an ordinary 1200 player will be HUMPED by other players , no expert involved.
The curious case of 1200: The Expert's rating
Sort:
Nov 12, 2020
0
#204
DianaMatiushcenko a écrit :
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.
I think you didn't play in a long time here against anyone from 1000-1200 because they will completely destroy anyone for many months anyone who is a true beginner that didn't read many books and with less then 50 games played OTB with his friends.
90% of them have very sound opening a decent middle game if you compare them to most 1400 player here!
I played against one a few months ago and he almost beat me..he was playing has good has any 1500 and he is here since many years...and i doubt he was cheating because he was playing all his move in 1 sec...yes he is an exception but 1200 player are not weak;the 800 are usually terrible!
BTW i'm talking about 15+10 not the crappy blitz full of blunders!
Nov 12, 2020
0
#205
Optimissed: are you trying to be funny or are you just trolling, or do you actually believe that? I’m genuinely curious because I can’t tell. Chat does not have that etymology.
Nov 12, 2020
0
#206
Marie-AnneLiz wrote:
DianaMatiushcenko a écrit :
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.
I think you didn't play in a long time here against anyone from 1000-1200 because they will completely destroy anyone for many months anyone who is a true beginner that didn't read many books and with less then 50 games played OTB with his friends.
90% of them have very sound opening a decent middle game if you compare them to most 1400 player here!
I played against one a few months ago and he almost beat me..he was playing has good has any 1500 and he is here since many years...and i doubt he was cheating because he was playing all his move in 1 sec...yes he is an exception but 1200 player are not weak;the 800 are usually terrible!
BTW i'm talking about 15+10 not the crappy blitz full of blunders!
As a 1200 player, at least at the moment, thank you for your vote of confidence. I play those with a rating within 50 points of my own, so when I get much above 1200, I lose. 
Is this your cat?
an ordinary 1200 player will be HUMPED by other players , no expert involved.
It is amazing how a troll topic like this can live and thrive for more than 3 years.
Nov 13, 2020
0
#209
First of all, chess.com ratings tend to be somewhat inflated compared to FIDE ratings, especially on lower levels. So 1 200 here is probably well below 1 200 FIDE. Next, in FIDE terms, 1 000 is a total beginner. It is considered that 1 500 is intermediate player, 2 000 is an expert and 2 200 + is master level (or 2 300 +, it depends if you consider a candidate master level as a master player - in my book it is). So, 1 200 here in terms of chess skill is probably still a beginner. In terms of his skilled compared to the others on the site, he is above average, but that is not what it counts in my opinion. A great majority doesn't take chess seriously, they just play for fun, to pass the time, and if one is a little better than the other it doesn't make him an intermediate player in my opinion.
Take me for example, I am around 1 500, but if I am an intermediate player, I am barely so. My game is so full of holes even on the basic level that it is ridiculous. Yes, there are people here below me, but at this level I would most likely lose vast majority of games against an ok-ish club player.
Nov 13, 2020
0
#210
1200 is basically that level where you can beat any other casual player. It certainly doesnt qualify to be called as an experts rating. That might start from 1900 or 2000
Nov 13, 2020
0
#211
NikkiLikeChikki wrote:
Optimissed: are you trying to be funny or are you just trolling, or do you actually believe that? I’m genuinely curious because I can’t tell. Chat does not have that etymology.
I think @Optimissed speaks the truth (scroll down to "Having a Chat"):
https://www.historyextra.com/period/first-world-war/first-world-war-slang-words-history-language/
Or it could be that he was just nit-picking...
b-dum-tsh!
Marie-AnneLiz wrote:
DianaMatiushcenko a écrit :
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.
I think you didn't play in a long time here against anyone from 1000-1200 because they will completely destroy anyone for many months anyone who is a true beginner that didn't read many books and with less then 50 games played OTB with his friends.
90% of them have very sound opening a decent middle game if you compare them to most 1400 player here!
