my ratings ranges from 850 - 900, am i labeled as a beginner or am i way passed that stage.
Sort:
The idea of a "beginner" is relative to who you're asking. For example, I would label you as a beginner, but a 1800 player would say I'm a beginner. Some GMs even go as far as saying <2000 players are still beginners. The trick is to not get caught up in the labeling of players and focus on improving your own score.
At 900 you have what it takes to quit your job and persue a career in chess. Good luck. ;p
Jun 15, 2017
0
#4
I started at 700 here. 12 months later i am in 1500s. I still call myself a patzer. dont know what was i back then?
When you sign up you get offered a suggestion to whereas your title stands, along with rating for each title. Base it off that.
Back in our high school chess club years ago, we had some people who had learned the moves, and were okay among regular high school kids. No real strategy or tactics, they just attacked what they saw and castled, developed, and defended. We took a couple to a tournament. They were crushed, but with a couple wins and a couple draws, they came out to be about 650. I'd say that's a beginner, about 650.
As kids a buddy of mine and I studied some openings, knew all the major ones down to 8-10 moves deep, had read some decent strategy, and knew all the major tactics. We crushed every casual player easily, and were the best around a small town. We went to a few of our first tournaments and played people about our level. These people were fuckin' serious. They played a lot, studied, and knew some chess. They, and us, had all spent serious time on chess as a hobby. We beat them more than they beat us, but they got a lot of wins on us too. Our ratings came out to be about 1050. Everyone talks like they are a badass, and it's a whole website dedicated to nothing but chess, so you're going to have serious people here. But saying "Until you're 2300 you're really a beginner and shouldn't even look at an opening on Wiki" or some other platitude just isnt' accurate. 1050 is pretty damned good for a decent, above casual player, and he or she is no longer a beginner. They aren't "good" yet, and they have a looooong way to go, but they aren't "beginners."
A 1200 can be the champion of his reasonable sized high school, and a 1400 can start to challenge some people in a reasonably sized college chess club. (Not ridiculous college programs like those ones Polgar runs or that other IM girl, but normal colleges) Intermediates, but nothing special.
1600s can be somewhat respected in some moderate sized clubs, be pretty confident walking into most college chess clubs, and mutilate any casual player he'll ever face. A 1600 will be the best player in his town if it's a small town of about 15000 or so. He'll never face a challenge from anyone until he goes to a tournament, where he will then get obliterated.
1800s are people that have usually spent a part of their life with chess as one of their main 2 or 3 hobbies, and have loved and enjoyed and put real time into it for years. They are usually the people who will play on the main boards for their colleges, and be the better players in most regular clubs. (But ridiculous places like New York, St. Louis or LA, but regular clubs.) They are probably what you'd consider "advanced."
2000s are by definition experts, and pretty respected anywhere they go. They can play chess, they are badasses, and they are better than most people in the world who even take chess kinda seriously. Only ones better than them are fairly serious tournament players. A 2000 could be the best player in a reasonable sized town, even small city, a relatively large college, and maybe even finish top 20-30 in a state championship.
After that, it's a matter of how good you are, not how bad you are anymore. People don't really talk down to 2000s and above like they do lower ratings (You shouldn't be reading Silman or even looking at an opening yet, go read Bob the bunny's "How the knight moves") and things like that. 2000s usually have to meet with other 2000s and above for a good match.
Everyone knows the ones up from that. It's all perspective. 2450s are laughable pathetic jokes compared to Carlsen and Nakamura, but are Gods to 1900s. I sort of make it a policy never to dinigrate or talk down to any lower player, because no matter what your rating is, someone out there can royally whip your ass.
Wow I didn't intend for that post to be that long. That's what two Monsters and a 20mg adderall will do to you.
Jun 15, 2017
0
#8
First I would like to congratulate you on your recent games being 30 minute ones. That is a great start (up from 10 minute games before that).
Looking at your most recent game you are definitely still very much a beginner. Focus on learning opening principles and try to develop all you pieces in the opening phase so they can all contribute to the attack. Throwing one or two pieces at the enemy is not going to work against better players. Also in that game you are moving very quickly. Take your time and develop your pieces safely.
Your not a noob until you are below 100
It seems to me like you're a expert Mark!
