The curious case of 1200: The Expert's rating

And how does that make the rating system different?  If you look at the rating distribution by population, it's extremely similar.  

Oh. I didn't know you meant ratings. I mean, rating would be similar. I thought you meant chess and Overwatch are similar in "gameplay."

No of course not.  I'm just talking about how it would be elitist of me to call over half the population in Overwatch not even good enough to be considered beginner.  Obviously you have to start somewhere, and that's at beginner.  It's not like there's some imaginary level below that.  

Rating vs Population distribution is not how you decide what's beginner level and what's not 

Yet another bump of this topic. All I'm going to say is that no one rating is hard to get over (one could argue about a 2400 hump even), it does start getting really difficult after 1600 otb / 1800 online though. Around there is when you'll start gaining 100 points in the time you used to gain 400+. There's also no huge "lack of understanding" between, say me (a 1850) and your average 1800, I've lost to 1600s even occasionally. Just practice and practice and you'll get where you wanna be is my motto.

1200 is a hump but by no means makes you an expert of any kind. 

hehe I mean my bullet is overrated and my blitz is underrated so idk

i've played 4 blitz games. of the two I actually managed to finish I had one win one draw. the other two were losses; both were because my mom made me do stuff lol. I think at least one was in a even position, the other I forgot. But yes that rating is extremely unreliable.

I think the majority of the worlds population doesn't even know there is a "chess community" much less care about if it might be snobby or not. Most people don't play chess. And of those that do, most don't care what the perception is. 

So if someone playing chess wants to appear pretentious, not very many people will even notice or care. Chess is a board game. If someone playing a board game thinks they are "elitist" they and reality parted ways some time ago. 

Beginner does not necessarily mean that someone is weak in proportion to the general population. No matter how many beginners there are, all of the beginners are still beginners. I’d say that people under 1200 here (or under 1000 USCF) are still relative beginners (obviously there is a difference in levels of beginners). It’s absurd to claim that a 1200 player is an expert simply because there are a bunch of people who are lower. Consider population. If a country’s population were to have an average of ten years old due to extreme growth would a 12 year old be considered “old” or an adult.

Lol, I am 1900 and I play trash so what can I even say? I would say a expert is atleast 2300 on chess.com or 2000 FIDE.

Bruh that's impossible -__-

Guys OP hit 1500+ rating in a few weeks ago in rapid (1388 current).

Unfortunately, I'm 2350 and I also play like trash most of the time.

In theory, it is possible

You may play trash but most of the players against me around 1800 here play solid chess and they beat me a 1818 Fide elo player! and if you think a 1800 Fide player is trash at the level of amateur players,you are wrong!  

No one need to be 2000 Fide Elo to be play solid chess!

I started at 800 a few months ago so I don't understand why these beginners appear now to all start at 1200 - why?

They started allowing people to self-rate when they joined several years ago. People who self rate- as beginners start at 800. People who describe themselves as intermediate start at 1200 now. New to chess start at 400. Advanced at 1600. (They recently stopped allowing new members to self rate as "Expert" or 2000. )

It doesn't really matter where someone starts. Within a few games, ratings adjust a lot.

lol chess.com rating aint matter cause i could purposeply play at 800, yet still be as good as 1500s

Thanks Justbefair - good explanation