Monster_Melons wrote:
ricorat wrote:
I’d say intermediate is about 1800 USCF
1800 is by FIDE called expert.
That would make sense as USCF ratings are a bit inflated next to FIDE ratings
What rating is considered intermediate?
Sort:
WoodyTBeagle wrote:
OK, I think it's a little ridiculous to say someone at the 1500 level or so is "rubbish". Judging chess by the standards of the elite of the elite is a little silly. 1500 players are better than 95% of everyone who plays chess. 1700 players better than 99%. Of course there are very advanced players who can outplay them - but their game is very very far from rubbish.
True I sometimes have a harder game against 1700s than against 2000s. There is very little difference in their skill levels, for the most part.
By the way, I'm not sure it's correct. I just read somewhere that FIDE don't use the term 'expert'.
brianchesscake wrote:
WoodyTBeagle wrote:
OK, I think it's a little ridiculous to say someone at the 1500 level or so is "rubbish". Judging chess by the standards of the elite of the elite is a little silly. 1500 players are better than 95% of everyone who plays chess. 1700 players better than 99%. Of course there are very advanced players who can outplay them - but their game is very very far from rubbish.
True I sometimes have a harder game against 1700s than against 2000s. There is very little difference in their skill levels, for the most part.
I liken this to cycling - if you're a Cat 5 professional cyclist - you're going to be a much stronger cyclist than 99% of the non-professional cycling world. You have pretty decent aerobic fitness. You can generate enough power to hang in a professional race. Cat 4s will beat Cat 5s, Cat 3s will drop Cat 5s. Cat 2s are in a whole different game and forget about Cat 1s.
And then there are whole levels within Cat 1s that separate the professionals from the elites who ride in the major tours. And then within the peloton on the major tours, there are the elites of the elites of the elites who compete for the jerseys.
But a Cat 5 cyclist is still a dang strong cyclist compared to vast majority of people riding bikes. It's just that on the far end of the bell curve there's a handful of super humans who well, make everyone else look like potters by comparison.
Dec 2, 2021
0
#46
Just lately I been taking lots of 1500 out which gives me a lot of hope of becoming 1600 rapid soon. I just beg God to help me get there & I promise him I will make the terminations as fast as possible as to not make people suffer. Thank you Lord. Amen
chanelno5x wrote:
jim5489 wrote:
RAU4ever wrote:
Terms like 'beginner' and 'intermediate' are very much terms that were coined in OTB chess. In the 'real world' there are almost no adults with ratings below 900. Around 1000 is just where people usually start. Then it makes sense to name 900-1200 beginners, then some intermediates till 1700/1800 or so etc. Considering that the rating also scales exponentially (2400 to 2500 is a much bigger gap than 900 to 1000) and that players rated 400 on chess.com are not all that different from players rated 900 (they just blunder (even) more frequently), I do think these levels are also applicable to this online environment.
I don't know about that. I am adult and my rating is below 650. I guess I'm just the worst player on earth.
I'm wondering if he's referring to adults who were formerly in chess clubs or had formal training at some point? It's been about a year of learning to play chess for me and I've barely reached 800. How about you?
Yes, you're right. I mean OTB as in people that play in chess clubs. In my experience I've not seen a 650 'USCF' or FIDE adult player. Not when organizing tournaments, not in competitions, not at my clubs. I do not see what Boogalicious describes, no where in my country. Maybe the term 'beginner' could be understood as a 'beginning clubplayer', cause we all know that there are plenty of people in the world that also know the rules of chess, but aren't affiliated with chess clubs.
@NikkiLikeChikki: it's such a moot point about a GM suddenly becoming a much worse player. But in the case you describe, yes, you would say that he/she was a former GM and is now playing at beginner level. Luckily that phrase will never actually be uttered out loud, cause people are sensible enough about people's diseases to not want to embarrass them. But it's actually quite common to refer to an older player that is past their prime by stating that they 'used to be bla and they're now bla' where bla can be a rating or rating strength.
To reiterate, I think it's the 'beginner' is a descriptive term. Being bad or being good has nothing to do with it. I don't think being a bad or a good player is a useful way to think in chess at all. When I was an 1800 player, I thought 2000 players knew everything. I get to 2200 and I know 2000 players make all kinds of mistakes, but also that I"m terrible compared to a GM. Compared to the super GMs out there, my understanding is like a grain of salt in the ocean. Chess can be a lifelong hobby, because there's always more stuff to learn and ways to get better. Even when we keep improving, we'll find we're bad in new ways. Therefore it's not a useful way to think about chess and no one should ever feel bad when they're having fun and trying their best at this game.
1150 or higher I think
1300-1900 is intermediate
people above that very rarely blunder pieces or obvious tactics
people below that blunder pieces and tactics alot
debatable
Jun 24, 2023
0
#51
If you listen to all the elitists on this site (and there are lots of them), you will consider yourself a beginner all your life. If that's how you want to think of yourself, fine with you. Me, I prefer going by statistics, and laugh at those who don't. If I'm above average at anything, then I will not consider myself a "beginner".
1400-1900 is intermediate level
but its really shaky because you can get one game where somebody autopilots the london system, gets stuck on what to do after 7 moves. then proceeds to lose in 20 more moves
then you might get another person whos entire skill revolves around them playing dubious openings trying to throw you off
i dont play/take chess.com very seriously anymore but this is what i´ve observed
NikkiLikeChikki wrote:
Stop calling lower-rated players beginners. They aren’t necessarily beginners. Would you call a GM with dementia who still tries to play but has lost most abilities a beginner? Lots of people have played a long time but struggle. Just call them lower-rated if you must.
When we say beginner we mean the level of skill that is expected from someone who has just begun.
GM is a permanent title. Even if you somehow get to a lower rating like 800, you would be a GM that's fallen down to beginner level.
Aug 28, 2023
0
#55
MyRatingIs1523IsHere wrote:
on this site, like 2000-2400 is intermediate
Yet my rating of 1406 is higher than 98% of the players on this site. But yeah, I'm still about 1000 points away from intermediate level according to you.
Aug 28, 2023
0
#56
@myratingis1523ishere as usual, you’re full of it. I could provide you a list of dozens and dozens of titled players with ratings of less than 2400 on chess.com. Stop trying to make people feel bad about their elos. Go make another account again 🙄
I’d say intermediate is about 1800 USCF
1800 is by FIDE called expert. (UPDATE: this might be wrong).
Expert according to USCF is rated 2000–2199 (UPDATE: this is correct)