The curious case of 1200: The Expert's rating

Is it me or do you have the same phone as me? OnePlus lol

Is this thread still going on? 

I said it once, and I will say it again, the rating ladder in this site is trash. Players at 1100 are as good as 1800+. 

Im still 1600-1900 in Daily chess on the other site, and Im still winning regularly against players in the 1800-1999 range, and on this site I can't even reach 1250 in rapid chess.

1200 players who play 40 moves with just 2 innacuracies:

https://www.chess.com/game/live/16755348523

against 1950+ players who play even worse than that in just as many moves

https://www.chess.com/game/live/16736740619

https://www.chess.com/game/live/9575704915

To me they are just at the same level, yet they are 700 points apart. Which would explain why I can beat people close to 2000 regularly on the other site and here I get the same playing strength from 1100 players. I even posted many games from my other site over there but the resident forum trolls called me liar several tens of pages ago etc.

The 1000 to 2000 elo bracket on this site is really trash. Ratings mean nothing. Especially 1200.

The other site is tremendously over-rated. By hundreds of points. Even this site is mildly over-rated, compared to OTB.

It's not the site that starts with an L. It's another site, dedicated mostly to just Daily chess.

Even if it was the one with "L", the difference would just be 200 points. Not 900. 

And that does not explain why players in the 1800-2000 HERE play as good (bad) as 1100s. Objectively analysed with the engine.

Dude you just can't get your rating high on this site . That's it . Lmao

*Whistles innocently*

Excellent example! In some US States, majority (for everything, including alchohol) is 21, whereas in most of the civilized world, it is 18.

But in middle age, where average age was much lower, as soon as you could work and marry, you'd be as good as an adult,  And you'd work from the day you walk, and could very well have finished an apprenticeship by 12, and definitely by16. And you could potentially marry as early as right after pubescence, putting the majority somewhere between 12 and 16.

So yes, such a young society would very likely need some people that we'd call teenager to work and procreate, and would very ikely call them and treat them as adults.

Ergo, 1200 are pretty much by definition experts among the chess population.

Of course now, if you only consider titled player, then sub 2000 don't play chess, sub 2300 are new players, sub 2600 are beginners and experts would be somwhere around 2750 and upward. A valid point of view, but not a relevant one I hope you agree.

I disagree,any strong master usually respect anyone who is a master! 

That is what Hikaru Nakamura say! I even saw Kasparov a few years back refusing to play against an old  2000 elo player for fun when he was visiting him because he said that he was not prepared....my point is a 2300 elo player is an elite players even if he is still only 16 years old in part because he is in the top 1%!

BTW I saw a very old master 65+ almost beat the best GM in the USA! After 50 moves the GM with around 2700 was 1 pawn ahead!

I agree. When I used to play on this site is was the 1200s more than any other ability that played the most above their rating. I don't believe it was because they had help, I believe it was because they lose so many games against 1800s. They lose constantly. So when they end up playing someone who actually is 1200, they win easily. 

On this site, if a 1200 is an expert, that means a 1500 is a beginner. As the 1500 can expect to lose to the 1200. A lot. 

I never saw here a 800 play like a 1300 elo...and a 1300 elo player should easily win here against anyone under 1250 in my experience! of course there is always one exception but that is one in 40 game!

Have you considering not hanging your queen in less than 1 minute? https://www.chess.com/game/live/16754140727

Or not hanging a full piece within 5 moves? 

https://www.chess.com/game/live/16748833889

Or not mindlessly just dropping games? They launch a double attack on your pieces and there the game just... ends. 

https://www.chess.com/game/live/16747590093 

Randomly losing games to basic things or for scooping for no reason at all tends to keep one in the 1200s. It doesn't matter how well or poorly a player does in any single game. Eventually, how they typically play is going to catch up to them and put them where they belong. Manage your time better, make fewer basic mistakes, etc. and your rating goes up. 

I kind of agree. 

while 1200 is impressive it is certainly not as you describe, 1200 is full of bishop blunders and people unknowing of en peasant 

Lol, you do realize that saying "you're a beginner" to a gold OW player is elitism too right? since most players in OW are below that line. You are showing the same elitism you said chess players show

This thread looks um dubious but I thought I'd throw my 2 cents in as someone who considers themselves "high intermediate" (rapid 1800).

In my mind players roughly break down into:

Casuals: Don't really play chess or never really try to improve. Skill level of the general public that knows the rules. In my mind this is 0-1000 but others may move the upper bound a bit either direction also depends on what rating being used (OTB, chess.com, other more inflated sites etc.) I'm using OTB as my baseline here. 

In-betweeners: Where I spent a long time before I started taking chess more seriously. This group knows the basics of the game, some strategy and some tactics. Easily crushes casuals, but usually loses to more serious players (although can play up for a game). My estimated rating range here is 1000-1400.

Club players: Have studied the game. Know their openings and their strategy. Won't blunder unless put under either time or positional pressure. Game lacks finesse. Category I would slot myself in. Rating range 1400-2000.

Very serious players: Experts and Masters. The distinction in playing strength between this and the next class is very evident when they play each other but not very obvious to someone who gets worked by both. Rating range here is 2000-2500. If they're making a living off chess they're doing it in ways that don't necessarily relate to their playing strength. 

Professional players: People whose life is beating people at this 64 square game. Rating range is 2500+. 

Does that mean that all the GMs in my country are beginners? (including Mecking, former 3rd best player in the world) What are you even trying to say?

Did someone really call 2600 'beginner'?

Rapid or blitz ratings mean next to nothing in determining how good someone is at real OTB chess.  

Yes of course an 800 hundred on chess.com might be a Grandmaster right?

nay at the max 100 points lower because of nervousness