The curious case of 1200: The Expert's rating

Daat

Expert, depends on the person you ask, everybody are seemingly experts today. I would say 2150-2300 Fide+ at least to be called a chess expert.  1800-2000 are not experts imo, more like (strong )hobby chessplayers(unless they are talented kids). They can only see the tip of the iceberg and lack the deep understandig of higher rated players. To most GMs a 1500-1600 Fide would be not much more than  a beginner. Most probably went from 1500 to 1800+ in less than a year when they were young, and don't remember how hard it was to learn chess when they were 7   wink.png. to have 2200+ chess probably has to be not just a hobby , but  a passion.

rishabh11great
Daat wrote:

Expert, depends on the person you ask, everybody are seemingly experts today. I would say 2150-2300 Fide+ at least to be called a chess expert.  1800-2000 are not experts imo, more like (strong )hobby chessplayers(unless they are talented kids). They can only see the tip of the iceberg and lack the deep understandig of higher rated players. To most GMs a 1500-1600 Fide would be not much more than  a beginner. Most probably went from 1500 to 1800+ in less than a year when they were young, and don't remember how hard it was to learn chess when they were 7   . to have 2200+ chess probably has to be not just a hobby , but  a passion.

1800-2000 FIDE are just hobby players?!

But don’t you think a player of 2000 FIDE strength is a expert? Like 2200s are masters they generally even get titles!

rishabh11great

I mean you are a GM so you know much better but... like reaching a strength of 1800 FIDE still requires 4-5 years of dedication to chess... so I don’t think they should be called hobby players..

twotimes2
I think their main point was the 1st sentence
Daat

like I Said depends on who you are asking. If you ask a GM, 2000 players are fairly weak, to call them experts would be strange. let's say you have a professor in math =GM. And a fairly good ( at math) highschool student =2000. the High school student is no experts, perhaps he is to middle schoolers = 1500 etc. To the professor the 2000 is not a beginner, but so far away from the skill and knowledge level of a professor that he would never consider the 2000 an expert. Might be different for other GMs, but yeah, there you go.

PunchboxNET

You can now start at 2200

nTzT
Daat wrote:

like I Said depends on who you are asking. If you ask a GM, 2000 players are fairly weak, to call them experts would be strange. let's say you have a professor in math =GM. And a fairly good ( at math) highschool student =2000. the High school student is no experts, perhaps he is to middle schoolers = 1500 etc. To the professor the 2000 is not a beginner, but so far away from the skill and knowledge level of a professor that he would never consider the 2000 an expert. Might be different for other GMs, but yeah, there you go.

You are just jealous of the 1200 rated experts, even if someone like you tries to lose a game you will still destroy people at that rating... don't be jealous tongue.png

Optimissed
Daat wrote:

like I Said depends on who you are asking. If you ask a GM, 2000 players are fairly weak, to call them experts would be strange. let's say you have a professor in math =GM. And a fairly good ( at math) highschool student =2000. the High school student is no experts, perhaps he is to middle schoolers = 1500 etc. To the professor the 2000 is not a beginner, but so far away from the skill and knowledge level of a professor that he would never consider the 2000 an expert. Might be different for other GMs, but yeah, there you go.

Excellent, apart from the fact that someone who is an expert at maths can prove it by formulating and solving an equation, and all of a sudden, the maths professor respects them. On the other hand, there are ideas and beliefs, for instance, in some chess openings, that are no more than ideology; and the chessmaster sometimes sticks to the ideology and believes that no-one who isn't a master should question accepted chess praxis. Then what happens is that the majority of ordinary amateurs will blindly follow the dictum and those questioning it will tend to lose respect for the chessmaster. The result can be suppression of free exchange of ideas. The cause of that, of course, is elitism.

Daat

Yeah, but today everybody can questions masters with the help of engines. SF and leela are the gre

Daat

atest authorities on the game.

llama47

If you start at a young age, and you study all the basics (let's pretend you study chess like it's a subject at school, which means regular and systematic study), then you can easily get a chess title before age 18.

That's why 2000 or 2200 could be considered merely knowing some basics, like @daat said the difference between a highschooler being pretty good at some basic math, but is nothing like a professor.

But of course almost no one studies chess like that. Sure enthusiasts (like me) will buy and read a chess book from time to time, but I'm not trying to build comprehensive knowledge. I'm not playing 3 to 5 hour games every weekend. It's just a hobby.

Epiloque
CowardlyElevator wrote:
rishabh11great wrote:
Daat wrote:

Expert, depends on the person you ask, everybody are seemingly experts today. I would say 2150-2300 Fide+ at least to be called a chess expert.  1800-2000 are not experts imo, more like (strong )hobby chessplayers(unless they are talented kids). They can only see the tip of the iceberg and lack the deep understandig of higher rated players. To most GMs a 1500-1600 Fide would be not much more than  a beginner. Most probably went from 1500 to 1800+ in less than a year when they were young, and don't remember how hard it was to learn chess when they were 7   . to have 2200+ chess probably has to be not just a hobby , but  a passion.

1800-2000 FIDE are just hobby players?!

But don’t you think a player of 2000 FIDE strength is a expert? Like 2200s are masters they generally even get titles!

me with my 2093 fide rating:

Is your fide provisional?