I consider you to be a very rude person.
He is a 2000+ player OMG hahahaha
Jun 15, 2017
0
#13
FaceCrusher wrote:
Back in our high school chess club years ago, we had some people who had learned the moves, and were okay among regular high school kids. No real strategy or tactics, they just attacked what they saw and castled, developed, and defended. We took a couple to a tournament. They were crushed, but with a couple wins and a couple draws, they came out to be about 650. I'd say that's a beginner, about 650.
As kids a buddy of mine and I studied some openings, knew all the major ones down to 8-10 moves deep, had read some decent strategy, and knew all the major tactics. We crushed every casual player easily, and were the best around a small town. We went to a few of our first tournaments and played people about our level. These people were fuckin' serious. They played a lot, studied, and knew some chess. They, and us, had all spent serious time on chess as a hobby. We beat them more than they beat us, but they got a lot of wins on us too. Our ratings came out to be about 1050. Everyone talks like they are a badass, and it's a whole website dedicated to nothing but chess, so you're going to have serious people here. But saying "Until you're 2300 you're really a beginner and shouldn't even look at an opening on Wiki" or some other platitude just isnt' accurate. 1050 is pretty damned good for a decent, above casual player, and he or she is no longer a beginner. They aren't "good" yet, and they have a looooong way to go, but they aren't "beginners."
A 1200 can be the champion of his reasonable sized high school, and a 1400 can start to challenge some people in a reasonably sized college chess club. (Not ridiculous college programs like those ones Polgar runs or that other IM girl, but normal colleges) Intermediates, but nothing special.
1600s can be somewhat respected in some moderate sized clubs, be pretty confident walking into most college chess clubs, and mutilate any casual player he'll ever face. A 1600 will be the best player in his town if it's a small town of about 15000 or so. He'll never face a challenge from anyone until he goes to a tournament, where he will then get obliterated.
1800s are people that have usually spent a part of their life with chess as one of their main 2 or 3 hobbies, and have loved and enjoyed and put real time into it for years. They are usually the people who will play on the main boards for their colleges, and be the better players in most regular clubs. (But ridiculous places like New York, St. Louis or LA, but regular clubs.) They are probably what you'd consider "advanced."
2000s are by definition experts, and pretty respected anywhere they go. They can play chess, they are badasses, and they are better than most people in the world who even take chess kinda seriously. Only ones better than them are fairly serious tournament players. A 2000 could be the best player in a reasonable sized town, even small city, a relatively large college, and maybe even finish top 20-30 in a state championship.
After that, it's a matter of how good you are, not how bad you are anymore. People don't really talk down to 2000s and above like they do lower ratings (You shouldn't be reading Silman or even looking at an opening yet, go read Bob the bunny's "How the knight moves") and things like that. 2000s usually have to meet with other 2000s and above for a good match.
Everyone knows the ones up from that. It's all perspective. 2450s are laughable pathetic jokes compared to Carlsen and Nakamura, but are Gods to 1900s. I sort of make it a policy never to dinigrate or talk down to any lower player, because no matter what your rating is, someone out there can royally whip your ass.
You clearly have nothing to do with your life if you care this much.
Jun 15, 2017
0
#14
yorygregovich wrote:
MyRatingis1523 wrote:
i consider 900 rated players on here to not even know the rules of the game
2000+ players probably feel the same about you.
That was worth reading this thread lol
Jun 15, 2017
0
#15
rebvrd wrote:
When you sign up you get offered a suggestion to whereas your title stands, along with rating for each title. Base it off that.
Out of all of these comments this one in particular is the most helpful. The rest are fairly purposeless.
Jun 16, 2017
0
#16
troelslychau wrote:
The text says it all, i usually try to stick my pawns at the center or close by. I make sure to get my king castled early on, my openings are decent to put it lightly. The middlegame, is still to me like figuring out a rubik's cube, a big puzzle i don't know how to solve yet. But i have gone from having a rating 500 to 900, so i have no doubt made progress.
You're definitely not a beginner, but around 1200 OTB is considered the point where it's said you have a serious understanding of chess. That varies here because most games are played at a faster than regular rating time limit.
