What do you think about chess rating?

So I have heard some chess rating sterotypes and want to know what you think about them so what do you think about each chess rating from 700-2000? here are what a person (eo___) has said: 

• 0-1000: either a kid or a beginner.
• 1000-1200:  below average player.
• 1200: either an average player or a newly registered member.
• 1200-1400: a decent chess player. Has played a good amount of chess games, but makes lots of mistakes and still falls on elementary traps.
• 1400-1700: a proficent chess player, but doesn't know a lot about Chess theory, hasn't studied many openings or end games, and still needs to work on his pattern recognition skills. Can beat most or all of his friends.
• 1700-1900: a very good chess player. Makes few mistakes. Has reached a level of mastery that most Chess players will never reach. Probably knows a good deal about chess openings and end games.
• 1900-2100: an outstanding chess player. Possesses solid knowledge of chess openings and end games. Probably can play chess with his eyes closed, and win.
• 2100+: a chess genius

what are your opinions on this? and what do you think about your rating?

online

I added my own thoughts, i was a bit lazy and didnt do all of them tho

below 2042: bad

above 2042: good

this may change once my rating changes.

I'd say something like...

1300 blitz has mastered how the pieces move. In other words rarely moves something like a rook where it can just be captured for free. If the opponent's last move threatened an undefended piece, then they'll almost never give that piece away for free.

1600 has started to mix in long term strategic ideas. At 1300 the plan of making random threats over and over can't reliably win games anymore, so from 1300-1600 players may simply be intuitively valuing piece activity, but at 1600 that intuition is starting to take purposeful shape in the form of going for an overall plan. The plan might be wrong, but there is a common idea tying groups of moves together beyond randomly making threats or randomly making things active.

At some point around here, a player pretty much has all the basics, and improvement after that is just gaining more knowledge and experience.

I say blitz because long time controls are sometimes super inflated. A total beginner who can't remember how the knight moves may be something like 1500 on lichess classical or 1500 chess.com daily (lol). Ok that's an exaggeration, but you know what I mean.

And of course... I've seen plenty of games at the 800 level where players are surprisingly solid for 10, even 20+ moves.

But at some point there's a disaster like hanging a rook or multiple pieces.

I'm not saying 800 rated players know nothing about piece activity or strategic ideas... it's just that's not why they're winning or losing their games. They might play very well for 5 or 10 moves in a row, but at some point in every long game, there are a few unforced disastrous moves.

what would you call a long time control?

I would say thats accurate, I played a blackburne shilling in several games and got a winning postion from it ( suprisingly I never got a smothered mate form it at that level, though I gained a large amount of material) ( I also managed to blunder in that) , (and met a 1000 that thought that a scholar's mate would work, which is the most insulting thing that you can do against a chess player) 

Anything faster than blitz

I looked at one of your most recent rapid and one of your most recent blitz games, I'd say my description fits really well. From my POV it looks like players making random 1 move threats, and the opponent having about an 80% chance of seeing it. Meaning about 1 out of 5 threats they lose a piece for no reason.

But it's been... almost 20 years since I've been rated that low, so I'm biased and a GM would probably describe my games as random bad moves too, so take my description with a grain of salt.

But yeah, that's my honest impression.

At most, it would be inaccuracies at your level. It should not be that bad and random.

it depends on who you ask

I guess I'm not decent at chess like I thought :')

Ratings don’t mean that much to me. Helps me gauge my progress a little, but that’s all. 

Completely overexaggerating here, I make a few less blunders and a good idea one or two times more often than others lower in rating, in no way do I play good chess or I'd argue even a coherent game of chess. It's just a mash of random ideas strung together in the hopes my opponent thinks I am actually playing something good instead of refuting the mostly rotten ideas I throw out.  I suppose being able to play blindfold could be entertaining to some people but if you can't play it well who really cares, it's just throwing out move random moves and ideas without coherency. I am still learning fundamental understanding at chess in the end but making progress.

-Jordan

If your rating is 950 you're better than two-thirds of the players Online here, so I'm not sure how 1000-1200 is a below average player. Unless you're talking about if he went to a chess club he'd be below average there. 

2100+ chess genius ------ lol not even close. Unless it's a genius that never studied chess and relies solely on their natural talent... more like someone who's not a genius but's been playing for a while and has studied a decent amount of chess

1900-2100: an outstanding chess player. Possesses solid knowledge of chess openings and end games. Probably can play chess with his eyes closed, and win. ----- Outstanding alright, but opening knowledge is relative. There are 1200s that know more opening theory than some 2000s. And while there are a few 2000ish players who can play blindfold, "probably" is a key word here... win with their eyes closed against who? Because unless it's against much much weaker players I don't think most would be able to perform half-decently while doing so blindfold... and would definitely lose to someone of similar rating who's looking at the board.

1400-1700: a proficent chess player, but doesn't know a lot about Chess theory, hasn't studied many openings or end games, and still needs to work on his pattern recognition skills. Can beat most or all of his friends. ----- What do you mean by chess theory? Openings? Because once again, as I said, that's very relative.  2000 and above also need to work on their pattern recognition. But yes, unless their friends are in a chessclub they would beat most, if not all of them.

1700-1900: a very good chess player. Makes few mistakes. Has reached a level of mastery that most Chess players will never reach. Probably knows a good deal about chess openings and end games. - "Probably" being the key word here as well.  Most chess players won't reach that level not because it's hard, but because they won't put enough effort for it, whether lack of interest or lack of time, but it's surely relatively an easily attainable rating with a little bit of work/effort. All my chess knowledge comes from youtube, puzzles and playing mostly blitz and sometimes 10 min rapid. Quantity of mistakes is somewhat relative as it depends on the position, if it's a chaotic sharp one or a simple balanced one. But I somewhat agree with the rest

Ratings are meaningless.

But if that's the case...why would grandmasters not be paired with novice players in online games?