not a noob. You have to know a decent amount of theory, you have to have a good grasp of chess principles, and you have to have a decent understanding of tactics.

A noob hangs pieces every game and thinks scholar’s mate is an advanced opening.

XD 1200 is noob

1400 is ok

1600 is good

1800 is great

2000 is expert

2200 is master (no offense

a noob here is usually under 900..imo

Good players always think people below them are noobs. If you were to actually go and play an 800 and then a 1200, you’d realize that there is a huge gap between them.

The 800 doesn’t know much theory and doesn’t follow principles. The 1200 does.

Just because you can wreck either one of them doesn’t mean that they are the same. That’s just elitist and rude.

XD I SAY IM A NOOB ESPECIALLY TODAY

Queensknightout said it best, thank you.   Note that your rating is in relation to the player pool; if your rating is 1200 here on chess.com, it won't be 1200 when you play against USCF rated players.  Most players here and over at lichess too, are weak, and if you think 1200 is "expert", you're too weak a player to know.   Me?   I'm a C player, 1400 USCF; I'm a little better than average, that's it.   I know A class players I can't touch and they are routinely beaten by true experts.   And experts are routinely beaten by masters.   Just play chess, enjoy the game, and forget about ratings.   

ya im prob class c

Please. 1200 puts you in the upper 1/3 of chess players on the site. You aren’t “weak” unless your definition shows no nuance.

If you say that they will get stomped by really good players, to that I answer “duh.” But the 1200 player will win almost every time against the 800 player. To them, the 1200 is a god.

Social scientists generally refer to standard deviations away from the mean when separating groups. 1200 is a full standard deviation above the mean and should be classified as relatively strong. Weak would be a full standard deviation below the mean.

The perceptions of really good players at tournaments are skewed because it’s a sub sample. If you want to say that 1200 is weak in this subsample, that’s fine, but they aren’t weak generally.

In my humble opinion, in comparios with random people, 1200 is a player who seems a chess strong player, and your family or friends can see you unbeatable, but through chess players, (the ones who spend time for chess and have a passion for it) 1200 is not serious at all. I think from 1500 is a rating which show a player dedication to hold a full game with decent level, 1800 for a good player, and 2000 for an expert in this sport.