The curious case of 1200: The Expert's rating

@xor_eax_eax05 - An 1200+ player would rarely miss a mate in 2. It's clear from your play accuracy that you are far below 1200. A 1500 OTB player like myself usually average around 85-90% accuracy in tournament play. Yet I still lose against 1800 players 4 out of 5 times.

At that level you can't afford to make one mistake per game. Meanwhile you are making 5-6 basic mistakes every game and still deluded enough to think that you are 1800. 

 So in that game I had 3 inaccuracies and 2 mistakes in 61 moves, and according to you that's FAR BELOW 1200 play. 97.3% accuracy against a 2090 player implies Im far below 1200. Right. Go to the profile of any under 2000 player on this site and look at their games, check to see if they all average just 1 or 2 inaccuracies per game all the time. Every player on this thread under 2000 can attest they average far more than 3 or 4 inaccuracies per game. Hardly a sign of being "far lower than 1200". 

 For example YOU had 11 inaccuracies, 2 mistakes and 1 blunder in one of your last losses, as a matter of fact if you look at many of your games you have as many mistakes as under 1000 elo players from this very same site (or more). That's 14 mistakes in one game. What would that make you?

 This also just goes to show how bad the elo ladder on this site is, that someone like you can be 1500, but many 1000 elo players I've faced play stronger, more accurate chess than you - which was the main point of my posts in this thread before you and all the other trolls derailed it by attacking my chess play and try to convince me so hard Im fabricating lies and games (and you keep trying so hard, at page 39 of this post).

 I also noticed most of the games you analyse on this site are your one-sided wins so it's obvious your accuracy in the Rapid time control will be so high. The system calculates the accuracy for your profile based on the analysed games. So I would nor brag too much about that - you have only analysed 140 games out of your 900. Hardly a trustworthy stat as it stands now. Go analyse a big majority of your games - maybe 90% of your games - and then you can talk about "accuracy".

 Finally, you may not know, but I own a Chessbase + Mega Database license. I dont study chess  as in reading books, etc., but I LOVE analysing games with an engine. And it's a lie "at that level you can't afford to make a mistake per game". I analyse OTB games from players above 2000+ FIDE all the time. They make mistakes and blunders ALL THE TIME, especially the under 2300. And not just 1 or 2 per game. You just have to let Stockfish analyse each move for 10/15 seconds and you will see their game is plagued with mistakes. Run them through average centipawn loss and you'll see. 

 You can't say someone who made 5 slightly inaccurate moves (according to an engine) made 5 worse mistakes per game than someone who had one mistake and stepped into forced 1-move mate either. Even someone who steps into forced 1-move mate could have played stronger chess than his opponent and just lose due to this blunder. We are talking about playing strength. Anyone can blunder 1 move and lose. Go check Kramnik vs the computer and how he missed mate in 1 against him. Is he not a strong player? Lol.

 This is exactly why I claim the low elo ladder on this site is meaningless. I've analysed games from 1000 elo players on this site and the centipawn loss is incredibly low - then you pick up games from players 500, 600 elo points higher than them and they are so bad (statistically analysed with the Stockfish 13 engine). And then you have other 1000 elo players who really are 1000 elo and you are up 10 points in material by move 10. So you really can't trust the elo here, rendering the topic about 1200 being the expert rating, meaningless. 

 You still dont believe me? Look at this:

www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/26680824163

 Until I blundered I was destroying this 1500. -3.5, he was completely outplayed. He had 8 errors. According to your criteria that's far far far below 1200 strength, right? 

www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/26701178065

I outplayed this 1700 from the start until I hung a rook. Is it normal for a 1700 to go -2.5 by move 8? Lol. "Strong" 700+ elo difference, lol.

Oh look, a 1900 I beat in Daily

https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/daily/304560324

5 or 6 mistakes on each side. Guess we are far below 1200 right? 

I have also posted games from the other site, including a loss vs a FIDE WIM and you are here telling me that's below 1200 play, lol. Go and tell the titled player that's also 1200 elo play too. Wtf.

Troll. Just like that catmaster guy. 

Playing well in a small number of a games doesn't mean anything. I've beaten a 2485 FIDE rated international master with stockfish level 99% accuracy over 30 moves; but that doesn't make me anywhere near their level. Average performance is what matters and you are typical of 900-1100 level players. 

If those games linked are supposedly your best games, then it's absolutely pathetic even for a 1000 ELO. None of your games you won against high rated players were by quality play but rather poor play from your opponent.

I don't count inaccuracies as mistakes as many of them are positional and doesn't lose material immediately. Meanwhile you are making tactical blunders that is enough to lose the whole game at once.

The ELO rating here is accurate and close to OTB rating not just for myself but also many other players I know with OTB ratings. You are denying data compiled from hundreds of OTB players. 

Yeah, most of the games I lose are lost to blunders. Does that make me a 1200 player? Funny that I could win the Atlantic Closed OTB, and then draw vs Tal in a simul. They must be patzers, too.

Great Topic!

Using CAPS score to determine your strength is never a good idea.

 You call me pathetic, when you claim a couple of errors is a sign of being under 1200 elo, and then I go and check just one of your latest losses and you've made 14 errors in one game. FOURTEEN IN ONE GAME. You claim 90% accuracy and the first game I check you've made FOURTEEN ERRORS IN ONE GAME.

