That's a pretty good question.
I'd say the average for people who have been playing consistently for at least a few years and have a lasting interest in improving would be something like 1600-1700.
Of course there are many people who play 10+ years with little to no interest in improving who never get to 1600.
The latter for sure, but also the rating scale is just an arbitrary number ranking you against other players on the site, not an absolute unit of measurement, if the average was 1000, then everyone's rating would have to be 200 points higher on average
That's a pretty good question.
I'd say the average for people who have been playing consistently for at least a few years and have a lasting interest in improving would be something like 1600-1700.
Of course there are many people who play 10+ years with little to no interest in improving who never get to 1600.
I would disagree somewhat, I would love to have around 800/900. Have been playing for well over 10+ yrs and focused on improving.
That's a pretty good question.
I'd say the average for people who have been playing consistently for at least a few years and have a lasting interest in improving would be something like 1600-1700.
Of course there are many people who play 10+ years with little to no interest in improving who never get to 1600.
I would disagree somewhat, I would love to have around 800/900. Have been playing for well over 10+ yrs and focused on improving.
Pro tip: your rating will improve if you stop losing on purpose.
-
That's a pretty good question.
I'd say the average for people who have been playing consistently for at least a few years and have a lasting interest in improving would be something like 1600-1700.
Of course there are many people who play 10+ years with little to no interest in improving who never get to 1600.
I would disagree somewhat, I would love to have around 800/900. Have been playing for well over 10+ yrs and focused on improving.
Pro tip: your rating will improve if you stop losing on purpose.
-
Lol, don't give me the credit of on purpose. I just can't see things well.
That's a pretty good question.
I'd say the average for people who have been playing consistently for at least a few years and have a lasting interest in improving would be something like 1600-1700.
Of course there are many people who play 10+ years with little to no interest in improving who never get to 1600.
I would disagree somewhat, I would love to have around 800/900. Have been playing for well over 10+ yrs and focused on improving.
Pro tip: your rating will improve if you stop losing on purpose.
-
Lol, don't give me the credit of on purpose. I just can't see things well.
10 years but your account is only a week old? hmm...
I've been playing for 30 years to be exact (since I was 9), have had several layoffs between lengthy playtimes and inability to become consistent and improve.
👎
Why though?
Move 7, 16, and 18, then he resigns after Bb6 when nothing is happening.
First of all, no one that bad resigns at that moment (they still have pieces and it's their opponent's turn). Second of all his first 6 moves give away that he's experienced enough to not throw away that many pieces in a single game. He's just a troll / sandbagger.
Is it because most people play for a while and then quit? If so, is there a way to see the average rating of chess players who've been playing for more than 2 or 3 years?
Or is chess just hard and an Elo of 800 really IS the average rating of a casual chess player?
chess is just hard and that is the real average bud. plus its just a number that depends on the playerbase. Tons of titled players playing here and people playing for years. Plus making new accounts is very fashionable in this community. On lichess i was around 1100 to 1200. On here I'm around 600. On another site I'm around 1400. They have different rating systems as well. It all depends. As long as you keep getting competitive matches I wouldn't even care about the rating and just have fun.
No. Anyone that puts real work into improving will surpass 1000 easily.
And if he's honestly just that bad, well, I'm sorry to say that you're literally unbelievably bad. I literally can't believe it. I think you're faking it.
👎
Why though?
Move 7, 16, and 18, then he resigns after Bb6 when nothing is happening.
First of all, no one that bad resigns at that moment (they still have pieces and it's their opponent's turn). Second of all his first 6 moves give away that he's experienced enough to not throw away that many pieces in a single game. He's just a troll / sandbagger.
Actually Qd4 I was attacking Qe5, with protection from bishop E3. I looked but missed Kc6 and thats why i ended up resigning.
You say “chess is just hard”. I think that’s what you say to yourself to justify not getting better. Most things are hard when you first start, but once you actually start trying and put your mind to it, you’ll get better eventually.
“All that matters is people have fun with competitive matches at any level.”
And that is why you’re 700. You’re not interested in getting better. Getting better doesn’t matter to you, because all you want to do is have fun, which may not be everyone’s goal. Nothing comes out of nothing. (and this isn’t even specifically you, I suspect this is a big reason why the average of chess.com is 800, that combined with the fact that some may create accounts then lose interest in the game after like 5 minutes)
anyhoo, not here to argue with you. good day.
I think it's possible to be suck under 1000... you shouldn't say "everyone" can be above 1000... there are a wide variety of humans...
well, most people. like, 99% of people can get to 1000. I was stuck under 1000 for about 5 months straight, simply because i wasn’t doing anything to improve. I was just mindlessly playing games.
And if he's honestly just that bad, well, I'm sorry to say that you're literally unbelievably bad. I literally can't believe it. I think you're faking it.
I think we posted at same time but I gave response to why I made moves, but if you want to review any of my other games, I'm all for it. I've done a literal ton of tactics, videos, lessons, puzzles, tutors, etc. - none of those have helped. In past mixed up blitz, rapid and longer games; tried to stick with 30min plus games to help identify better - no luck. Why the in the world would anyone fake being bad?
Is it because most people play for a while and then quit? If so, is there a way to see the average rating of chess players who've been playing for more than 2 or 3 years?
Or is chess just hard and an Elo of 800 really IS the average rating of a casual chess player?
Hi!
I believe the answer to this is how many people create an account who don't actually play chess, play a bit, get a low rating, then never come back.
I'd bet that over 50% of accounts are spur of the moment, non chess players, who never try to play good chess and never come back.
And if he's honestly just that bad, well, I'm sorry to say that you're literally unbelievably bad. I literally can't believe it. I think you're faking it.
I think we posted at same time but I gave response to why I made moves, but if you want to review any of my other games, I'm all for it. I've done a literal ton of tactics, videos, lessons, puzzles, tutors, etc. - none of those have helped. In past mixed up blitz, rapid and longer games; tried to stick with 30min plus games to help identify better - no luck. Why the in the world would anyone fake being bad?
As weird as it might sound, I'm not trying to fight. I'm aware that what I said would be very insulting to someone who is doing their best, and I'm aware that there are people out there who are worse than I might think is possible. At the same time, what I said is the truth i.e. I don't believe you, and I think you lost that game on purpose. That's just how it is.
Yes, I saw your post explaining.
I made an account once in like January to play my brother in a game of chess, and when I googled “chess”, chess.com was the first thing to come up.
It’s still out there somewhere, at like 700 elo, contributing to that overall chess.com average rating. And I’m willing to bet I’m not the only person who’s ever done that.
Is it because most people play for a while and then quit? If so, is there a way to see the average rating of chess players who've been playing for more than 2 or 3 years?
Or is chess just hard and an Elo of 800 really IS the average rating of a casual chess player?
chess is just hard and that is the real average bud. plus its just a number that depends on the playerbase. Tons of titled players playing here and people playing for years. Plus making new accounts is very fashionable in this community. On lichess i was around 1100 to 1200. On here I'm around 600. On another site I'm around 1400. They have different rating systems as well. It all depends. As long as you keep getting competitive matches I wouldn't even care about the rating and just have fun.
No. Anyone that puts real work into improving will surpass 1000 easily.
You had better be quiet, @InsertInterestingNameHere. You are messing with the wrong guy. Play me in 3 | 2 blitz and you will be sorry for everything you've said.
Is it because most people play for a while and then quit? If so, is there a way to see the average rating of chess players who've been playing for more than 2 or 3 years?
Or is chess just hard and an Elo of 800 really IS the average rating of a casual chess player?