Journeyman chess

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.

When these stats were true (if they were), USCF ratings were terribly inflated. Arpad Elo's theory upon which the rating system is built, would have 1500 at the 50th percentile. According to the current distribution chart, the median is closer to 1000, and just under 1400 if you exclude scholastic members. You have it somewhere close to 1700 it seems.

The influx of scholastic members has driven the ratings down in recent years, as well as making adult events more dangerous. Many youth are underrated, and a 1200 kid in an adult tournament is often, in truth, a 1500 player in actual strength. Consequently, the kids wins most of the money for biggest upset.

BTW, the figures you reported would be "percentile" if you subtracted each from 100 and typed the answer. 0.4% represents the proportion of players that have reached that rating or higher, As a percentile, this figure would be expressed as 99.6%, which is fairly close to the 99.58% presented in the USCF 2002 Ratings Distribution Chart for non-scholastic members. http://www.uschess.org/ratings/ratedist.html

Originally posted by Wulebgr
When these stats were true (if they were), USCF ratings were terribly inflated. Arpad Elo's theory upon which the rating system is built, would have 1500 at the 50th percentile. According to the current distribution chart, the median is closer to 1000, and just under 1400 if you exclude scholastic members. You have it somewhere close to 1700 it seems.

The ...[text shortened]... s Distribution Chart for non-scholastic members. http://www.uschess.org/ratings/ratedist.html

Your explanation makes sense. When I started playing, the lowest rating you could get was 1200. Scholastic players were rare in those days as there was only about 5000 USCF members. BTW, I copied the stats from the rating list section given in an old issue of Chess Life exactly as given.

Originally posted by masscat
Your explanation makes sense. When I started playing, the lowest rating you could get was 1200. Scholastic players were rare in those days as there was only about 5000 USCF members. BTW, I copied the stats from the rating list section given in an old issue of Chess Life exactly as given.

Did you say which issue? I'd like to look at the article. I may have it here, as I have issues going back to 1978 (with huge gaps missing).

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Did you say which issue? I'd like to look at the article. I may have it here, as I have issues going back to 1978 (with huge gaps missing).

I just grabbed one out of a stack, so I don't remember. It wasn't an article; it was just a table given along with the rating list. Actually they gave the breakdown in 100 point intervals, but I didn't feel like that much typing.

Before Prof. Elo stamped numbers on our foreheads, people played to win tournaments or place as high as they could in the standings or simply win as many games they could. Forget ratings. Play to win and let others figure out how good you are. – Leon Poliakoff