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.
Originally posted by Will EverittA 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.
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.
Originally posted by GoodFriendRayRough USCF rating breakdown by percentile:
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.
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.
Originally posted by masscatSorry, 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.
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.
I think.
Originally posted by DrumboChess 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.
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.
Originally posted by masscatGotcha!!!! Check out: http://www.uschess.org/ratings/ratedist.html
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.
Those old figures are way, way off.
Originally posted by DrumboYou think I remembered all that?! I'm not THAT good. I copied it out of an old Chess Life magazine.
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