The curious case of 1200: The Expert's rating

Stockfish 12 is free to download too. I have recently acquired Chessbase 16 and have started using Stockfish to analyse my Daily games from the other site, writing down variations from many positions that happen very often during early game play. Hopefully I will learn a bit while doing that.

Anyway, if you don't want to pay for Chessbase, you could this software - it's free:

http://scid.sourceforge.net

to build your own databases, and analyse them with Stockfish 12, which is free as well.

Vladimir is one of the great articulators of our time

Franqly, I don't know. Some 900 are strategical geniuses. The Backyard Professor comes to mind. He easily has the srategical understanding of a 2200, but were stuck at sub 1000 for a long time due to his age induced tactical blindeness. I have no doubt he would see the imbalance in that position and recocgnize a5 as a great move.

If a 900 reads Jeremy Silman and watches the BYP, it wouldn't be surprised he would see a5 mmediately. Of course, if he also practices puzzle rush and bullet, he wouldn't stay 900 for long, but if he doesn't he could be 900 because of his other weaknesses.

1200 is expert. Period

It's not grey area at all pretty much the opposite.

The grey area would be, am I allowed to use my knowledge from that sicilian Book I am reading, or should I unread it just for the purpose of matches that started before I finished reading it. Or should I wait 5 years to read any chess book and take any lesson just the time all my correspondance game finish?

Forbidding players to study chess for month at times is ridiculous. The simplest solution is to allow resources (but forbid discussion and engine use about the specific position played). You can call it black, but it's definitely not grey, the rule is clear cut.

comment

 That is rich, coming from an amateur. You know that for the most relevant part of FIDE history, you would be nothing according to your own criteria?

Sub 1000 levels obviously do exist and come with great variety, and they existed long before FIDE was even a thing, even though numbers had not always been put onto them. Much like sub 2200 were always a thing even before FIDE lowered its entry level.

Snoob Club players such as you are exactly what people have in mind when they talk about chess elitism and infamous FIDE ratings.

An actually sensible (and much more detailed scale), for anyone actually interested:

<= 0: hibernating. Yes those levels do exis, rating is a logarithmic scale, there is nothing special about nul or negative ratings. Someone rated -400 is just someone losing most of the time agaisnt even Pollen.

1 - 127: pollen

128 - 243: seedling

244 - 352: sprout

353 - 468 : Blooming. The 4 vegetative state typically correpond to untalented todler younger than 5, though mentally challenge and really slow people of all ages can be found in the "blooming" level.

469 - 581 : Novice: they usually know how to setup a board, mostly

582 - 746: Beginners: know most of the pieces, often including the horse and the peons. They even know about promotion, though that one is easy coming from checkers.

747 - 912: Apprentice: They start putting some real effort into the game, most of them know most of the rules, about castling in all of its details and intricacies, promotion and underpromotion, the challenging en passant, the bouncing bishop, that capture is not compulsory, that you can't pass a turn...

913 - 1159: Intermediate: as in intermediate between beginner and expert. This level is no joke. People there can be expected to have mastered the rules of chess. Many come prepared with deep opening preparation such as Wayward Queen attack, Napoleaon attack, Scholar's mate, Meadow hay trap, the crab, you name it.

1160- 1243: candidate expert: candidates have ruly mastered all the rules of chess, and are on heir way to understand the meta. Among other things they can tell the color of a square by just looking at it. The bettest among them can even give its name if it's written on the board.

1244 - 1336: Experts: while there strength of play is nowhere thoseof a master, they've brought their understanding of the game up to such a high point they can fuly comprehend most intellectual chessit conversation: they know the name of the squares and moves, and jargon like fork, knife, spoon, skewer, fried liver, barbecue, hyppopotalamus, RIP and GGWP are no stranger to them. They know what ELO stands for, and they're fully conscious to be part of something bigger than themselves.

