I've given this more thought, and it is mathematically impossible for the average of players who actually play chess and try to be 800.
That means there would be roughly the same number of players rated 600 as 1000... 400 as 1200... 200 as 1400... 100 as 1500. Then that's not even factoring any player above 1500.
Nope, impossible Lol
Is it because most people play for a while and then quit? If so, is there a way to see the average rating of chess players who've been playing for more than 2 or 3 years?
Or is chess just hard and an Elo of 800 really IS the average rating of a casual chess player?
chess is just hard and that is the real average bud. plus its just a number that depends on the playerbase. Tons of titled players playing here and people playing for years. Plus making new accounts is very fashionable in this community. On lichess i was around 1100 to 1200. On here I'm around 600. On another site I'm around 1400. They have different rating systems as well. It all depends. As long as you keep getting competitive matches I wouldn't even care about the rating and just have fun.
No. Anyone that puts real work into improving will surpass 1000 easily.
You had better be quiet, @InsertInterestingNameHere. You are messing with the wrong guy. Play me in 3 | 2 blitz and you will be sorry for everything you've said.
Next thing you know, you’re gonna start calling me yellow
also I can’t message or challenge you, you have me blocked lmao
also I can’t message or challenge you, you have me blocked lmao
right sorry
ok unblocked
I've given this more thought, and it is mathematically impossible for the average of players who actually play chess and try to be 800.
That means there would be roughly the same number of players rated 600 as 1000... 400 as 1200... 200 as 1400... 100 as 1500. Then that's not even factoring any player above 1500.
Nope, impossible Lol
Oh, I see what you're saying. You're saying if 800 is the middle of the bell curve, then the fact that there are players rated 3200 (hikaru) means the worst players would be rated negative 1600.
While I do think that some beginners would legitimately be rated below 0 if it were allowed, I don't think a rating of negative 1600 (or negative 1000) makes sense.
So I agree with your reasoning and conclusion.
well, most people. like, 99% of people can get to 1000. I was stuck under 1000 for about 5 months straight, simply because i wasn’t doing anything to improve. I was just mindlessly playing games.
Thats simply not true. Not only is 800 the average. But the majority of players, 90%, are around 700 or lower if you look at the global graph depending on the time control. And half those people are not new accounts. You are lying to yourself to feed your inferiority complex, like the stereo typical chess player society dislikes so much.
Yep. It just makes you feel bad for @InsertInterestingNameHere, doesn't it?
I mean people can play the game however they want I just don't like putting other people down. Its like saying someone is poor because they deserve to be. Most of the time that is not the case. I come from many gaming communities, and people feel entitled to sandbag on lower rated opponents using the "git gud" mentality as justification. Its become so twisted that it has become the online definition of "competitive". When in reality, that is the complete opposite of what competitive means.
We are all made differently, and people should be able to play at their own level without being harassed on or off the board so others can feel superior to them. If the pros acted like that towards people the game would be deader then it is. To me the goal of chess is not my rating or accuracy, its striving for competitive matches at whatever level I am.
He talks about people quitting the game, but acts as if they didn't quit their rating would have only increased and not decreased. But what he doesn't realize is seeing attitudes like his is what made them want to quit in the first place.
I agree sandbagging and speedrunning suck in general, and skilled people being biased also sucks (the "anyone can be as good as me if they tried" mentality).
Shaq was probably something like 6 feet tall when he was 12 years old (lol). When the difference is physical people have no problem admitting there are big differences. I could never be an NBA player no matter what I did in my life. Similarly some people will never be a GM. That's just not how the world works. There's too wide a range of genetic variation.
Still, I think you can be above 1000 coolout, just keep at it 
I've given this more thought, and it is mathematically impossible for the average of players who actually play chess and try to be 800.
That means there would be roughly the same number of players rated 600 as 1000... 400 as 1200... 200 as 1400... 100 as 1500. Then that's not even factoring any player above 1500.
Nope, impossible Lol
Oh, I see what you're saying. You're saying if 800 is the middle of the bell curve, then the fact that there are players rated 3200 (hikaru) means the worst players would be rated negative 1600.
While I do think that some beginners would legitimately be rated below 0 if it were allowed, I don't think a rating of negative 1600 (or negative 1000) makes sense.
So I agree with your reasoning and conclusion.
Yes exactly! Thank you. I'm often not good at explaining things. Definitely better with math than English Lol.
I've given this more thought, and it is mathematically impossible for the average of players who actually play chess and try to be 800.
That means there would be roughly the same number of players rated 600 as 1000... 400 as 1200... 200 as 1400... 100 as 1500. Then that's not even factoring any player above 1500.
Nope, impossible Lol
Oh, I see what you're saying. You're saying if 800 is the middle of the bell curve, then the fact that there are players rated 3200 (hikaru) means the worst players would be rated negative 1600.
