The curious case of 1200: The Expert's rating - Chess Forums - Page 29

blueemu

Feb 16, 2021

0

#561

When I was a boy... back in the Late Bronze Age... we started at 1200 and LIKED it.

... none of this "I'll just start at 2000" crap.

*mumble*mumble*

rj58

Feb 16, 2021

0

#562

little_guinea_pig wrote:

nTzT wrote:

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.

Your first game changes your rating by 300-400 points. It'd take 5 games for a 400 player to get to where he's reasonably accurately rated if he started at 2000 lol

??? 5 games???

In US chess currently until you've played 26 rated games, you rating is considered provisional. That is a rational number given what ELO is meant to estimate (relative playing power between players)

rj58

Feb 16, 2021

0

#563

Intermediate_Master wrote:

Wow, this forum is really making me doubt my abilities. I always thought I was pretty good, not even close to expert or anything, but not bad. This forum makes me feel like I am bottom 0.1% percentile, even though my rapid rating is 90% percentile.

Hahah..

rj58

Feb 16, 2021

0

#564

little_guinea_pig wrote:

I meant here on chess.com...

It makes no difference where we are talking about. The ELO calculations and how it works doesn't change between chess.com or any other over the board organization. And ELO isn't just for chess. Most online games that use skill matching use ELO to figure out who should be matched with who. The math remains the same!

rj58

Feb 16, 2021

0

#565

blueemu wrote:

When I was a boy... back in the Late Bronze Age... we started at 1200 and LIKED it.

... none of this "I'll just start at 2000" crap.

*mumble*mumble*

A mere lad.

Marie-AnneLiz

Feb 20, 2021

0

#566

Intermediate_Master a écrit :

Wow, this forum is really making me doubt my abilities. I always thought I was pretty good, not even close to expert or anything, but not bad. This forum makes me feel like I am bottom 0.1% percentile, even though my rapid rating is 90% percentile.

1350 is not bad! but of course you will feel a lot stronger when you will be 1500

blueemu

Feb 20, 2021

0

#567

Intermediate_Master wrote:

Wow, this forum is really making me doubt my abilities. I always thought I was pretty good, not even close to expert or anything, but not bad. This forum makes me feel like I am bottom 0.1% percentile, even though my rapid rating is 90% percentile.

1350 is 200 points above the average.

LuckyLoss

Mar 28, 2021

0

#568

I've seen here that some think having a rating of 1200 means you are a beginner... Beginner in what? Beginner in reading chess books? Beginner in beating people rated 1300? Beginner in spending less time on chess and investing time in a lucrative career? If so, than yes, maybe!

But a real beginner is in fact a person who just learned how to play the game a few hours ago. And 99.9% of the population considers Chess to be merely a game, not a sport or a career. Taking this absolute common sense into consideration, saying a rating of 1200 is beginner level is laughable and denotes an arrogance that would have most people outside of chess communities rolling their eyes.

For a real beginner to reach 1200 he has to look at some thousands of hours of playing casually. Sure, training your kid since age 4 will give him much faster results, but that's not really "playing", is it?

I understand for many people here chess is really important. Most have much higher ratings than 1200 and take great pride in being good at it. That's all very nice and people respect you for doing what you like, me included. But let's not forget where we came from please...

Among the general population, someone rated 1200 will beat 99% of the people around him. The fastest kid in school may be a joke to Usain Bolt, but he's definitely not a slug...

Yes, I hoover between 1050 and 1150, but I am no beginner, I'm just a casual who likes the dopamine he gets from the game from time to time.

teju17

Mar 29, 2021

0

#569

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!

Yes, there are masters, but to become an IM or GM is a whole new level.

oblation82

Mar 29, 2021

0

#570

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/a-secret-thingy-known-only-to-me-and-everyone-who-knows-it-come-here-and-find-it-out-too

Arihallak

Apr 13, 2021

0

#571

Darylprater wrote:

Jenium wrote:

I guess you are talking about 2200?

You started at 2200 when you made a account?

he means 2200 is the hump, not 1200

davico_rosello

Apr 22, 2021

0

#572

I've started as 1500. Best elo +1600.

Now that the new people starts at 1200, my elo is +1400.

Bruno5979

Apr 22, 2021

0

#573

davico_rosello a écrit :

I've started as 1500. Best elo +1600.

Now that the new people starts at 1200, my elo is +1400.

No, news players don't begin at 1200 automatically. I began at 800

Aristos22

May 16, 2021

0

#574

This whole thread just confirms my belief that the chess community is incredibly elitist and pretentious. Over half of the entire community is below 1200. Something that i'm really good at is Overwatch (a video game), and if someone was ranked Gold (basically equivalent to 1200), I would refer to them as a beginner. I wouldn't be so elitist to say "you're not even good enough to be considered a beginner..." This type of snobby attitude really gives this community a bad rep.

When *over half* of your community belongs to one group, you can't draw the "beginner" line above that group. That's misunderstanding what "beginner" even means.

Anonymous_Dragon

May 16, 2021

0

#575

I understand you , but trust me chess doesn't work that way . I was playing a rapid game and just realised even 1700 is like sh** .

myusername456456

May 16, 2021

0

#576

1200 isn't hard to achieve. It's guaranteed to get to 1800 with enough time and effort.

Looking at the 1200 milestone as a huge hump, or anything in real life, will damage your chances of achieving it.

Aristos22

May 16, 2021

0

#577

Anonymous_Dragon wrote:

I understand you , but trust me chess doesn't work that way . I was playing a rapid game and just realised even 1700 is like sh** . "

I think the exact same when I watch Diamond players in Overwatch (i'm Masters, which is probably equivalent to 2000 here. Diamond would be 1700ish). Like i'm shocked at the bad plays they make, but Diamond players are only 10% of the population....obviously they're a lot better than most people. The only reason I see them that way is because of my experience. It's the same way with any competitive game. Chess isn't different at all, the community is the only thing that feels different. And yes communities in video games can of course be elitist as well. Chess just feels worse.

Anonymous_Dragon

May 16, 2021

0

#578

Chess js different friend . You can't make up analogies between chess and different video games .

Aristos22

May 16, 2021

0

#579

Anonymous_Dragon wrote:

Chess js different friend . You can't make up analogies between chess and different video games .

Give me a solid reason why it's "different".

AunTheKnight

May 16, 2021

0

#580

Aristos22 wrote:

Anonymous_Dragon wrote:

Chess js different friend . You can't make up analogies between chess and different video games .

Give me a solid reason why it's "different".

Chess is a board game. Overwatch is an FPS shooter.