I hadn't been at the forums for a while and now when I have a little more time for chess I can start a few new useless threads. 🙂
I wonder how would you judge players to rating categories like
0-800 Patzer
800-1000 Advanced patzer
1000-1200 High end patzer 😛
1200-1400 Weak serious player and so on.... I don't have idea how to continue. Is there some real FIDE or USCF clasification? What do you think?
Originally posted by ivan2908 I hadn't been at the forums for a while and now when I have a little more time for chess I can start a few new useless threads. 🙂
I wonder how would you judge players to rating categories like
0-800 Patzer
800-1000 Advanced patzer
1000-1200 High end patzer 😛
1200-1400 Weak serious player and so on.... I don't have idea how to continue. Is there some real FIDE or USCF clasification? What do you think?
It's hard to rate lower class players because they usually improve and can sometimes play rather good...be careful when you judge someone on their rating
I don't know the exact numbers but I've heard that 1800 is when you enter the 'strong player' category. 1400-1800 is decent IMO. Less than 1200 is patzer. 1200-1400 is probably the phase of greatest learning.
Originally posted by ih8sens I don't know the exact numbers but I've heard that 1800 is when you enter the 'strong player' category. 1400-1800 is decent IMO. Less than 1200 is patzer. 1200-1400 is probably the phase of greatest learning.
Yeah, I've heard a few times that 1800 - Class A - is the point at which strong players will consider you "good." Mainly because that's about when players will consistantly win won positions.
I think anyone with a rating closer to 2000 than 1000 is doing fairly well for themselves, though.
It's not possible to get a zero rating with the ELO system as you need to consistently lose over 400 games to people with ratings of around 400, even a draw would set you back by 16+ games and as long as you didn't just resign games after 3 moves stalemates and so on become a real likelihood at that kind of standard. Under the BCF rating system, which works in basically the same way as the provisional rating system here, it is possible to get a negative rating, but they set these to zero.
To me, getting to 1400 means that you have a pretty solid knowlege of chess. Sure, there are players that know more, but that's the case with just about everyone.
Another indication of playing strength is the absence of blundering (as in, overlooking a one-move piece loss), with "absence" meaning fewer than 1 time in 100 games. I figure this is roughly around the 2000 level for OTB play.
The key feature of play at the master level and up is uniformly high-quality moves. Most "weaker" players play good moves most of the time, it's just that the poorer choices creep in more frequently.
I'd say the best way is to simply look at the amount of time+effort it takes the average person to move up in rating:
QED - if you had a rating of 500, and the average person could get to 1000 in a month (with study) I'd say 500 is complete beginner.
then lets say it takes the average person 3 years to get from 1000 to 1200 --- I'd say, as soon as you reach 1200 you should consider yourself a very good player.
in relation to RHP id say the following.
under 1200 =begginer.
1200-1300 =novice
1400-1500 =intermediate
1600-1700 =good
1800-1900 =very good
2000-2200 =expert
2300+ =master
*by average person I mean average inteligence, average skills (i.e average memory) and with no impairments that would effect ones learning and ability to play chess.
Originally posted by OrangeKing Yeah, I've heard a few times that 1800 - Class A - is the point at which strong players will consider you "good." Mainly because that's about when players will consistantly win won positions.
I think anyone with a rating closer to 2000 than 1000 is doing fairly well for themselves, though.
I have heard that anyone Class C or above on their day (you know those days, when you see every threat and your plans are just faster and better than the oppositions; those days that happen once a year) can beat even a master. Supposedly, this is why the 'insufficient losing chances' rule asks weather a Class C player could avoid losing against a master.
Players rankings
23 Apr '07 11:48
Back to Top