FM nobodyreally, I have a feeling that women that looks perfect are the ones that takes plastic operations. They are really the ones that sure dont need it, but perfectionists never stops hunting for perfection. It looks like you are at that level.
I dont have your perspective. In chess I am like a kid. I have less than two years of high chessactivity, one as a teenager , and a half year now. I compare myself to kids, and competes with very talented kids, and also adults that are improving less.
From your perspective a normal clubplayer is mediocre, from my perspective he is a strong player who I desires to catch up with.
You are not able to see the strenght of lower rated players, because you have elevated to a higher level, out of sight.
To me the clubplayer looks like elite. Most of them. When I started in Nordstrand Sjakklubb in January i knew that all of them could beat me, and most of them where far above my level.
When I meet a player online here that has risen very fast in rating, I think he is a clubplayer, so clubplayer is too me a high standard itself, and those clubplayers are top 5 % or at least top 10% here.
I am not finished getting my game toghether, but I have travelled a long distance on our rating and the main bunch online is around 1400, and playing them were interesting games for me. The 1400-players is not fully developed and often lacks overview. I too have severe holes in my chessknowledge and are just not able to see all the treaths, so we are far , far from masters, but interesting games and cool combinations happens, inbetween the games that are hurt by blunders.
So from a 1400 point of view(early march I was there) the 1800 and 1800+ clubplayers were the hard guys, nearly invincible.
It would be fun to try a game against you, just too feel the strenght of a master.
Edit: I did look at the rating-graph. Most players here are rated at between 1000 and 1600 online, peaking at 1300. I am at 1690 ca top 7%, and have some work to do to catch up with the clubplayers. This autumn a want to jump from the c-class were I have scored 4 of 7 or 4.5 of 7 up to B-class. I guess I will struggle hard there with not to much points.
When I first started out, people who play at about my strength now seemed like they were very good, and a level worth aspiring to. Now that I am where I am, I realize how much I don't know, and how objectively bad of a chess player I am. When I look at players who are just over 2000, they seem like they are worlds apart from me, because the difference is started to get to nuances. A tempo, the right choice of exchanges, the minor pieces, and all around understanding needs to improve exponentially and I need to play at any given level more consistanty than I do now. That really goes for anybody at any level when looking up to other ratings.
My online rating is 1862 and I'm not a good player but an OK player. I'm in the top 2.5% on chess.com. Last time I played here I think my rating was about 2250. I wasn't any better then than I am now but I was playing more games. Actually I think the overall standard here has improved. If I was playing a 1300 over the board I would expect to win if I was concentrating well and trying hard but sometimes it can take a lot of effort. One passive or careless move and getting a win depends on using all the tricks at your disposal if the 1300 is playing well. A weaker player, on his day, can be a dangerous opponent. When I was at my best I expected to win every time over the board against an 1800. It seemed I could always find something. Concentration, and a combination of positional and tactical play, changing the tempo, trying to play with their mind.
First of all 1800 is NOT an experienced GOOD player, It's the rating that goes with a very average mediocre club player.
In the US Chess Federation, which is not terribly atypical for Elo ratings, an 1800 player stands above 88%-90% of all rated players. That's not the normal meaning of average.
How many USCF rated chess players are there? It can't be too much if a player rated 1800 is stronger than the 90% of all other USCF players.
In June, there were 103270 players who had FIDE rating.
The last player who had an 1800 rating was placed 59206. on the list.
So 1800 is still below the average.
Only a couple of years ago, you could not get a FIDE rating below 2000. Then, they lowered it. To have a FIDE rating, one must be significantly above average.
Overall Ranking 5356(T) out of 54016 90.1A friend of mine who is 1811 is
Rankings include only those with activity in the past year.
Your effort to dismiss a percentile distribution based upon the quantity in the pool is absurd. To see how, extend your logic to Chess.com, where the number of players dwarf the number of FIDE rated players.
Here's a player just below 1800 on Chess.com:
Current: 1799 Today's Rank: #24,524 of 1,667,498 Percentile: 98.5%Yes, but what the FM said about the number of accounts is accurate. When looking at those numbers, a person should look at what kind of people may be making up the other 1,000,000 plus active users. Keep in mind, that only about 15,000 people are on at a time. So, those accounts may still be open, but not in use. If anything, chess.com's statistics are polluted due to some of the afformentioned statements. It's not that 1800 isn't a respectable rating for the average player and club player, it's just that the FM is providing a view from the top as opposed to a view from the bottom, and to be quite honest, he makes a very strong arguement.