The curious case of 1200: The Expert's rating

We already can see from your games that you are around 1000, if you were not, your rating would be higher because you'd be regularly beating those players enough to move up. That's what I did all the way to the 1500s, hence my rating now. The 1000 players you struggle with are no longer a challenge for me. 

Have I beaten 1600s? Yes, I have several wins against them. They are still better than I am, which is why they're 1600 and I'm not. I have over 2000 rating on another Chess site in Rapid. The 2000s here would probably eat me alive anyways. Here I've have my typical games, my great games, as well as my horrible games, and they came together and said I was around 1500s level Chess.com Rapid. I could point to my best win or my worst loss, and it wouldn't change what it all came around to. There is no need for a player to make excuses about where they ended up.

Am I trash at Chess? I suppose that's a matter of perspective. I'm significantly stronger than you are at Rapid Chess, and significantly worse than the 2000 on Chess.com. So if the mark is to be better than the 2000, I'm trash. If it is just to be better than you, I am not trash. At least as far as Rapid Chess time controls I play go. Other time controls would have their own factors to consider and again the standard for what "trash" means would have to be determined. 

Yes,if the average IQ was 49 an IQ of 98 would be a genius!

Genius is relative.

 The what you framed the question is yes it would.  If everyone is at 2700 and one person is at 3000 would that make everyone but that one person a GM?  Of course not.  The numbers are relative to the number of players at that rating.

Sorry, I just completely disagree.

So you disagree with logic?  See you make a wrong assumption.  You keep using some arbitrary number as a reference point.  But you never include that.  All you said was that "if EVERYONE was 800 would that make 900 a genius".  So you defined your set as 800 to 900.  There are no other numbers possible or included per YOUR criteria.  So the one person gettig a 900 would be the #1 rated player.  The world champion etc.  No one has a higher rating so yea it would make that person the highest rated and best player in chess.  Remember YOU set the criteria here.

Yeah, I disagree with your logic.

Back to the original topic; I wouldn’t call a 1200 a chess expert. I would label a 2000+ a chess expert.

Logic is logic.  So I guess we'll just have to say you don't belive in logic then.

If on the other hand you think you are somehow logical then tell me how the top rated chess person in the world is not a chess genius?  The number one person no matter the rating is still the number one person and has the highest rating compared to EVERYONE else.  That was YOUR criteria not mine.

No, it's your logic.

And I disagree with it.

You are trying to explain to me that I'm wrong according to logic in general (that you incredibly appear to be an expert of)

But, nah, it's what you think. And I disagree. Just stop typing in caps because I just think what you said is stupid.

It isn't so much logic as just language. A genius is someone with exceptional intelligence in some respect. Chess, requires a kind of intelligence. Exceptional means unusual. If you are the best chess player on earth, you have exceptional intelligence with respect to chess seeing that you stand literally alone in your understanding of chess.  

To say this person is not a genius is to use the word to mean something other than what it means. 

most of what you said is wrong

2000-2100 is more of an expert rating

i agree w/ dr ken colby. he was ken smiths (smith-morra) good friend. in his book 'secrets of a grandpatzer' he said grandpatzers are about 1700-1999 (roughly A players). 2000-2199 are experts and 2200 are when the titles start.

iows, a wood-hoisting juicer-leaving patzer is U-2000.

@xor_eax_eax05 - You play like a typical 900-1000, considering your average CAP score is only ~50%. There are a lot of new accounts that start off at 1800 or 2000, because they select their skill level as "expert". Players that have established an equilibrium at a rating level usually play much truer to their rating. 

It's also worth noting that the odds gap shrinking the higher the rating. The difference of play strength between a 600 & 1000 is substantially larger than the difference between a 2000 & 2400. 

 Im sorry you are completely wrong. Im really 1800 at Daily at some other site. Im regularly facing club players in the 1800-2000 bracket and some have even been club organisers and tournament directors, etc. Im currently 1807 as of the time of this reply.

 Highest rated player there is 2600+ so Im 800 points away from the highest rated player on the site.

 I've posted games on this thread which, if you look at them, are not the typical play of a 900-1000 player, yet everyone disregards that.

 I also dont know where you get your numbers from because I analyse my Daily games with Stockfish and the Chessbase software and my average centipawn loss is always on par with club player strength. I do have some stupid blunders from time to time but on average that's that. For example, the game I posted on post #673 on this very same thread against a 2450 rated player on that site, which I think it's a FIDE 2200+ WIM. I obviously lost but far from a 900 elo performance, ok?

Im done with this site's elo, Im just doing whatever in my games now. Not a serious place to rank up considering the "elo distribution" lol. Rather go back to FICS or the Chessbase online service.

Wrong, not sure if you made a mistake but the skill level gap is much larger between 2000-2400 then 600-1000

It's not lichess. And Im not 900 elo, Im actually around 1800. Deal with it.

Dont want my posts removed. Starts with a G.

Look at his rating graph history. You will see that he was 1 350 - 1 500 for a few months. If you check his recent games you will see that he is playing moves like a3, a4, a5, a6, then b3,b4,b5...

So, he is playing badly on purpose for some reason.