While I do think that some beginners would legitimately be rated below 0 if it were allowed, I don't think a rating of negative 1600 (or negative 1000) makes sense.
So I agree with your reasoning and conclusion.
I just checked and as I suspected. I around 416,000 are at 1000. 593,000 are at 600. only 279,000 at 1200. 135,000 at 1500. Pretty sure this site accounts for rating decay as well for dormant accounts. I could be wrong. But its quite a naive assumption to say all those people who stopped playing could of been rated so much higher if they only kept at it. You can't say that. Just as many might have dropped in points. going up and down 200 points is not really that uncommon. Especially for lower rated players I've gone up and down 400 points lol. Many people make new accounts like they change clothes doesn't mean they are really new players.
So I have to agree as well. Pretty sure the average rating is as accurate as it could be.
I'm not necessarily saying those people would be better, I'm just saying that 800 doesn't make sense to me as an average.
There are a lot of different types of players in that graph. Some of them started at 5 years old and have had professional coaches along the way. Some people pick up chess as a hobby after they've retired at 60+ years old. There are different averages for different groups. The group of people who are serious above improving will have a higher average than the group that just plays casually.
well said. well contrary to what insert thinks I have gradually improved. but i try not to give myself false expectations. I just crossed over 700 for the first time ever. Now i prolly psyched myself out hahah.
Haha, yeah.
One time I was playing some casual games OTB with a guy. We'd played a lot before and he knew I was better than him. After one game where he beat me we were setting up the pieces for the next and I said hey, you played really well, good job, have you been studying or trying something different? This was just to psyche him out. He utterly collapsed the next game 
One simple answer is that Chess.com has a lower average than FIDE for example, because the average player on Chess.com is a less adept player than the players who seek FIDE ratings.
I've given this more thought, and it is mathematically impossible for the average of players who actually play chess and try to be 800.
That means there would be roughly the same number of players rated 600 as 1000... 400 as 1200... 200 as 1400... 100 as 1500. Then that's not even factoring any player above 1500.
Nope, impossible Lol
Oh, I see what you're saying. You're saying if 800 is the middle of the bell curve, then the fact that there are players rated 3200 (hikaru) means the worst players would be rated negative 1600.
While I do think that some beginners would legitimately be rated below 0 if it were allowed, I don't think a rating of negative 1600 (or negative 1000) makes sense.
So I agree with your reasoning and conclusion.
I just checked and as I suspected. I around 416,000 are at 1000. 593,000 are at 600. only 279,000 at 1200. 135,000 at 1500. Pretty sure this site accounts for rating decay as well for dormant accounts. I could be wrong. But its quite a naive assumption to say all those people who stopped playing could of been rated so much higher if they only kept at it. You can't say that. Just as many might have dropped in points. going up and down 200 points is not really that uncommon. Especially for lower rated players I've gone up and down 400 points lol. Many people make new accounts like they change clothes doesn't mean they are really new players.
So I have to agree as well. Pretty sure the average rating is as accurate as it could be.
I'm not necessarily saying those people would be better, I'm just saying that 800 doesn't make sense to me as an average.
There are a lot of different types of players in that graph. Some of them started at 5 years old and have had professional coaches along the way. Some people pick up chess as a hobby after they've retired at 60+ years old. There are different averages for different groups. The group of people who are serious above improving will have a higher average than the group that just plays casually.
2 years old some of them lol. but you make a good point. I also think its a whole lot easier to improve and develop the essential skills at a young age. Then someone like me who just learned 6 months ago and is already braindead and blind hahaha.
Yeah man, everyone will say they wish they started younger. I've said it too. It's really true that starting as an adult is a lot harder.
One master at an OTB tournament said he was mad his friend started at 8 and became an IM while he's stuck at FM because he didn't start until 14.
Whether that's why he got "stuck" at master level I don't know, but I'm just saying literally everyone complains about it, even people who started pretty young and became pretty good
I've given this more thought, and it is mathematically impossible for the average of players who actually play chess and try to be 800.
That means there would be roughly the same number of players rated 600 as 1000... 400 as 1200... 200 as 1400... 100 as 1500. Then that's not even factoring any player above 1500.
Nope, impossible Lol
Oh, I see what you're saying. You're saying if 800 is the middle of the bell curve, then the fact that there are players rated 3200 (hikaru) means the worst players would be rated negative 1600.
While I do think that some beginners would legitimately be rated below 0 if it were allowed, I don't think a rating of negative 1600 (or negative 1000) makes sense.
So I agree with your reasoning and conclusion.
I just checked and as I suspected. I around 416,000 are at 1000. 593,000 are at 600. only 279,000 at 1200. 135,000 at 1500. Pretty sure this site accounts for rating decay as well for dormant accounts. I could be wrong. But its quite a naive assumption to say all those people who stopped playing could of been rated so much higher if they only kept at it. You can't say that. Just as many might have dropped in points. going up and down 200 points is not really that uncommon. Especially for lower rated players I've gone up and down 400 points lol. Many people make new accounts like they change clothes doesn't mean they are really new players.
