Why 2000-2199 OTB ("experts") are weak players
Sort:
May 7, 2017
0
#22
Thanks for the responses.
Experts are not really that "weak" when you compare them to the average rated tournament player, I will agree.
I just remember when I was 1600, thought 1800s were "really strong", and 2000+ was "incredible, very very tough player", and now realize that they make so many mistakes it's almost laughable.
And yeah, I will sometimes analyze the games myself, and then turn on Stockfish, which will tell me that 50% of what I just analyzed was complete garbage.
May 7, 2017
0
#23
Cherub_Enjel wrote:
I just remember when I was 1600, thought 1800s were "really strong", and 2000+ was "incredible, very very tough player",
That's exactly how I think about it now Haha. But I realize its all relative. When I was among the 500-1000 leauge, I remember thinking 1200 rated players were cool, scary and really good. Lmao *pats my former self on the head*
May 7, 2017
0
#24
If you weren't a weak chessplayer, you'd be a master.
But then you'd still be no good, because you aren't a titled master (IM, GM).
But if you were a GM but not a Super-GM (2700+) you'd be comparatively lame compared to these titans of the game.
I guess you either need to become world champion or resign yourself to mediocrity.
May 8, 2017
0
#26
Cherub_Enjel wrote:
Thanks for the responses. Experts are not really that "weak" when you compare them to the average rated tournament player, I will agree. I just remember when I was 1600, thought 1800s were "really strong", and 2000+ was "incredible, very very tough player", and now realize that they make so many mistakes it's almost laughable. And yeah, I will sometimes analyze the games myself, and then turn on Stockfish, which will tell me that 50% of what I just analyzed was complete garbage.
Depending on the game of course, against a 1600, an expert may play very very few mistakes, so that's not so inaccurate.
But against peers we always struggle because our opponents see our ideas and have roughly the same ability. So we (basically) always get to positions where we're unsure and start to guess vs peers.
May 8, 2017
0
#28
dpnorman wrote:
Oh man, you should see some of the tournament positions I failed to win.
Fresh on my mind is a game where 100% of my pieces were attacking his exposed king. Lots of ways to checkmate... and I basically find the ONLY way for him to get a perpetual against me. So frustrating.
May 8, 2017
0
#29
happytoad wrote:
knig22 wrote:
I know I'm bad, but now i know others are bad as well. Actually I once won a tournament game against a 2200 player when I was rated 1600, so ratings don't tell everything.
For two players rated 600 points apart, the lower rated player should, in theory, score around 3-4%. In practice, for OTB play, it's just a tiny bit higher than this (difference in the statistical trends between theory - the results predicted by the rating formula - and practice - actual results - here is another long and separate topic, though ).
This is a thing that should happen from time to time, for many reasons. Higher rated does not mean strictly better in every possible position with 100% reliability. The higher rated player will make fewer mistakes and play the vast majority of positions better than the lower rated player the vast majority of times, but sometimes things go just right for the lower rated player. You get a game where the higher rated player makes the blunder instead of the lower rated one, or you get one of those rare positions that the lower rated player happens to handle better than the higher rated one.
No way 1000 can beat 1600. They barery knows the rules. Most likely 1000 is simply underrated or 1600 is overrated OR cases when higher rated blunders his queen on move 5 regardless of the rating of other player but still 1000 rated wont be able to win whole queen up.
Experts are not much more of just capeable of making logical moves in any position that don't blunder right away but even they still blunder pieces to two move tactic or so. The Word Expert is way too much. I believe 2200 uscf should be called Expert and 2300 uscf Master.
Keep in mind that FIDE is giving CM title which is Candidate Master and is probably 2250+ USCF...
Go get a real rating to see if they are any good?: )
I had some lessons recently with a 2300 player, who came to the conclusion that the main difference between me and him was that I haven't yet developed the ability to consistently recognise the point or points in the game which are crucially important and require extra thought and effort to be put in.
Perhaps this is the hump we need to get over?
