Well I think under 1000
A rating of 1874 is considered an intermediate player
Jump to: navigation, search. A chess rating system is a system used in chess to calculate an estimate of the strength of the player, based on his or her performance versus other players.
1874 USCF, an OTB rating issued by the US Chess Federation for official tournament play, is pretty damned good, and would be invincible to all normal casual players who "know how to play" chess. That guy in the office who is "kinda good" at chess or your Uncle Larry who "plays chess" would get murdered by an 1874. He would seem like a god to them.
Beginner is about 650 actually. 900 is someone who has won a few games at their high school and is pretty decent among his friends. He gets destroyed in his first tournament. 1200s are starting to take the game kinda seriously and know some openings and some strategy. Likely won't lose to normal people anymore. 1400 is good enough to be "The guy is beats everyone's ass in chess" in his area of a small town and would be champion at a small to medium size high school.
Chess.com ratings are hard to corrolate to USCF ratings, and while some people say subtract about 200 pts from your Chess.com rating to get your real rating, some loose studies people have done have come out to show the ratings are kinda close, and if off maybe only by 100 pts or so.
Don't listen to the elitists who say "If you're under 1400, your a rank beginner and shouldn't read anything but 'Bob the Bunny's first Chess Book, how the pieces move." They just want to make themselves sound important by saying only they are ready for the more advanced stuff.
1874 is a good rating, is a person who is good at chess, is 99.8% of all people who know how to play chess, and will go the rest of his life probably never losing to a regular person who hasn't seriously studied chess. He'd get destroyed in a state championship, but he's good enough to where the only time he'll lose is in tournaments or to other fairly serious players.
1874 is considered an intermediate player
On the world stage where masters, IMs and Grandmasters roam around, sure. But as far as chess among all the world's players, in normal parlance, when people say "You good at chess?" 1984 is a moderately advanced player. 2000 is expert, so 1800-1999 would make sense to be advanced. Intermediate would probably be more 1400-1600.
Basically, ratings are based upon probabilities. If I've already put you to sleep with that sentence, let me make it simple:
Every 200 rating points represents the likelihood that higher rated player will win about 3 out of every four games against the lower rated player.
Therefore, a 1000 rated player would be expected to score 3/4 against a 800 rated player.
Someone rated 400 points higher will be expected to win 9 out of 10 games against the lower rated player.
An absolute beginner may start with a rating as low as 400 here, and most experts consider players rated U1400 to be novices.
The first one!?
1874 is considered an intermediate player
On the world stage where masters, IMs and Grandmasters roam around, sure.
On the world stage 2200 is entry level, so an 1800 player is not even a beginner... it's someone who hopes one day to learn to play chess lol.
As I recall Svidler explained the difference between FM and IM is experience... according to him an FM is just an inexperienced player who hasn't played enough to get an IM title yet. lol.
(BTW he's one of my favorite chess personalities, not arrogant at all, when he said this it was in an encouraging way)
Typically something below 1000. It could be 500, it could be 800. Ratings this low don't really matter because you can increase them very quickly if you study and practice regularly.
Compared to a beginner 1300 is already god-like. A 1300 will never seem to make even a single mistake. Most people don't ever make it to 1800. So yes, compared to a beginner, 1874 is literally unimaginably good.
Rating means rating. If you're an English speaker you already know.
Some people mistake it for ranking though... it's not a rank. The higher the number your rating is the better. Beginners are below 1000, modern world champs are above 2800. Average adult tournament player is something like 1500 or 1600.
An 1800 rated player should be able to beat a proficient club player rated 1400 about 9 out of every 10 games, and might even beat a master on a rare occasion.
Such a player is clearly not a beginner.
An 1800 rated player should be able to beat a proficient club player rated 1400 about 9 out of every 10 games, and might even beat a master on a rare occasion.
Such a player is clearly not a beginner.
Obviously an 1800 knows a massive amount about chess... it's honestly pretty ridiculous how good 1800 is.
Regular tournament players might scoff, but we rarely interact with real, true, learned-the-moves-yesterday beginners. Compared to real beginners, 1800 is genius. I'm not being sarcastic.
But if we're talking the world stage, then no, 1800 is not even entry level. Most likely it's some talented grade-schooler who learned a year or two ago and has a coach.
But how much do the national rating systems vary from country to country and where do people start out when they first start to play at a chess club? Here in Sweden adults start at 1300 and don't get much lower than that. My lowest rating was 1285.
I once took some lessons from a Mexican master and he didn't understand the numbers, because in Mexico they start at 1600, he said - that's a huge difference! In our neighbour country Norway a person with the sam rating is considerably stronger than here in Sweden which so you can expect losing some rating points if you travel to Norway. As for Denmark the difference is not that big - the rating numbers seem to correspond well.
My peak rating was 1789 (I am currently inactive) and I competed in some internaional tournaments and got an ELO-number of 1830, if I remember correctly. How does this compare to other countries around the world? If you look at a masters' national rating, you often find that it differ considerably from his international rating.
i am actually 863...So am i a good player?
i dont know ....
No...a good player is 1500-2000
863 online is different than 863 over the board, and don't try to figure out a conversion, the healthiest thing you can do is go to your local chess club and play against real people with real pieces, and you can even ask what thier tournament ratings are
No...a good player is 1500-2000
<1000=beginner
1000-2000= intermediate
>2000=experts.
No...a good player is 1500-2000
every 130 points you gain you are to have around doubled in skill or experience . so 260 pts means 4x better 390 pts means 8x better and if you were to get 520 pts better you would have Improved to be around 16x stronger or more knoelwedgable than you were. this is also why it's essentially four times as hard to go from 1500-1750 as it is from 1250-1500 and it's almost 16x harder than it was to to from 1000-1250, and theoretically it should be almost 64x harder to go from 1750-2000 than it is to go from 1000-1250, roughly, according to the design of the ELO system
Is 1874 a good number? I'm a beginner but I'm starting to get the hang of chess. Btw what does "rating" mean?