So I have to agree as well. Pretty sure the average rating is as accurate as it could be.
I'm not necessarily saying those people would be better, I'm just saying that 800 doesn't make sense to me as an average.
There are a lot of different types of players in that graph. Some of them started at 5 years old and have had professional coaches along the way. Some people pick up chess as a hobby after they've retired at 60+ years old. There are different averages for different groups. The group of people who are serious above improving will have a higher average than the group that just plays casually.
2 years old some of them lol. but you make a good point. I also think its a whole lot easier to improve and develop the essential skills at a young age. Then someone like me who just learned 6 months ago and is already braindead and blind hahaha.
Yeah man, everyone will say they wish they started younger. I've said it too. It's really true that starting as an adult is a lot harder.
One master at an OTB tournament said he was mad his friend started at 8 and became an IM while he's stuck at FM because he didn't start until 14.
Whether that's why he got "stuck" at master level I don't know, but I'm just saying literally everyone complains about it, even people who started pretty young and became pretty good
I don't think there is a GM who did not start chess till after his teen years. Am I wrong? probably not even late teens lol
The topic gets brought up a lot.
There's some GM Chinese player's wiki that says he didn't start until something stupidly late like age 20. People like to post that one a lot... but I like to note there are no references. It's just this claim floating out there.
People will point out historical figures like Chigorin IIRC didn't start until age 18, and played a match for the world championship... but I like to point out that in the 1800s there were no professional players, so this isn't quite the same. Today you're competing against people who started structured training at a young age.
People will point out players like Finegold who didn't get his title until age... 40? But he was a strong IM in his teens or something, so that obviously doesn't count.
Not trying to put you down, coolout. You’re obviously improving, and at a decent rate at that. You went from 400 to 700 in about 2 months, maybe even less if my sense of time is wrong. Mentioning your rating is not insulting you. I’m saying that people that say that they’re not improving simply because “chess is hard”, I think that’s BS. I think everyone can become good with practice and dedication. Not everyone can get to GM, or to 2000, but I do think that 99% of players could easily get to 1000 if they keep at it.
Yeah man, by the way, I started as a (young) adult. I improved at the rate of ~100 points a year, every year, for about 10 years
100 points in a year probably seems slow to most people, but I didn't care. Sometimes I did my best to study (like spending all my free time), but over 10 years, most of the time I just enjoyed playing and learning stuff here and there.
I've given this more thought, and it is mathematically impossible for the average of players who actually play chess and try to be 800.
That means there would be roughly the same number of players rated 600 as 1000... 400 as 1200... 200 as 1400... 100 as 1500. Then that's not even factoring any player above 1500.
Nope, impossible Lol
If you look at the graph on the stats page, the graph follows a lognormal curve. If it was a normal distribution your logic would be correct.
I started when I was 13, but got serious and made a chess.com account a year later. Lucky to have started so young, so I can easily retain that information. ‘parrently starting young is very important to improving at chess, so if there’s gonna be one flaw in my logic, it’s that I’m a spoiled little kiddo who doesn’t know how hard it is to learn at the old, back-breaking age of 20
I've given this more thought, and it is mathematically impossible for the average of players who actually play chess and try to be 800.
That means there would be roughly the same number of players rated 600 as 1000... 400 as 1200... 200 as 1400... 100 as 1500. Then that's not even factoring any player above 1500.
Nope, impossible Lol
If you look at the graph on the stats page, the graph follows a lognormal curve. If it was a normal distribution your logic would be correct.
That's definitely worth pointing out.
But I'm not sure... because chess.com doesn't allow ratings to go below 100. I've coached beginners before, and IMO negative ratings actually exist
If true, it would mean we'd expect players to accumulate on the left end like that. I don't think there's any reason to expect the distribution is anything but gaussian in reality.
I wish i could have been one of those high brows that just took to chess and could live, eat, and breathe it. Study 5+ hours a day. But...that didn't happen. I just happen to be one of those guys that enjoys the game. Had to force myself to study. And hoped for the best.
As soon as I feel I am forcing anything on the chess front, I just stop. It's a leisure activity for me.
well, most people. like, 99% of people can get to 1000. I was stuck under 1000 for about 5 months straight, simply because i wasn’t doing anything to improve. I was just mindlessly playing games.
Thats simply not true. Not only is 800 the average. But the majority of players, 90%, are around 700 or lower if you look at the global graph depending on the time control. And half those people are not new accounts. You are lying to yourself to feed your inferiority complex, like the stereo typical chess player society dislikes so much.
Yep. It just makes you feel bad for @InsertInterestingNameHere, doesn't it?