The curious case of 1200: The Expert's rating

That's pretty damn cool

Topics that slide into seemingly unending personalized debates between a few people are subject to be locked. 

There comes a time when people should simply "agree to disagree" and either move on or take the discussion out of the public eye into something more private, i.e. a DM.

So, this is a friendly request to keep things healthy and stay mindful that the interests of the community are better served when people who disagree and have amply voiced their positions switch gears and find other things to talk about.

“So there you have it: two things & I can't bring them together & they are wrenching me apart. These two feelings, this knowledge of a world so awful, this sense of a life so extraordinary—how am I to resolve them?”
― Richard Flanagan, Gould's Book of Fish: A Novel in Twelve Fish

1200 blitz is around 75th percentile  and 1200 rapid is around 80th percentile which seems good. However you have to keep in mind how many people play for a week as newbies and quit , they will be very low (MUCH lower than 1000).  If you compare yourself to people consistently playing and trying to improve, being in the 75th percentile on this website is still pretty mediocre even among casual players. I would say the hump is like 1350 in live chess, its like 90th percentile surprisingly. This is more like a threshold that active casual chess players struggle to pass (with sufficient practice, not tilting too hard and giving 100% effort - people often dont take these fast controls too seriously).

In the USCF 1200 is around 30% and 1400 is around 48%.

People have to pay for a membership and go to a tournament.  So they are much more committed.

1200 USCF is around 60th percentile.

According to that chart, the highest amount of players are around class B and C, so the rating distribution of a USCF chart would be highest around that 1600 range

Compared to chesscom, the peaks are at like 800 rapid (which is slow chess for all intents and purposes here).

Basically chesscom has a way higher concentration of really low rated players because they can conveniently play from home and lose whenever they want. 

This does not make statistical sense. If some players can lose whenever they want, others gain rating whenever that happens. You cannot make such a claim and it's simply false.

Sorry, I didn't literally mean that,  I was taking a jab at very low rated players but being rated low (say, 700 blitz) is actually common and they all play against each other. The rating distribution here shows that the majority of players are rated quite low. Hence my point that OP is somewhat right about 1200 actually being near a "casual expert" rating.

 You seem to regard not being good at chess = having a mental disability. 

 Years ago we had a colleague like you - he had been short of getting IM norms (but at that point he had been retired from chess for years). Still, retired and all he's playing strength remained good. 

 Anyway, he treated everyone as we were mentally inferiors at our work just because his only accomplishment was be good at a board game. And he was actually quite average at the job, I would say quite mediocre in some aspects.

 At this point you are no different to the kids who play a Moba, let's say, Dota 2, and regard anyone who has a low rating as mentally infirm in all paths of life outside the game. 

 I appreciate it bores you to play people with lower ratings than you but that does not make people mentally infirm. Also you are far from top level chess so what would that make you .... one would wonder ... Hmm ?

 Really? You are just a joke, you are only above average at a board game, what are you accomplishments in life besides being good at a board GAME?

 This is the exact reaction you get from high level players in kid mobas when you tell them the truth, that they are probably only above average at a videogame and not almost geniuses, cornerstones of humanity in intelligence just because they are good at the game.

 The only difference is, you don't look like a little kid or teenager. 

 You need some growing up to do. 

 Anyway, yes, about my colleague almost IM, well, he was better than you - based on your rating - and two, he was eventually relegated to menial tasks because apparently, if people like you are so highly intelligent, you seem to usually spend all your neurons learning to move pieces on a 8x8 board and nothing is left for anything else ... LOL. 

 But yeah, mate, you are great at chess! Congrats!

Wait wait wait you also are claiming that, because your rating puts you at 99.3% as far as chess goes, it will also put you at 99.3% on EVERYTHING ELSE THAT INVOLVES THINKING AND LEARNING? And you are supremely confident of it? 

 OK if you say so, I dont think that's the way life works, though.

I'm a surgeon, and if you told one of my colleagues you were really good at chess no one would think you're an intellectual elite unless maybe you had serious titles like US or world champion. But even then, that would simply be an interesting fact at a medical interview and that's about it... 

Open day at the asylum again (© kaynight).

This is actually way too much of a condescending discussion. All I will say is that people should do what makes them happy in life, not what impresses others. On the upside, this topic might finally get locked.

You say that Im triggered? Look at your response. Re read it... slowly. And consider who's the triggered person here. 

Btw, I dont need to give the Internet my full name. It's not a very wise thing to do, but Im sure you already know about that because you are 99.3% better than most people at creating internet profiles.

Also, in before the lock.

 Man, calm down, get some therapy, then come back and we can continue the discussion. You could even get a therapist that's 99.3% better than the other therapists, so that you don't feel so bad at talking to him.

I've been playing chess for about 1 month, while seeing patients.

If there's anything I've learned after chemistry graduate school and medical school, it's that its more about hard work than pure intellect. I'm not here to get into the nature vs. nurture debate, but being good at chess "generally" means you have a decent intellect like most people and have studied and trained very hard to do well. 

Your rating doesn't show how smart you are, only your minimum intellect. Like a surgeon, all you know is that I'm smart enough to be a surgeon, but you don't know how smart I am beyond that. Also, if I chose a career path considered less intelligent, does that make me less intelligent?

Your thinking is just very flawed.