The curious case of 1200: The Expert's rating

Actually, that's not entirely true. There have been different studies in the past, and the results have been inconclusive. Some have yielded chess talent was linked to some sort of intelligence - as you probably know, there are different "types of intelligence", some others have reached the conclusion chess learning and skill in the game did not affect performance on any other area, and some others have even concluded intelligence was not a significant factor in chess skill. 

 So studies have been inconclusive and skill at chess does not reflect you have a decent, bright, or poor intellect.

 Is that troll still talking? He's barely 2100 national ELO. What's the matter with people who reach 2000 elo? Almost all the toxic comments against lower rated players, from higher rated players on the forums, come from people around the 2000-2100 mark. 

 Which still is a mediocre rating in the world of chess.

 You never see titled IMs or GMs coming to the forums to brag about their chess skills against low rated 1000 elo players. 

 It's like, the moment people turn from 1999 to 2000, you have this right and obligation to trash talk everyone and tell them how good 2000 elo is in the world chess.

True, but the easiest and most confirmative way to think about someone's success in a given field is that you know what their minimum intelligence is, but that's all you can infer. A 2000 elo chess player can be inferred as at least smart enough to earn that elo, which is pretty good. An 1100 elo chess player can be inferred to be at least that smart to get 1100 elo. However, that doesn't tell you what their actual intelligence is, as either player could be smarter, all you know is their current minimums. A low rated chess player could be smarter than a high rated chess player, the same as someone in a non-impressive job could be smarter than an attorney, but all we can infer is the minimum intelligence, not the actual intelligence. 

What do you call someone that finished dead last in medical school?  

Doctor   Just joking around, nothing personal.

Keep quiet, and dare not say those idiotic nonsense blabber again. You are not a chess player, you don’t understand chess or maybe even struggling to learn how the horsey moves. Anyone who plays chess, works on it and plays some tournaments knows what Chess is. It’s not a ‘board game’ it’s something much bigger, it’s a full fleshed sport! And now I don’t have the time to waste and explain you why chess is a sport. 

Also, I replied only to the bold part, I am not being rude but just trying to explain you that your point is wrong. 

 Still a board game - and your achievements on the board end up right there. You can't brag about being good at anything else by default just because you are good at a board game. You are not automatically good at everything else that "involves thinking", as he said it, just because your percentile playing a board game is "99.3%". 

 I read on your profile you are 13 or 14. If you are going to take up chess and make it your career, please don't grow up to be one of these people who think you are intellectually superior to everyone else thanks to your FIDE rating.

 I also advise you to not try to play the tough guy and tell people on a public forum to "keep quiet". I will say whatever I want to, and you will have to deal with it.

Imagine you are playing for your City's Cricket team, but yeah it's just a stick and ball, right? You can just brag for being good at a normal sport? Dude, you  don't understand anything.

  Following your hypothetical example, in my opinion, you can't brag you are intellectually or athletically better at anything else just because you are good at that particular sport. 

 Still following your example, you can't even claim you would a great baseball or softball player just because you are playing cricket professionally / semi professionally - or a great runner, or a great scholar, or anything else for that matter.

 Always remember that when you specialise in one activity, there are thousands of other things you are not good at and millions of people who can do those things better than you. So regarding someone intellectually inferior just because that person did not specialise in your activity is not an indicator of a rational mind.

 Point in case: if you had a medical emergency, would you rather be treated by Magnus Carlsen or by the surgeon above, who is 1100 elo in chess? Who would you trust more?

Interesting question and one that you can't actually answer because not enough information is known.  Many medical doctors never practiced medicine and instead went into administration of a hospital.  There are many doctors that know very little about medical emergencies.  Maybe Magnus has taken several Red Cross lifesaving classes.  It could be his skills at EMT is actually greater than a medical doctor.

One example is a combat medic.  They are not doctors but can treat medical emergencies extremely well.

I bet those combat medics know Berlin endgames by hearth as well.

If there were an ELO rating for going down in flames instead of just admitting you might be wrong we'd have a super GM in this thread.

Doc: Sir? What is wrong?  

Guy: Well, I'm dizzy and have chest pains and my arm is going numb.

Doc: I'm a doctor, you are probably having a hea..

Guy: (interrupting) What is your rating? 

Doc: Huh? 

Guy: Do you know Naka? IS THERE A SUPER GM HERE!!! HELP!!!!(gasps and loses consciousness)

The complete explanation is that Chess. com has chosen to callibrate their rating system to have a lower average than those of FIDE and USCF, which still results in somewhat comparable ratings for any individual (but very different percentiles obviously) due to the difference in player pools.

it depends on the quality of the moves. If a 1000 rated player is pullng out 10 move combos then he is most likely cheating and not just having a good day. If a 1900 is playing outrageously bad moves then it is more likely that he is deranking not just having a bad day

On chess.com it could be the expert's ratings (but let's not take this discussion in that direction). Over the board it's probably just before you get eligible for titles, because of them.

exactly! very well said

You don't understand ELO.  It literally doesn't matter where you start.  Your ELO will float down/up to represent who you are winning/losing games to in chess.  If you exclusively play folks near your ELO as you lose more it keeps dropping and you'll end up playing folks lower.. and continue to lose, etc. etc.  ELO is a running weighted average adjusted after a game based on the comparative differences between both players.  Win a game against a higher rated player, it goes up a lot.  Lose a game against a lower rated player, it goes down a lot.   An 900 player joining with a 2100 starting ELO will see his/her ELO drop like a rock.

You are ALWAYS earning your ELO.

Also note that when first joining.. the ELO is provisional.  It isn't considered accurate until you've played a larger number of games.  So if you see someone with just a few games on chess.com, you actually don't know that person's real ELO.

I would still prefer everyone just start at 1200. It's true people would drop to their real elo eventually but some never actually play that many games. I just don't see the logic in starting people with their choice at 2000 since so few people are there and above anyway that such a feature is pointless.

It takes much, much, MUCH more than 5 games to be "reasonably accurately rated". Yes, his rating will drop fast. But what's the point in it starting at 2000 anyways?

When I was actively playing in US chess tournaments in the 1990s the starting ELO was 800.  That seemed rational.  1200 is ok also.  In practice, it doesn't mean much after you've played a lot of games.  And for those that don't, it is clear they haven't.  It is just a complete non-issue.