Help me stereotype Chess players according to their rating.

This is the way I see it (all ratings are Chess.com ratings for blitz or standard games):

• 0-1000: either a kid or a beginner.
• 1000-1200:  below average player.
• 1200: either an average player or a newly registered member.
• 1200-1400: a decent chess player. Has played a good amount of chess games, but makes lots of mistakes and still falls on elementary traps.
• 1400-1700: a proficent chess player, but doesn't know a lot about Chess theory, hasn't studied many openings or end games, and still needs to work on his pattern recognition skills. Can beat most or all of his friends.
• 1700-1900: a very good chess player. Makes few mistakes. Has reached a level of mastery that most Chess players will never reach. Probably knows a good deal about chess openings and end games.
• 1900-2100: an outstanding chess player. Possesses solid knowledge of chess openings and end games. Probably can play chess with his eyes closed, and win.
• 2100+: a chess genius

My first USCF rating was 1300, and by that time I could beat all of my friends virtually all of the time, excepting the ones who also were in USCF tournaments.

Seems to me like there is a huge gap between 1400-1700s and 1700-1900s.

I think this older site gets it right http://www.jaderiver.com/chess/ratings.html

National US Amateur Classes

National Class A (USCF 1800- 1999)
top amateur class
National Class B (USCF 1600-1799)
above average tournament player
National Class C (USCF 1400-1599)
average tournament player
National Class D (USCF 1200-1399)
a strong social player
National Class E (USCF 1000-1199)
social/scholastic players
National Class F (USCF 800-999)
novice/scholastic players
National Class G (USCF 600-799)
beginner II/scholastic players
National Class H (USCF 400-599)
beginner I/scholastic players
National Class I (USCF 200-399)
early beginner/scholastic players
National Class J (USCF 100-199)
minimum rating

Notice 1800-1999 are only top amateur class, even though they'd be able to beat your average tournament player.  "Chess genius" is something I'd reserve for the top 10-20 players myself.

And like goldendog pointed out, at 1300 you may be below your "average tournament player" but you're going to beat social players 99% of the time, so it really is all relative.  Silman described IMs play as "a hope and a prayer, that's the IM way" when to most of us, a 2400 rating is monstrous.

I must admit that I don't have much experience about chess.com ratings but if we speak about standard ELO-type ratings in otb-chess I think almost anyone can reach 1900 after several years of playing and purposeful study. The reason why many people won't is because they don't take chess that seriously and study that hard. Also, 2100 is certainly way too low to be called genius as there are thousands of people with that kind of rating. In general genius is a word used far too easily nowadays.

U must b kidding....

You may find this related discussion ... characterizing-rating-levels illuminating.

I inherited your post about quitting chess, because of anger issues.

This is the way I see it (all ratings are Chess.com ratings for blitz or standard games):

• 0-1000: either a kid or a beginner.
• 1000-1200:  below average player.
• 1200: either an average player or a newly registered member.
• 1200-1400: a decent chess player. Has played a good amount of chess games, but makes lots of mistakes and still falls on elementary traps.
• 1400-1700: a proficent chess player, but doesn't know a lot about Chess theory, hasn't studied many openings or end games, and still needs to work on his pattern recognition skills. Can beat most or all of his friends.
• 1700-1900: a very good chess player. Makes few mistakes. Has reached a level of mastery that most Chess players will never reach. Probably knows a good deal about chess openings and end games.
• 1900-2100: an outstanding chess player. Possesses solid knowledge of chess openings and end games. Probably can play chess with his eyes closed, and win.
• 2100+: a chess genius

1. Your rating categories need to be adjusted- eg. a player with rating 2100 falls in two categories etc.

2. Your discription of each rating category is much too generous.

You can't really judge people by online ratings, ex.... I'm always trying out different openings, middle & end game tactics, though me rating can fluctuate from  -1400 - 1900+, for I get bored when I play the same type of games, so I experiment, but OTB, now you'ld be talking, that's where I keep my surprises, for I'm on my own, no Data Bases, analyse board...etc, just me & me poor owl a head, yo!

Firstly - to all you people saying 'what kind of ratings is this' - don't you think 'a newly registered member' gives it away? Think, kids.

Aside from that, I agree with ReedRichards about the overgenerosity. I'm 2300 here and I'm a long way below master strength OTB, and I make plenty of mistakes in my games.

1700-1900: a very good chess player. Makes few mistakes. Has reached a level of mastery that most Chess players will never reach. Probably knows a good deal about chess openings and end games.

When I play 1700-1900 players, they tend to drop pawns and pieces like confetti.

I was referring to standard and blitz ratings, not turn-based.

I inherited your post about quitting chess because of anger issues.

Any time I see one of your NEW threads I want to do this:

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/im-done-with-chess-good-bye

It means that I relapsed.

You seem a little over concerned about ratings. If you create a chain of being from 0 to 2800 (FIDE!) it will become nothing but a chain of sorrows.

My stereotype is much more rigid>>>>

In USFC or FIDE system this would be my analisis:

0-1500 You are a begginer need to work on absolutely everything in your game

1501-1999 you are an undisciplined player that has potential (average chess player) most will never break this barrier

2000-2199  you are an above average chess player has mastered the basics- game needs some work on other levels.

2200-2450 lucky you- you are a talented player that mastered the basics and has a good grasp of chess conceps.

 2451-2650- You are a master player- a vetaran of the board that has polished every aspect of their game and stand very close to the top of the chess piramid

2651-2700- A battle hardened master whose skills are near legendary select few make it this far 

2700+ A master of masters-whose chess skills have been perfected into an artform. The near-impervious few who have the potential to be the best at what they do. They have an addiction to victory, and victorious they are.   

Wow i must be horrible then....

That's a pretty good breakdown xzb995511 and coincidentally what I was going to say agrees with it -- remembering this topic I wanted to say that I'm not beyond basic technique yet, I don't know when a player can move on from the basics and start to add any kind of depth, but at least for me I'm still playing the whole game trying to avoid blunders.  For balanced players, I would guess (just guessing) around 2200 is when you know just enough of the basics that you're able to just begin work on some finer points, but before that, we're basically fumbling around in the dark, copying familiar patterns and calculating the best we can hoping to not drop material.

And 2200 players who made it on pure tactics + opening theory are also just beginners who happen to be talented tactically with a good memory.  For them who knows how long before they actually start playing (even though scoring = against masters and 75% against experts is nothing to sneeze at).

Well I'm not sure about that at all.

When I play I'm not just hoping I can get out alive without dropping any material. I am at least trying some kind of pathetic strategy.