The curious case of 1200: The Expert's rating

This is the sort of arrogance by experienced players is what scares away most young players from Chess. I really don't think your sarcasm is appropriate. I'm just trying to improve my game here, and have made huge strides. I think that my experience can help out a lot of new players coming into the game. I went from beginner to expert in mere months. Yes, I think that warrants a chess writing career. 

This is the sort of arrogance by experienced players is what scares away most young players from Chess.

No young player is scared from chess.

I really don't think your sarcasm is appropriate.

My sarcasm is very appropriate. If you can't see why, it even makes it MORE appropriate.

I'm just trying to improve my game here,

Bull. You are not trying to improve your game. You are trying to degrade the game.

and have made huge strides.

I don't know about that.

I think that my experience can help out a lot of new players coming into the game.

It doesn't look like you have any experience, or that it can help anyone, new or old.

I went from beginner to expert in mere months.

Baloney.

Yes, I think that warrants a chess writing career. 

Sure - I can help you with that. See my above post. You will do just fine!

Agree to disagree I guess. 

That's ok with me.

As a wise woman once said "... the haters gonna hate hate hate hate hate..."

so in summary

Under 1000 = poor understanding of opening play, poor understanding of middle game play, poor understanding of endgame play, drop pieces and pawns regularly, miss basic tactics

1200-1600 = basic understanding of opening play, basic understanding of middle game play, poor understanding of endgame play, drop pawns regularly, miss complex tactics

1601-1999 = good understanding of opening play, basic understanding of middle game play, basic understanding of endgame play, rarely drop anything in unforced lines, sometimes find complex tactics

2000 - 2200 = solid opening play, good understanding of middle game play, basic understanding of endgame play, don't drop unforced pieces, regularly find complex tactics

2200 - 2400 = solid opening play, solid middle game play, good to solid endgame play, doesn't drop pieces or miss tactics.

2400 - 2800 = has the first 30 moves of their favorite opening memorized.  has no life except studying 8 hours on chess.

I don't understand why GMs study 8 hours a day on chess ?  Because there is a limit to chess knowledge.  it seems like there is a limit to how much knowledge your brain can assimilate both in a day and also over your lifetime.  for example, let says after 4 hours continue chess study, you get fatigue.  so hours 5 through 8 is waste of time during the day because the person is not going to learn anything because the brain is tired and needs to do something fun like play bingo.

in economics, this is like measuring how much value you are getting in incremental increases.  at a 2500 rating you have to have such a vast amount of information, how does studying 8 hours a day even help you when you have less information to acquire.  Whereas,  a 1200 has a lot of information/knowledge to gain from studying 8 hours a day because he does not know anything as much as the 2500 player.

For example,

the learning ratio can be estimated as:

I C E R = ( C 1 − C 0 ) ( E 1 − E 0 ) {\displaystyle ICER={\frac {(C_{1}-C_{0})}{(E_{1}-E_{0})}}} ,

where C 1 {\textstyle C_{1}} and E 1 {\displaystyle E_{1}} are the cost and effect in studying and where C 0 {\textstyle C_{0}} and E 0 {\textstyle E_{0}} are the cost and effect in current status.^[1] Costs are usually described in monetary units, while effects can be measured in terms of health status or another outcome of interest. A common application of the ICER is in cost-utility analysis, in which case the ICER is synonymous with the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained.

The ICER can be used as a decision rule in resource allocation. If a decision-maker is able to establish a willingness-to-pay value for the outcome of interest, it is possible to adopt this value as a threshold. If for a given intervention the ICER is above this threshold it will be deemed too expensive and thus should not be funded, whereas if the ICER lies below the threshold the intervention can be judged cost-effective. This approach has to some extent been adopted in relation to QALYs; for example, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) adopts a nominal cost-per-QALY threshold of £20,000 to £30,000.^[2] As such, the ICER facilitates comparison of interventions across various disease states and treatments. In 2009, NICE set the nominal cost-per-QALY threshold at £50,000 for end-of-life care because dying patients typically benefit from any treatment for a matter of months, making the treatment's QALYs small.^[3] In 2016, NICE set the cost-per-QALY threshold at £100,000 for treatments for rare conditions because, otherwise, drugs for a small number of patients would not be profitable.^[3] The use of ICERs therefore provides an opportunity to help contain health care costs while minimizing adverse health consequences.^[4] Treatments for patients who are near death offer few QALYs simply because the typical patient has only months left to benefit from treatment. They also provide to policy makers information on where resources should be allocated when they are limited.^[5] As health care costs have continued to rise, many new clinical trials are attempting to integrate ICER into results to provide more evidence of potential benefit.^[6]

Controversies

Many people feel that basing health care interventions on cost-effectiveness is a type of health care rationing and have expressed concern that using ICER will limit the amount or types of treatments and interventions available to patients.^[5] Currently, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) of England’s National Health Service (NHS) uses cost-effectiveness studies to determine if new treatments or therapies provide better value relative to the treatment that is currently in use. With the number of cost-effectiveness studies rising, it is expected for a cost-effectiveness ratio threshold to be established for the acceptance of reimbursement or formulary listing. However, there is currently no evidence that health care systems have determined such a threshold;^[7] without such a standard, the interpretation of ICER analyses may not be uniform.

The concern that ICER may lead to rationing has affected policy makers in the United States. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 provided for the creation of the independent Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). The Senate Finance Committee in writing PPACA forbade PCORI from using “dollars-per-quality adjusted life year (or similar measure that discounts the value of a life because of an individual’s disability) as a threshold to establish what type of health care is cost effective or recommended.”^[8]

Spammer

I would agree that 1400 is the first real "hump" in chess, at least in serious slow games. I stayed in the 1400s for about a year thanks to several serious inconsistency issues. Thankfully I'm 1533 now, and that number should only go up.

Actually, that's funny, since my first rating progress slowed at 1400s, when I was still playing tournament chess. 

After that, it was very solid improvement until 1900s, where I struggled a bit. 

That's for me, at least. 

I'm sure that going to 2200 is going to be a real challenge still. 

Which rating system are you talking about?  On this web site I am rated at 950 on another site I am rated at 1400

uscf, USA Chess Federation

For me it's Chess.com ratings, but only in slow games, where I believe the pool is much stronger than in rapid games.

One thing is for sure, you're an incredibly rude person. 

I think getting 1200 USCF is an achievement in slow chess, not in chess.com live chess. A 1200 USCF player averages out to 1400 chess.com rating.

I haven't play any games against people yet but started to a couple times and my rating showed as 1000 in parentheses, so I think that must be where newbies get started. 

I think the higher your rating is, the harder it is to improve. For a 800 player, 1200 is a much smaller milestone than, say, 2400 for a 2350 player.

Saying 1200 is an experts rating is a bit absurd. It does not require much skill to get there. In fact, reading 1 beginners chess book will probably get you there. Id consider 2000-2200 an experts rating, and anything above that is clearly master level.

@superman0101 Ah I remember you now. You're the one that begged to be an admin in my esteemed club. Unfortunately, your behaviour here shows that you don't quite meet the Intellectual Chessist requirements. Best of luck with your Chess, and bye for now.  

The answer is no. Take your rudeness, and trollary elsewhere.