AIM-AceMove wrote: No way 1000 can beat 1600. They barery knows the rules. Most likely 1000 is simply underrated or 1600 is overrated OR cases when higher rated blunders his queen on move 5 regardless of the rating of other player but still 1000 rated wont be able to win whole queen up.
I thought something like that until I started teaching chess to beginners. No longer.
1000 blitz (I know, not directly comparable to a USCF or FIDE rating) is the average rating of a chess.com player. You can check yourself here: https://www.chess.com/leaderboard/live Look at the rating graph on the right side and see that the peak of the graph - the largest number of players - are rated 1000. The majority of players here did not learn how to play yesterday and barely know the rules 
Having taught many hundreds of beginners at this point, I can safely say that someone who just learned the rules would have a negative rating, if the system allowed it and there was some way to actually assess their skill level before they play several games (by which point they may have improved to at least a positive rating). In many classes of children, the best players in the class achieve a rating of 100 (the USCF minimum) when they go play. The weaker players do not even play in the tournaments.
@happytoad, I think USCF Elo is unusual in that the ratings are allowed to go down that far. In Wales Elo a beginner is about 700-800. You're right though that an up-and-coming 1000-rated kid has a decent shot at a 1600-rated old codger. I'd back the kid in a lot of those cases.
May 8, 2017
0
#34
happytoad wrote:
AIM-AceMove wrote: No way 1000 can beat 1600. They barery knows the rules. Most likely 1000 is simply underrated or 1600 is overrated OR cases when higher rated blunders his queen on move 5 regardless of the rating of other player but still 1000 rated wont be able to win whole queen up.
I thought something like that until I started teaching chess to beginners. No longer.
1000 blitz (I know, not directly comparable to a USCF or FIDE rating) is the average rating of a chess.com player. You can check yourself here: https://www.chess.com/leaderboard/live Look at the rating graph on the right side and see that the peak of the graph - the largest number of players - are rated 1000. The majority of players here did not learn how to play yesterday and barely know the rules
Having taught many hundreds of beginners at this point, I can safely say that someone who just learned the rules would have a negative rating, if the system allowed it and there was some way to actually assess their skill level before they play several games (by which point they may have improved to at least a positive rating). In many classes of children, the best players in the class achieve a rating of 100 (the USCF minimum) when they go play. The weaker players do not even play in the tournaments.
Wow, really? That's so weird. You say the best players in t he class are 100?
But I guess these kids are real beginners who just learned the moves. Once I taught some kids and they were playing games like "lets agree to only move our knights!" or "lets only move all our pawns first." So maybe it's like that?
there are always tactical mistakes in every game, whether you see them or not
Antonio_Montana wrote:
You are 2000+ OTB?
I honestly think that you don't know what an "Expert" Chess player really is... man.
We don't look in the mirror like you and say this guy or that guy is very very tough or call games garbage. The garbage is for cockaroaches.
You have a rating supposedly man, but you don't speak like someone who should be rated anywhere near "expert". I just don't see it man.
For that reason, you may be a cockaroach because your ability is likely much lower than your rating and you don't even believe you are any good. That's the mindset of the cockaroaches. I bury cockaroaches
The_Chin_Of_Quinn wrote:
But I guess these kids are real beginners who just learned the moves. Once I taught some kids and they were playing games like "lets agree to only move our knights!" or "lets only move all our pawns first." So maybe it's like that?
Yes, I'm talking about first-year players here. They often play that way even without any sort of agreement at all! And until they've learned otherwise, why not? They're trying things and seeing what works. It's a very slow process, and I didn't appreciate just how slowly it goes for most until I started teaching a lot of kids. The people we are exposed to at tournaments, in chess clubs, or even most of the time on chess.com are, for the most part, people who understood this stuff a lot more quickly than others and stuck with it.
Also, in my experience, generally adults can learn these basics (not often hanging pieces, checkmate patterns, simple strategic concepts like "development" "space" etc.) faster.
Im not so sure about that
WOW,That's Interesting.
what is a cockaroach