The curious case of 1200: The Expert's rating

In Bullet/Blitz, 1200 can be pretty strong.

This was a 2 minute Bullet game so it's hardly surprising that good moves were missed.

The purpose was to show that at the typical ratings in Blitz and Bullet (<2000) there is high variance in performance. Consistency is very important to advance at this level and style of play (how willing are you to complicate the position significantly??) heavily influences results. In Bullet for example I could play a simple opening like the London system, avoid all tactical complications, and get positions where it is much easier for me to avoid blundering than in, say, a King's Gambit line. This observation has been supported by the large number of my Blitz opponents who have much higher peak ratings than their current ones (many used to be >1400, some even >1600 but when I played them they were usually in the 1000s-1200s). This kind of drastic change of rating easily happens when in a slump.

The rapid chess playing pool here is a little more consistent but you still have to deal with new players with ~1200 ratings who in reality play much better but haven't played enough games yet to attain higher ratings. To be brief, I don't think 1200 is anywhere near an expert level of understanding of the game (I'm above that in USCF and terrible at the game myself), but I do know that it's a very typical early plateau for chess players working to improve their game and can require a fairly significant amount of effort to break (tactics study and practice often helps the most at this level).

Stop the lies. Expert is an official title awarded to players over 2000 USCF rating.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_title#Expert

I assumed that they were not referring to the official USCF title but merely a vague description of one's ability to play the game.

The way it all works I think Its harder to go from 2000 to 2100 than from 1200 to 2000-

the higher up you go the harder it is to climb one just has to look how slow they move on the top-

"experts" range after 1600 IMO- from 1200 to 1600 can be a long slow and tough climb- but to get from 1600 to, 1700, from 1700- 1800 is many times harder,, especially if you don't have the natural abilities, time, or the discipline to really study...or as always, the money for that matter-

an expert should at least give a 75% positive showing at 20 person public simal...

but playing blindfolded -well that's a different story I think

VladimirHerceg91

i already realized a long time ago that (s)he is a troll

 I am 1300 here and 1600 on chess24, both blitz. I know opening principles, tactic patterns, strategic concepts such as pawn structure, weak squares, centralization, columns control, strong center, flank attack, etc, so you are right, a 1200 can be called a chess expert.

exactly! stop listening to this, expert is at least 2000

omg.   2000 USCF is a high, great rating.   Approximately just 4% of players reach this level.   Just over 1% attain Master, 2200 or greater.    Of the approx 67,000 active tournament players (USA), a 1400 USCF rating puts you in the 80 percentile, meaning you're in the top 20%.   200 rating points difference means you have a 75% chance to win or lose depending.    400 rating points means you've got a 99% chance to win/lose.    EVERYONE below expert makes all kinds of mistakes, expert and master mistakes are fewer, harder to see and take advantage of; but they err too.   Just play, and forget about rating.   Ratings can fool you; especially if a player is well coached and improving.  

Chess Online is super easy to cheat on, and if a player wants to cheat there is nothing you can do to stop them. If you want to compete for a rating do it in person. And then you can play online with those friends. Otherwise you run the risk of being cheated upon. Good Luck, and have FUN!

I disagree, I did try to play Stockfish on my cellphone at max settings with Stockfish starting without its queen back when I had not gone over 1200, I beat it or at least drew against it as I could get out of any real danger by exchanging a minor piece while still being up the exchange.

75% percentile is just above average, IMO to be considered an expert you should have a 90% percentile.

I think they base your start point off whether you select beginner or intermediate.  Beginner starts at 800.  Intermediate starts at 1200.

I honestly think that Vlad was trolling a bit. That percentile is meaningless in terms of your level of play. We are not talking about height or weight here. A 1200 is basically clueless about the game. It's all about badges after all, but I've met players of many levels and as a 1562 FIDE I consider myself a low-intermediate one.

It's hard to get sarcasm, satire and others on the internet do to the lack of tone. Do you know about the "Angry German Kid" video? Yeah, that was satire but almost nobody realized, I didn't til I read the backstory of it.

USCF Expert means two things.  One is rated 2000-2199.  Second, it is a performance number.  It means you consistently beat 1800's, 1900's.  You might beat or draw anyone higher, but not consistently.  Further, since all elo ratings are performance numbers, I would argue that the number is not important.  In my experience, I have lost to 1200's that beat masters to win the money.  The only thing that matters is how well you play.  

This is the biggest difference between online play and OTB.  When you play for the money, people play "over their head," finding strength in them they did not know they had.  Even a 1200, for example, can be inspired to try a move he never would have tried otherwise, a winning sacrifice.  

Finally, ratings are not  always current. I remember watching a 1980 player absolutely crushing a USCF Senior Master positionally.  After the game, I said," Wow,  I was impressed with your game.  When I was 1980,  I could not play that well."  "1980?  oh, my rating did not catch up with me yet.  That's not my rating."  I have never forgotten that.  

Just play your best chess and enjoy it.  But OTB is vastly different.  So many differences.