1337 - 1492: Elite Experts: The cream of the cream, these hardened veteran are delving into the Arcane of the opening middle game and endgame. They've pumped up their tactical vision and, while it's not second nature to them yet, they are able to see 1 move ahead, which is as much as the strongest GM most of the time.

1492 -1675: Rising strong club players. At this level, the talent of this player needs the contact of others to bloom, and as they organize into clubs of strong player to seek this osmoze. If they do their puzzle rush daily and listen to Jeremy Silman's reassess your chest, it's only a mater of time before they skyrocket.

1676 - 1898: Established Strong club players: strong club players with more experience harvesting rating points. The most daring of them start deepening their repertoire very ddep, with Schenshnishnicov hyper accelerated Pterodragoons, Advanced Franco Andalouse Miller Grain Barn Gambito and such.

1899 - 2012: candidate candidate. Sitting on top of the strong blub players, but not yet a master himself, he can definitely aspire to aspire to become one one day

2013 - 2199: Intermediate candidate. Don't be fooled by their name, these players are all but candid. The extent of their knowledgeability makes them contenders for a title in all but title.

2200: candidate master. Enter the Cartesian words of the FIDE where every thing has to be nice and round. If you missed the cue, I was being sarcastic, but as bad and inorganic is their nomencalature, it has some recognition among circle jerk chess players, so I'll use it. don't expect me to comment though.

2300 : master

2400: Internationale master

2500: Grossmeister

Obviously, all the ratings in question are Chess.com bullet, the one true way to measure improvisation and instinctive knowledge, and the one rating with the most datapoints.

So you see, whether you like it or not, 1200 is, indeed, expert, or, as an anonymous dragon once eloquently put it:

"1200 is expert, Period."

You've got your class players and your experts reversed. Class players run from 1200 (the bottom of class D) to 1999 (the top of class A)... although some federations recognize even lower classes, down to class J at under 200 rating points in the USCF. Expert is ABOVE class A (not below it) and runs from 2000 to 2199. Then the titled ranks begin, with Candidate Master (or National Master) at 2200.

There's nothing like that in Spain. Under 2200 (which could be a CM, since NM doesn't exist), there are no names for different ratings.

"Happens to you constantly"?

You've only played four games, and only lost one of them.

Fantasize much?

LMAO.  Great catch.

Evading a ban by registering a new account is, itself, a bannable offense.

Maybe he got banned for using engines. 

Every site will have cheaters because cheaters exist all over the place.  What I don't understand is why are cheaters always picking on the sub-1200 guys?  There is nothing to gain.  I can see cheating going against 2000+ guys but below? 

Sub-1200 players are very erratic where they can blunder multiple times in a game and the next one not blunder and only have a mistake or three.  To claim it's a cheater is weird, especially outside of a tournament.

As for accuracy percentage I've found that if I gain a big advantage early my accuracy is high for the game no matter what I play as long as I don't give it all back.

In the first place... this isn't your topic. You are just hijacking someone elses topic in order to push your own agenda.

In the second place... "uncomfortable truths" must, first and foremost, be true. If they aren't true, then they are not "uncomfortable truths". They are simply slander.

You have offered no evidence whatsoever. None. Just an unsupported claim. And now you've compounded it with another unsupported claim, that I work for chess.com.

If I worked for chess.com, they would presumably PAY me. Isn't that how "work" goes?

Lol, this must be a troll, too good to be real.

I'm 1200 rapid and daily and I'm hot garbage. 

I could send you an email claiming that space-squid from Mars are taking over chess.com

Would that be considered evidence?

Like a sky-rocket, I zoomed up into the heavens, touched 2751 for an instant... and then burst, in a shower of scintillating sparks.

There's so much wrong with this it's actually just fascinating the incredible ways people go to explain why they can't make progress. Try to spend your energy on learning why you are losing to low rated opponents (or just blunder less) instead of inventing completely wack explanations when your risperdal wears off.