Facecrusher has the ranges about right. I coach a high school chess club and my players around 700 were beginners. Those in the 900-1000 range were ok, those in the 1200-1400 range were very good. One of my 1400 players made a scheduled visit to Princeton University, where he was considering going to college the next year, and he was met by the captain of the chess team, against whom he played a couple quick games and left the captain impressed.
Definitely a beginner. These mistakes are all fundamentals that would be taught to grade school age students.
wow, fantastic game, I analyzed it for hours. this one is a keeper.
FaceCrusher wrote:
Back in our high school chess club years ago, we had some people who had learned the moves, and were okay among regular high school kids. No real strategy or tactics, they just attacked what they saw and castled, developed, and defended. We took a couple to a tournament. They were crushed, but with a couple wins and a couple draws, they came out to be about 650. I'd say that's a beginner, about 650.
As kids a buddy of mine and I studied some openings, knew all the major ones down to 8-10 moves deep, had read some decent strategy, and knew all the major tactics. We crushed every casual player easily, and were the best around a small town. We went to a few of our first tournaments and played people about our level. These people were fuckin' serious. They played a lot, studied, and knew some chess. They, and us, had all spent serious time on chess as a hobby. We beat them more than they beat us, but they got a lot of wins on us too. Our ratings came out to be about 1050. Everyone talks like they are a badass, and it's a whole website dedicated to nothing but chess, so you're going to have serious people here. But saying "Until you're 2300 you're really a beginner and shouldn't even look at an opening on Wiki" or some other platitude just isnt' accurate. 1050 is pretty damned good for a decent, above casual player, and he or she is no longer a beginner. They aren't "good" yet, and they have a looooong way to go, but they aren't "beginners."
A 1200 can be the champion of his reasonable sized high school, and a 1400 can start to challenge some people in a reasonably sized college chess club. (Not ridiculous college programs like those ones Polgar runs or that other IM girl, but normal colleges) Intermediates, but nothing special.
1600s can be somewhat respected in some moderate sized clubs, be pretty confident walking into most college chess clubs, and mutilate any casual player he'll ever face. A 1600 will be the best player in his town if it's a small town of about 15000 or so. He'll never face a challenge from anyone until he goes to a tournament, where he will then get obliterated.
1800s are people that have usually spent a part of their life with chess as one of their main 2 or 3 hobbies, and have loved and enjoyed and put real time into it for years. They are usually the people who will play on the main boards for their colleges, and be the better players in most regular clubs. (But ridiculous places like New York, St. Louis or LA, but regular clubs.) They are probably what you'd consider "advanced."
2000s are by definition experts, and pretty respected anywhere they go. They can play chess, they are badasses, and they are better than most people in the world who even take chess kinda seriously. Only ones better than them are fairly serious tournament players. A 2000 could be the best player in a reasonable sized town, even small city, a relatively large college, and maybe even finish top 20-30 in a state championship.
After that, it's a matter of how good you are, not how bad you are anymore. People don't really talk down to 2000s and above like they do lower ratings (You shouldn't be reading Silman or even looking at an opening yet, go read Bob the bunny's "How the knight moves") and things like that. 2000s usually have to meet with other 2000s and above for a good match.
Everyone knows the ones up from that. It's all perspective. 2450s are laughable pathetic jokes compared to Carlsen and Nakamura, but are Gods to 1900s. I sort of make it a policy never to dinigrate or talk down to any lower player, because no matter what your rating is, someone out there can royally whip your ass.
I don't know what it's like in other countries, but I think FaceCrusher has got it right in America with a few exceptions which he has noted.
Jan 19, 2022
0
#20
It really doesn't matter how many years you've played. I've been a casual player for 50 years. Never studied chess books, etc. - just play a game now and then with friends and family. My rating here is <700. It's not the number of years - It's how much time and effort you put into it; i.e., is it a serious hobby to you? Obviously not to me, but I still enjoy a game against a similar player.
The text says it all, i usually try to stick my pawns at the center or close by. I make sure to get my king castled early on, my openings are decent to put it lightly. The middlegame, is still to me like figuring out a rubik's cube, a big puzzle i don't know how to solve yet. But i have gone from having a rating 500 to 900, so i have no doubt made progress.