I played against one a few months ago and he almost beat me..he was playing has good has any 1500 and he is here since many years...and i doubt he was cheating because he was playing all his move in 1 sec...yes he is an exception but 1200 player are not weak;the 800 are usually terrible!
BTW i'm talking about 15+10 not the crappy blitz full of blunders!
I think, a player should be able not to lose the pieces due to lack of vision and pattern recognition. And an 1200 player will blunder too many times to be considered alright. My rating is 1400+ and I also do blunders more than I would want, thats why I dont consider myself an "expert" at chess. From 1500-1600 players start not to lose games so much due to stupidity but rather due to oponent outplaying succes.
I agree with the fact that 1200 players have some theory learnded and they look strong in comparison with casual players, but I cant consider it a serious acomplishment as well as i dont consider my rating of 1400. 
Nov 13, 2020
0
#213
DianaMatiushcenko wrote:
Marie-AnneLiz wrote:
DianaMatiushcenko a écrit :
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.
I think you didn't play in a long time here against anyone from 1000-1200 because they will completely destroy anyone for many months anyone who is a true beginner that didn't read many books and with less then 50 games played OTB with his friends.
90% of them have very sound opening a decent middle game if you compare them to most 1400 player here!
I played against one a few months ago and he almost beat me..he was playing has good has any 1500 and he is here since many years...and i doubt he was cheating because he was playing all his move in 1 sec...yes he is an exception but 1200 player are not weak;the 800 are usually terrible!
BTW i'm talking about 15+10 not the crappy blitz full of blunders!
I think, a player should be able not to lose the pieces due to lack of vision and pattern recognition. And an 1200 player will blunder too many times to be considered alright. My rating is 1400+ and I also do blunders more than I would want, thats why I dont consider myself an "expert" at chess. From 1500-1600 players start not to lose games so much due to stupidity but rather due to oponent outplaying succes.
I agree with the fact that 1200 players have some theory learnded and they look strong in comparison with casual players, but I cant consider it a serious acomplishment as well as i dont consider my rating of 1400.
True.
Nov 13, 2020
0
#214
DianaMatiushcenko wrote:
Marie-AnneLiz wrote:
DianaMatiushcenko a écrit :
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.
I think you didn't play in a long time here against anyone from 1000-1200 because they will completely destroy anyone for many months anyone who is a true beginner that didn't read many books and with less then 50 games played OTB with his friends.
90% of them have very sound opening a decent middle game if you compare them to most 1400 player here!
I played against one a few months ago and he almost beat me..he was playing has good has any 1500 and he is here since many years...and i doubt he was cheating because he was playing all his move in 1 sec...yes he is an exception but 1200 player are not weak;the 800 are usually terrible!
BTW i'm talking about 15+10 not the crappy blitz full of blunders!
I think, a player should be able not to lose the pieces due to lack of vision and pattern recognition. And an 1200 player will blunder too many times to be considered alright. My rating is 1400+ and I also do blunders more than I would want, thats why I dont consider myself an "expert" at chess. From 1500-1600 players start not to lose games so much due to stupidity but rather due to oponent outplaying succes.
I agree with the fact that 1200 players have some theory learnded and they look strong in comparison with casual players, but I cant consider it a serious acomplishment as well as i dont consider my rating of 1400.
Even 1500-1600 players lose games due to stupidity. The point from where a person stops making silly errors I guess would be around 1700 or 1800.
Even Magnus Carlsen rarely makes blunders, so he cant be classified as an expert as well. This means there are no human being in range of "expert" at chess 
Funny fact, in any sports we can see on youtube "fails compilations" made by professionals. But I doubt that somebody will throw them out of the box with "professional sportsmen". Maybe we are too harsh in our determination of treshold for a chess expert? Feed for thinking
Nov 13, 2020
0
#218
Yes... If not making even a small mistake is the criteria to qualify as an expert in chess , then surely no human fulfills that. Infact we might have to wait for the day when chess gets solved finally.
Nov 16, 2020
0
#219
I just reached 1200. Now what? Can I get recognized in some special chess category now?
For the patzer, 1200 is an asymptote of his rating.