madrasdon29 wrote:
I have a major doubt Why there is a sex partiality In chess?
You mean why are over 95% of chess players both online and OTB male
The curious case of 1200: The Expert's rating
Sort:
VladimirHerceg91 wrote:
The 1200 hump, as it is commonly referred to in Chess, is the sport's greatest obstacle.
Achieving this rating is the equivalent of graduating from an Ivy league School. No, it does not yet mean that you have mastered this pastime of intuition and pattern recognition. It does on the other hand suggest that you are well on your way to achieve such accomplishments.
In other words by attaining the rating of 1200, you can claim the title of being a Chess expert, and deservedly so. The mark of 1200 separates the casuals from the serious. It is the dividing line between the average and the exemplary.
I write this today because I want to address Chess.com's peculiar approach to rating new users. Many of you know that upon opening a Chess.com account, one is immediately gifted the rating of 1200. This means that every new user is recognized as an expert. Of course most of these users end up going below the 1200 mark and lose the title almost immediately, after all they are beginners and not used to such high level Chess. Does anybody know why Chess.com has chosen 1200 as a starting point? After all it's not just an arbitrary number.
You are now rated 1450, do you still think that 1200 rated players are experts?
Aug 31, 2022
0
#784
dude0812 wrote:
. But sure, I see you are 1200 daily on this site,
You know it takes time to get Daily rating up, right? Im not playing 80 games at the same time like I used to many years ago, and anyway most of my losses in chess.com were by timeout, which caused my rating to plummet.
I can't even get to 400 
so hard
Aug 31, 2022
0
#786
davidkimchi a écrit :
I can't even get to 400 so hard
Learn one opening with white that is solid;i looked at your last game with white and it's very chaotic...you can learn in 30 min a solid opening that should help you a lot.
You should get around 1250 with it in a few months and a few hundreds games...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDU83nDqCUc
davidkimchi wrote:
I can't even get to 400 so hard
Congratulations on reaching 400!
OzzyD123 wrote:
I'm 1200 rated so I like this idea because it strokes my ego
1200 is certainly an achievement for a new player but OP is a comedian, he makes sarcastic threads like this one. Check out this other thread of his https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/is-e4-solved
and read his first post in that thread. It's good stuff. Since we are writing text on the internet it is irrelevant whether we deliver it with a straight face or not, but the tone of his post replaces having a straight face.
Sep 19, 2022
0
#790
I personally dont think 1200 is an obsticle. I think 2000 may be a more accurate number
Darylprater wrote:
I stay around 1200 in rapid and I suck. And the chess community doesn't even recognize players under 1600, they just call anyone under that class C. So I think you over estimate 1200
Ratings on this site are inflated compared to FIDE, 1600 player on this site would be several hundreds lower rated in FIDE.
Sep 25, 2022
0
#792
dude0812 a écrit :
Darylprater wrote:
I stay around 1200 in rapid and I suck. And the chess community doesn't even recognize players under 1600, they just call anyone under that class C. So I think you over estimate 1200
Ratings on this site are inflated compared to FIDE, 1600 player on this site would be several hundreds lower rated in FIDE.
I saw two guy rated 2300 and 2400 here at blitz,and one did beat a master otb at a 5 min game and the other lost a very close game at 5 min too.
They both seem to be at a master level....
Sep 25, 2022
0
#793
macer75 wrote:
1200 is almost halfway to grandmaster level, so it's not surprising that only very few players are able to play at that level consistently. Chess.com setting it as the default starting rating is probably just a way to boost the confidence of beginners and attract more customers.
Rating is not linear. It is logarithmic, and gets harder to gain rating as you get higher.
ChessDude009 wrote:
macer75 wrote:
1200 is almost halfway to grandmaster level, so it's not surprising that only very few players are able to play at that level consistently. Chess.com setting it as the default starting rating is probably just a way to boost the confidence of beginners and attract more customers.
Rating is not linear. It is logarithmic, and gets harder to gain rating as you get higher.
Interesting. You learn something new every day. I think everyone in the thread thought that the difference between 900 & 1000 is the same as the difference between 2700 & 2800 before you cleared all that up. Thanks!
I am rated 1150 in rapid.
Sep 28, 2022
0
#796
Marie-AnneLiz wrote:
dude0812 a écrit :
Darylprater wrote:
I stay around 1200 in rapid and I suck. And the chess community doesn't even recognize players under 1600, they just call anyone under that class C. So I think you over estimate 1200
Ratings on this site are inflated compared to FIDE, 1600 player on this site would be several hundreds lower rated in FIDE.
I saw two guy rated 2300 and 2400 here at blitz,and one did beat a master otb at a 5 min game and the other lost a very close game at 5 min too.
They both seem to be at a master level....
In blitz, perhaps. There's a difference between beating a master in blitz and being master strength in classical... A big difference.
Congratulations! you are 1401 now, more than an expert
Nov 16, 2022
0
#798
VladimirHerceg91 wrote:
The 1200 hump, as it is commonly referred to in Chess, is the sport's greatest obstacle.
Achieving this rating is the equivalent of graduating from an Ivy league School. No, it does not yet mean that you have mastered this pastime of intuition and pattern recognition. It does on the other hand suggest that you are well on your way to achieve such accomplishments.
In other words by attaining the rating of 1200, you can claim the title of being a Chess expert, and deservedly so. The mark of 1200 separates the casuals from the serious. It is the dividing line between the average and the exemplary.
I write this today because I want to address Chess.com's peculiar approach to rating new users. Many of you know that upon opening a Chess.com account, one is immediately gifted the rating of 1200. This means that every new user is recognized as an expert. Of course most of these users end up going below the 1200 mark and lose the title almost immediately, after all they are beginners and not used to such high level Chess. Does anybody know why Chess.com has chosen 1200 as a starting point? After all it's not just an arbitrary number.
VladimirHerceg91>Nikola Tesla
Of course I am 1700, 1800 at Daily time control. In some other site, not chess.com.
As a matter of fact I was stuck at Daily 1400-1500 for YEARS until I learnt a bit of positional chess. Just by getting slightly better at what to do when there's no obvious tactic, rather than making random moves or trying to "force" a tactic, helped me jump a few hundred points.
It's really not hard at all if you don't blunder in one or two-move tactics, and try to improve your position.
In order to go higher than that, Im going to have to start studying chess, which I will not do.
Ratings are different on different sites. I have always been around 300 points higher rated on lichess than on this site. Ratings between different time controls also vary a lot. For instance, rapid ratings are inflated compared to blitz ratings. But sure, I see you are 1200 daily on this site, I believe that you can play daily games without 1 and 2 move blunders and that you can incorporate some positional play into your daily games but that doesn't mean you are as good of a chess player as somebody who is 1800 blitz on this website or even as somebody who is rated 1800 rapid on this website. If you want to know your rapid strength, I would advise you to try to play 1hour long games or 45+45 games on this website, you will probably do much better than in 10 minute games or in blitz games. And you will probably enjoy these games more as they are not going to be decided by who blunders more silly stuff.