What Playing Level is Respectable?

That's true. When I didn't understand chess it seemed pointless. I didn't understand why someone could attack and I couldn't though I didn't know how to attack anyway.

1800+ over the board and you are beginning to be respectable.

Whatever your comfortable with should be respectable enough. You shouldn't worry about what other people think of your rating, once you do that you already are defeating your purpose of playing. Worry about your own game, not your rating.

I tend to agree with Capablabla, personally, although I would add that I respect everyone equally on the human level, and am very glad that so many people find passion and enjoyment in chess. Also, when I play someone I don't know, I try not to make assumptions about their level based on their rating. I try to judge their level by what I see on the chessboard.

Certainly, I believe that most of my games (ca. 1700 level online) are blunder festivals and I get frustrated with myself when I play well (for me) up to a point late in the game, then destroy my game with a blunder. This goes for classic bonehead blunders and also serious mistakes that come from not analysing deeply enough. Conversely, I get little joy from winning due to an opponent's blunder.

The greatest player I have seen in person was Tigran Petrosian, at a simultaneous exhibition in New York in the early '80s. He played 33 boards, I believe, some of the players master level, and won 29 games and drew 4. He averaged a round of all 33 boards in ten minutes, pausing no more than a few seconds in front of some boards, even in the middle game. Clearly, he had memorized some, if not all of the games in progress. Very few of us can aspire to that kind of achievement in chess, and to see him play had the same effect of wonder as hearing one of the greatest musicians make music. One is amazed by a human brain that can reach such brilliancy.

Yet, on the other hand, we can observe small, but very consistent, differences in level among we amateur players. Some players not much better than me beat me regularly, while I regularly win against players not much weaker. Some play seldom, but are remarkably strong, while others study hard, but advance with difficulty. It would seem that chess requires both talent (brainpower) and assiduous study.

 For me, I only hope to improve steadily enough that I can maintain my passion and balance chess with all the other activities in life. Level should not become, in my case, the goal, but only a different measure from enjoyment, a more objective one.

"Respectable" is very subjective, so it's not surprising to see answers all over the map. Suppose we consider a specific scenario. There is a bunch of novice players (e.g., start out moving all their pawns for first several moves) who want a group chess lesson. Ideally, they would get a titled player to teach them, but for whatever reason, that doesn't happen. What rating suggests that a player is good enough to talk for a couple of hours and benefit the novices? Or more generally, if you want help from a stronger player, how many rating points would qualify as stronger? +400? +800?

Its too bad you aren't getting anything out of these long but very interesting posts afaf ;P.

On a serious note.....

I would say you CAN have a decent understanding of chess at around 1600 rating(otb). 

But, more specifically I would say you have a sound understanding of the game when you can look at a position and tell yourself one or several different moves with one or more(clear) different plans which are valid in a position and which moves or plans clearly don't work and why. 

About a year ago, when I was rated 1300, I was impressed by people who had ratings above 1500. Now my rating is 2000+. I would say a respectable rating depends on what your own rating is.

It's funny that most chess players whom I know consider people of the same strength as them or even a bit stronger to be "woodpushers". Remember Garry Kasparov's famous "they're all tourists" or "Kramnik is the only chess player (apart from me) who understands chess. Others just move pieces around." So even super GMs are vulnerable in the eyes of the greatest...

 Rating is based greatly on win-loss percentages, and that data, for the most part, also represents where you lie on the curve of Chess.com players.

To no lesser extent, rating is also dependent on who you beat, and when, as evidenced by players like "bosco":

http://www.chess.com/echess/profile/bosco

Who, despite having an awesome rating, has a staggering win-loss percentage of 62%-33%.  Statisical anomalies aside, anyone who is 1500 or better on Chess.com (after a period of at least 100 games) is already playing well enough to garner 95% win-loss over average (true 1350-ish) players.  Empirical rule says that 68% of all players will be within 1 standard deviation of mean (or average), and 95% will be within two standard deviations.  Therefore, players at or above 1 standard deviation (84.1%), or a rating of about 1670 are playing at a level that I would consider "uncommonly good".

Respectability, at least to me, means playing above the norm, and winning a tough game from time-to-time.  If you consistently play your best game, and continue to learn new things, eventually your rating will reflect that.

Niven,   Thanks!  Coming in at  1676 Im feeling much beter about my game based on your math !!  Leonid   

I think my Elo would be between 1300 and 1400, so I respect anyone who is above me and even 50-100 points below me.

kpboutote wrote:

Certainly, I believe that most of my games (ca. 1700 level online) are blunder festivals and I get frustrated with myself when I play well (for me) up to a point late in the game, then destroy my game with a blunder. This goes for classic bonehead blunders and also serious mistakes that come from not analysing deeply enough. Conversely, I get little joy from winning due to an opponent's blunder.

 According to the computer analysis tool on Chess.com, near-master level players (c.1900) routinely make blunders, mistakes, and inaccuracies.  Stronger computer algorithms have shown that even Master-level players can miss continuations that either simplify the game or lead to a win, when the real-life result was a draw.  Even relatively weak engines are already playing at a strength where they don't have much competition from human opponents.  On the other hand, computers often miss imaginative sacrifices and gambits where the end result is devastating.  Engine designers must constantly update their engine's database to recognize those positions when they occur.  There are many little-known openings and combos that are sometimes labled "anti-computer lines" because of this.

The point being - enjoy your wins, no matter how they occur, whether due to your inspired play, your opponent's blunders, or even on time.  All of these are part of the game, and every player's rating contains at least one in it, which makes everything equal-out in the long run.

Maybe a better point would be to enjoy your games, no matter wether you win or lose them.

Thanks, Niven42 and Sothilde, both of you make very good points--being amateurs, we are fortunately allowed to focus on enjoyment. Even if we can't play tennis like Federer, it still feels great to hit the ball around the court with a friendly opponent near our level. Likewise in chess.

While going through the "Topics I Have Posted In" category, I spotted this old gem-of-a-thread.  I thought it would be nice to update my comments on respectability, in light of the experiences I've had on my Vote Chess teams...

I'm currently in about 5 or 6 groups with high-level "team captains".  I've come to respect these people's opinions when it comes to piece positioning, and have seen how they can lead a group in a positive direction when they are listened to.  On the other hand, some groups, despite having a strong leader, will fail many times just because the mob either doesn't listen to the leader, bad communication in both directions, or because the leader suffers from a myopic view of the game.  So it would seem that communication is also critical to earning respect.

That said, I no longer feel like players in the 1600's have a "respectable level of play", just based solely on their rating.  There are always other factors at work.  There are also many players rated much higher than that, that still "don't get Chess" like they should.  They play without much soul or heart, blindly following rules that work, but they have no idea why they work.  So I would say, respectable level is an elusive quality, something that is very hard to assign a number to.  But we would like to think that high-level players (c.2200+) can't get there without picking something up along the way, and by that, I mean the respect of (at least some of) their peers.

I play at expert strength (OTB and CC) when I'm "on". I've often won against players who outrate me significantly, I've found a few novelties in openings, and I'm usually a useful contributor to post-game analysis.

But I'm not respectable, and here's why: I can't teach the game.

I wonder what I said last time I posted here. Yeah I'm sure my opinion has changed

I now feel that only GM level is something I can truly respect, as it's very hard to critisize their moves and plans, but I can do that sometimes with games of anyone lower (I can't beat them in a game though). I've realized even masters have lots of holes in their play.

No, of course I respect master and above, but I'm starting to see flaws in their play for once and I certainly don't think their gods.

Man this is an old thread.

Opinion seconded.

How about for the player of average talent.