Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 09 Feb '06 18:01
    How good do you have to be at chess to deserve a label like "competent but undistinguished"?
  2. 09 Feb '06 18:13
    Originally posted by GoodFriendRay
    How good do you have to be at chess to deserve a label like "competent but undistinguished"?
    There's no such label in chess.
  3. 09 Feb '06 18:31
    Originally posted by GoodFriendRay
    How good do you have to be at chess to deserve a label like "competent but undistinguished"?
    Strange question why do you ask?
    I would say someone with a high stable rating but no major tournament wins. For rating I would say 2000.
  4. 09 Feb '06 19:03
    Chess Life columnist Jerry Hanken called low rated masters, the guys that play a lot of major opens, etc., but rarely win anything, "journeyman masters."
  5. 09 Feb '06 21:11
    The only thing wrong with that is it includes the word "master". As for 2000+ there is a reason they are called experts. Personally I think you are competent right around class C. That seems to be the point where you don't drop pieces every game and can start thinking long term. Besides, if you play local tournaments in smaller cities anyone can win. In my last 3 tournaments we have not had anyone rated above 2100. A class A player could certainly win that.

    My lone tournament victory was against a bunch of B,C and D players. It was a month long club tournament where you played one game 30/90 SD/60 every wednesday night. None of the usuall winners tourned out that month and I won it as a 1200.
  6. 09 Feb '06 21:12
    Originally posted by Will Everitt
    Strange question why do you ask?
    I would say someone with a high stable rating but no major tournament wins. For rating I would say 2000.
    A friend was lamenting his inability to improve his 1800-ish OTB rating. I told him that he was certainly a competent player and shouldn't worry so much. He felt that his level of play is hopelessly weak. I wondered what others thought.
  7. 09 Feb '06 21:12 / 1 edit
    Must have hit post twice
  8. 09 Feb '06 22:41
    Originally posted by GoodFriendRay
    A friend was lamenting his inability to improve his 1800-ish OTB rating. I told him that he was certainly a competent player and shouldn't worry so much. He felt that his level of play is hopelessly weak. I wondered what others thought.
    Rough USCF rating breakdown by percentile:
    2400+ 0.4%
    Masters 2.6%
    Experts 10%
    Class A 27%
    Class B 55%
    Class C 81%
    Class D 95%
    Class E 98%

    e.g. an 1800 rating puts him in the top 27% of the rated players in the country. These stats are at least 20 years old, but I doubt they've changed much.
  9. 09 Feb '06 22:49
    "A" player category, 1800+ USCF rating....that's a good strong player, like a local tennis/golf instructor at the local club, someone that can beat the pants off of any novice or strong casual player, but who is not good enough to be a master.
  10. 09 Feb '06 23:14
    Originally posted by masscat
    Rough USCF rating breakdown by percentile:
    2400+ 0.4%
    Masters 2.6%
    Experts 10%
    Class A 27%
    Class B 55%
    Class C 81%
    Class D 95%
    Class E 98%

    e.g. an 1800 rating puts him in the top 27% of the rated players in the country. These stats are at least 20 years old, but I doubt they've changed much.
    Sorry, but those percentages don't sound right. where did you get them from? 1800+ is surely better than the top 27 percentile rank, and 2000+ expert is much better than the top 10% of serious players.
    I think.
  11. 10 Feb '06 12:40
    Originally posted by Drumbo
    Sorry, but those percentages don't sound right. where did you get them from? 1800+ is surely better than the top 27 percentile rank, and 2000+ expert is much better than the top 10% of serious players.
    I think.
    Chess Life Magazine based on their rating list. Like I said, it's pretty old, but I doubt the figures have changed much since they tend to follow the Bell Curve.
  12. 10 Feb '06 12:50
    Originally posted by masscat
    Chess Life Magazine based on their rating list. Like I said, it's pretty old, but I doubt the figures have changed much since they tend to follow the Bell Curve.
    Gotcha!!!! Check out: http://www.uschess.org/ratings/ratedist.html

    Those old figures are way, way off.
  13. 10 Feb '06 13:35
    Originally posted by Drumbo
    Gotcha!!!! Check out: http://www.uschess.org/ratings/ratedist.html

    Those old figures are way, way off.
    That's good news...makes us all look better! Why do you think the stats have changed so drastically in the last 20 years?
  14. 10 Feb '06 13:41
    I don't think they have changed, I think we're dealing with a false 20+ year old memory....seems to me they were about the same back in 1980 when I was in USSCF
  15. 10 Feb '06 13:48
    Originally posted by Drumbo
    I don't think they have changed, I think we're dealing with a false 20+ year old memory....seems to me they were about the same back in 1980 when I was in USSCF
    You think I remembered all that?! I'm not THAT good. I copied it out of an old Chess Life magazine.