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

Only Chess Forum

  1. 16 Jul '07 13:05
    What would most people consider an average rating/above average/expert etc?
  2. Standard member Dragon Fire
    Lord of all beasts
    16 Jul '07 13:06 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by waroflogic
    What would most people consider an average rating/above average/expert etc?
    Anyone greater than 3000 is a super computer.

    Anyone less than 500 is an imbecile.

    Anyone in between is average.
  3. 16 Jul '07 13:12
    Everyone better than me I consider a good player.
    Everyone worse than me I consider a bad player.
    I, myself, is somewhat in between.
  4. Standard member onyx2006
    onyx2007
    16 Jul '07 13:16
    Originally posted by Dragon Fire
    Anyone greater than 3000 is a super computer.

    Anyone less than 500 is an imbecile.

    Anyone in between is average.
    LOL!!
  5. Standard member onyx2006
    onyx2007
    16 Jul '07 13:27
    I'd probably break it down this way...

    1000 or under, doesn't know how to play at all...
    1000 - 1300 play "hope chess", drop pieces, get mated
    1300 - 1500 play nice friendly chess, miss a few bits here and there
    1500 - 1600 play good chess, very rarely drop pieces.
    1600 - 1800 play very good chess...

    this is also where the game of chess changes, and becomes more positional/strategic, I've noticed that particularly with people closer to the 1800 mark.

    1800 - 2000 forget about it...
  6. 16 Jul '07 13:27
    Originally posted by Dragon Fire
    Anyone greater than 3000 is a super computer.

    Anyone less than 500 is an imbecile.

    Anyone in between is average.
    You win. Period.
  7. 16 Jul '07 13:34
    ELO something like:
    1000- average casual player
    1500-weak club player-strong casual player
    1800-average club player
    2000+ expert
    2200 candidate FM...or local master in some countries...
    2300+ FM
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2400+ IM
    2500+ GM
    2700+ superGM


    usually this: "----------------------------" is the border between amateur chess and professional chess players
  8. Standard member Ramned
    The Rams
    16 Jul '07 13:52 / 1 edit
    It appears on this site anyways that 1800+ are the "Good." They do not blunder at all, have well developed strategy and opening knowledge.

    1500 - 1800 are the average, then below 1500 blunder more and do not analyze as deeply.

    Around 2100-2200+ you have the serious players. They are separated from the 1800 players because not only do they not blunder at all, but since most of them have played seriously for years, they have a real handle on important ideas such as initiation (driving back opponent attacks) and middle game developement (getting a piece active).

    2400+ are probably able OTB masters.
  9. 16 Jul '07 14:01 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by vipiu
    ELO something like:
    1000- average casual player
    1500-weak club player-strong casual player
    1800-average club player
    2000+ expert
    2200 candidate FM...or local master in some countries...
    2300+ FM
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2400+ IM
    2500+ GM
    2700+ superGM


    usually this: "----------------------------" is the border between amateur chess and professional chess players
    I think 1800+ would be considered a very strong club player, certainly not average.

    Here's a distribution chart of USCF ratings, the bell shaped curve is around 1400 for the average tournament player.

    http://chess.about.com/od/chessratings/ss/aa07b17_2.htm
  10. Standard member DeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    16 Jul '07 14:21
    Originally posted by Ramned
    It appears on this site anyways that 1800+ are the "Good." They do not blunder at all, have well developed strategy and opening knowledge.

    1500 - 1800 are the average, then below 1500 blunder more and do not analyze as deeply.

    Around 2100-2200+ you have the serious players. They are separated from the 1800 players because not only do they not blunder a ...[text shortened]... nd middle game developement (getting a piece active).

    2400+ are probably able OTB masters.
    I'm over 1,800 (here - I don't have an otb rating) and I blunder, I'd give you an example but I'm trying to get out of it (game still in progress). What does decrease with rating is the frequency and severity of blunders. Also to some extent ratings are self-perpetuating. A 1,600 player sees a 1,900 rating and gets intimidated, frequently making some kind of sacrifice in a position that they'd just try to keep level if they were playing someone with their own rating - another thing people do is refuse to take sacrifices when it's the best (or least worst) thing to do. It's not happened to me yet, but I'm willing to bet that at some stage or other an 1,800+ player's blundered against a 1,400 who hasn't taken advantage thinking that the blunder was a sacrifice and that therefore the right thing to do is to refuse it.
  11. Standard member Korch
    Chess Warrior
    16 Jul '07 14:24 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Ramned
    It appears on this site anyways that 1800+ are the "Good." They do not blunder at all, have well developed strategy and opening knowledge.

    1500 - 1800 are the average, then below 1500 blunder more and do not analyze as deeply.

    Around 2100-2200+ you have the serious players. They are separated from the 1800 players because not only do they not blunder a ...[text shortened]... nd middle game developement (getting a piece active).

    2400+ are probably able OTB masters.
    2200+ players may make blunders.

    For example - Game 3163755 - 42.c3?? blundering a rook or Game 3639573 - 24...Rd2?? blundering exchange.



    P.S. Even GMs may make blunders. The soundest example is Kramnik who did blunder mate in one.
  12. 16 Jul '07 14:34
    Originally posted by Korch
    2200+ players may make blunders.

    For example - Game 3163755 - 42.c3?? blundering a rook or Game 3639573 - 24...Rd2?? blundering exchange.



    P.S. Even GMs may make blunders. The soundest example is Kramnik who did blunder mate in one.
    Anybody can make blunders, no one is perfect.
    An 1800+ player, FIDE, USCF, whatever, is the point at which a person may be considered a "strong" amatuer player. They have studied the game in all of it's aspects and have a good understanding of opening and end-game principles, and make very few blunders or stupid moves. They can trash any casual player with ease, and could probably pass themself off as a cHeSs mAxStor3 and get away with it with a bunch of n00bs.
  13. 16 Jul '07 14:35
    Oh these experts
  14. Standard member Dragon Fire
    Lord of all beasts
    16 Jul '07 14:35
    Originally posted by Korch
    2200+ players may make blunders.

    For example - Game 3163755 - 42.c3?? blundering a rook or Game 3639573 - 24...Rd2?? blundering exchange.



    P.S. Even GMs may make blunders. The soundest example is Kramnik who did blunder mate in one.
    Only computers don't blunder.

    That is if we define a blunder as a tactical mistake that yields an immediate advantage to your opponent. Strategic errors are much more long term and cannot really be classified as blunders.

    I can show you dozens of games (OK about a dozen only) here where I have blundered a piece to a simple combination. There are many reasons for this, tiredness and too much drink come into the equation but most often for me it is a result of blitzing a game when over confident.
  15. 16 Jul '07 15:36
    Originally posted by Korch
    2200+ players may make blunders.

    For example - Game 3163755 - 42.c3?? blundering a rook or Game 3639573 - 24...Rd2?? blundering exchange.



    P.S. Even GMs may make blunders. The soundest example is Kramnik who did blunder mate in one.
    As the author of one of the above blunders, let me say there simply is no excuse in correspondence chess, none at all; and I've made 4 or 5 such blunders in my time at RHP. My only advice is not to move after you've had a row with your partner or are under the influence of alcohol (or worse still both)!