  Are you serious? All wins are due to errors from the opponent. For example, blunders that hang a piece. Or minor inaccuracies that add up until the position is untenable. That's why I resigned when I blundered a rook in that game from my previous post. I did not need an engine to tell me I was crushing, and that I lost all my advantage after blundering the rook. 

 And high quality play? In the under 2100 FIDE bracket? Really? You are just losing the plot. I already told you, all you have to do is grab an engine and go analyse OTB games from under 2300 FIDE players and see all the mistakes in each game. Wtf. Do you really think under 2000 players play high quality chess? Seriously? 

 And I dont know what kind of OTB tournaments you play, but Daily without databases is the closest to classic OTB without playing classic online - I would even dare say Daily is at disadvantage because in classic OTB time control you get to think about one single game for a few hours non-stop. In Daily you normally have 50+ games to move in, and you need to shift your focus and concentration from one position to the other, then leave the game, come back the next day and start again, etc. 

 Maybe you just play 10/15 minute game OTB tournaments and that's why your rating is closer to your 10 min OTB rapid here? That would explain it. Don't try classic or you will get crushed by your betters, such as myself.

This.

In fact, the "margin of the draw" is fairly broad, and it typically takes at least two errors to lose.

@xor_eax_eax05 - All wins are due to errors seen by the engine, but errors like yours are obvious blunders while others are positional that takes many moves to materialize. You've only won games through obviously blunders. I haven't seen any consistent play that would indicate playing strength above 1200. 

You don't seem to understand how complex positions can be between 2000+ players. Their mistakes can be seen by computers that calculate many moves ahead, but not you.

The official conversion between chess.com rapid rating and FIDE is -120 points. You are denying data compiled from hundreds of OTB players. And the time controls in the OTB tournaments I played are usually around 45+30. 

 That data is crap. If you delved deeper into it you would realise FIDE already separates rating between classic, blitz and rapid, so that "unique" FIDE regular column makes no sense. What's "FIDE regular"? Classic rating? Blitz rating? Rapid rating? Which one is it? You dont know, and they don't know, because that chart is made up crap. 

 Throughout this post I've posted games I've played against other players from my Daily site, players who are hundreds of points stronger than your OTB (including ME), and you still claim "u1200 play". What do you think about this game? Still under 1000 elo? And please disregard the blunder at the end that loses the match.

@xor_eax_eax05 - FIDE regular means classical. Most OTB tournaments are classical time control. FIDE Blitz and Rapid ratings are rarely used. Most OTB players don't have blitz and rapid fide ratings. 

The game you embedded is pathetic. Closed positions like that are supposedly easy to play, but both of you managed to drop pawns and even worse your opponent missed a mate in one. I have yet to see any tactical play that would indicate any depth of calculation

So then how you can compare rapid with FIDE OTB Classical, which are games that allow you hours to think about a position non-stop, with chess.com blitz or rapid? Lol, see, it makes no sense.

Btw, that's not my game ... It's World Champion, Vladimir Kramnik, vs Deep Fritz:

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1440796

Clearly shows you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Thanks for showing everyone the extent of your ignorance. No wonder you claim 2 or 3 mistakes is u1200 play ... 

Missing a mate in one for a grandmaster is extremely rare unless there's a shortage of time. What the point of bringing up anomaly poor play. You are only going to get 1 out of 1000 games like that from a player of this caliber. 

Average performance is what matters. Even your average 800 players here don't miss mate in one often. 

Lol disregarding the mate in one, that's what you said. You even said it was u800 elo and edited it out of your comment. Own up. You have no clue what you are talking about. You claimed my games against other 1800+ players from Gameknot are in reality u1000 strength, you claimed the play from the WIM i lost to is u1000, I have just shown you a game from Chess World Champion Kramnik vs Deep Fritz and you claimed it was u800 elo. 

 Please sit down and be quiet.

There's obviously a correlation between Rapid playing strength and classical even if they are different time controls. A big part of it depends on the depth of your calculation and understanding of position. It's stastically improbable for someone to be 1000 ELO rapid and 1800 classical. 

@xor_eax_eax05 - That game only had two dropped pawns. One of them might be justified (need further analysis) the other was free at least according to stockfish. That's nothing compared to your routine and obvious blunders 

Title players have dropped pawns but they were intended as positional sacrifices that merely didn't work out. Not tactical blunders like yours. You're not going to see titled players hang pieces or miss two move tactics

Whatever you say, man.

Gilberto Garcia vs Borislav Ivkov (1965) (chessgames.com)

Ivkov was a World Championship candidate, and had just beaten both (future world champion) Bobby Fischer and (former world champion) Vasily Smyslov in this same Havana tournament.

He was leading the tournament in clear first place with only two rounds to play when this happened.

@xor_eax_eax05 You can keep attacking the strawman and come up with all kinds of excuses, but it doesn't change the fact that the ELO system here is properly calibrated from hundreds of players and you can't even beat 1100 ELO.

If you are 1800 ELO, then I'm 2500 ELO. According to your logic, beating higher rated players once or twice means you are as good of them. 

@xor_eax_eax05 - If you want to continue your delusional that the chess.com ELO system is broken, then try lichess.

1800 FIDE is equivalent to 2050 on lichess. I can guarantee you that your lichess rating will be around 1400 based on your quality of play here.